UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1O278
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
St. John,
U.S. Virgin Islands
MAY, 1987
- -w
. .*.'_+*
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1O278
MAY 6 1987
To All Interested Governnent Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens:
This is to inform you that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cruz
Bay Wastewater Facilities Plan, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S.V.I), is
available for public review at the following locations:
Administrator's Office Enighed Sprauve Library
Cruz Bay Cruz Bay
St. John, U.S.V.I. St. John, U.S.V.I.
Enid M. Baa Library V.I. Department of Public Works
#20 Dronningensgade Sub-base
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
Ralph M. Paiewonsky Library V.I. Department of Conservation
College of the Virgin Islands and Cultural Affairs
St. Thcmas, U.S.V.I. #179 Estate Altona and Walgunst
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Impacts Branch Caribbean Field Office
26 Federal Plaza, Roan 702 1413 Avenida Fernandez Juncos-Stop 20
New York, New York Santurce, Puerto Rico
This envirormental impact statement (EIS) was prepared by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region II, with the assistance of C.E. Maguire, Inc.,
an environmental planning and engineering consulting firm. The document has
been prepared in accordance with the regulations implemented under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The EIS is an issue-oriented, decision-making document which evaluates alterna-
tive wastewater treatment management plans for the Cruz Bay study area, addresses
the impacts that each alternative may have on the surrounding environment, and
develops an environmentally compatible, cost-effective, and implementable wastewater
management plan. The major issues addressed in the EIS include: impacts to a
national park, impacts to endangered and threatened species, impacts to cultural
resources, secondary growth impacts, water supply impacts, and impacts to envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas such as coral reefs and floodplains.
-------
Public participation, especially at the local level, is an essential component
of the decision-making process. Public meetings and Citizen Advisory Committee
meetings were held during the preparation of this EIS to ensure input from
local, territorial, and federal representatives. A public hearing has been
scheduled for 7:30 PM July 14, 1987 , at the Territorial Court Building,
Boulon Center, Cruz Bay, to receive formal comments on the draft EIS. Your
participation at this public hearing is encouraged.
In addition, written comments may be submitted directly to EPA. Written comments
should be sent to this office, to the attention of: Chief, Environmental Impacts
Branch, USEPA-Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 702, New York, New York 10278.
Comments must be received on or before July 29, 1987 to receive consideration
in developing the final EIS.
If you need any additional information, please contact Mr. William Lawler,
Environmental Impacts Branch, at (212) 264-5391.
Christopher J. Daggett
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
for the Cruz Bay Wastewater Facilities Plan
St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands
Prepared By:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Abstract; In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a draft
environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared for the Wastewater
Facilities Plan for Cruz Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. An evaluation of
various alternative wastewater management plans is presented in the draft EIS,
as well as evaluations of probable impacts to national park land, impacts to
endangered and threatened species, impacts to cultural resources, secondary
growth impacts, water supply impacts, and impacts to environmentally sensitive
areas. Other important factors used in evaluating the alternative wastewater
management plans were cost-effectiveness and implementability. Based on these
evaluations, the alternatives proposed in the draft EIS (Alternatives E and F)
include: additional sewering of the more densely populated portions of the
study area (the core study area); replacement of the existing inadequate waste-
water treatment facility discharging to Enighed Pond with a new oxidation ditch
or rotating biological contactor wastewater treatment facility (to be located
to the east of Enighed Pond) discharging to Turner Bay via an ocean outfall;
and continued use of existing individual on-site wastewater disposal systems,
with improvements where necessary, for the less densely developed portions of
the study area (the extended study area). Because each of the alternatives
presented in the draft EIS would require a substantial capital investment by
the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, the final EIS will address possible
scenarios for phasing the implementation of the selected project.
Public Hearing:
July 14, 1987
at 7:30 PM
Territorial Court Building
Cruz Bay
St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands
Contact for Information:
William Lawler
Environmental Impacts Branch
EPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 702
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-5391
Written comments must be received by EPA no later than July 29, 1987
Approved by:
f / A
.^vJ.- /—^^/
J. Dafcgett [
Christopher
Regional Administrator
/..
Datfe
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
The Cruz Boy study
area needs an Im-
proved system of
wastewater treatment
and disposal.
The Virgin Islands
Department of Public
Works conducted a
study to address
these needs In 1985.
EPA Is conducting this
EIS to address poten-
tial project impacts
In more detail.
EPA has conducted a
full-scale public
participation program
for this project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. OVERVIEW
The Cruz Bay study area on St. John, US Virgin Islands
(shown in Figure ES-1) has significant need for improved
treatment and disposal of wastewater. Most of the
residences and businesses in the area are served by on-
site wastewater systems. These systems generally do not
function well in this area due to small lot sizes, steep
slopes, and unsuitable soil conditions. Approximately
500 residences in the area are currently served by an
extended aeration wastewater treatment plant, located on
the berm between Enighed Pond and Turner Bay. This plant
does not treat wastewater flows in an environmentally
compatible manner and does not have sufficient capacity
to treat projected wastewater flows from the study area.
In addition, the plant has inadequate sludge handling
facilities, malfunctioning bar screen units, malfunc-
tioning pumps and other operational/maintenance defici-
encies.
In response to these problems, the Virgin Islands Depart-
ment of Public Works (DPW^ prepared a 1985 study entitled
Comprehensive Plan for the Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay. St.
John, Virgin Islands. The study recommended the imple-
mentation of centralized wastewater treatment facilities
(including an oxidation ditch treatment plant and an
ocean outfall) to serve the densely populated Cruz Bay
watershed. Upon reviewing the Plan, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) determined that an environmental
impact statement (EIS) would be required to address
potential impacts in more detail. A "notice of intent"
to prepare this EIS was published in the Federal Register
on November 15, 1985.
A full scale public participation program was conducted
for this project in order to encourage citizen involve-
ment and awareness. The program included a public
scoping meeting, formation of a Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee (CAC), CAC meetings, a door to door "needs sur-
vey", public meetings, a project newsletter, and respon-
siveness summaries.
This Draft EIS presents a comprehensive description of:
The alternatives considered for solving Cruz Bay's
wastewater problems
the existing and future conditions of the affected
environment
ES-1
-------
J *JA|IONAL PAR
•J1
It.,™,, F.n.
=4 '^5
->"v-'.16./ Steven Cay <
it!•:\i>!•:/. \'i>rs RA i
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John,US Virgin
(•land*
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, CT
(tie:
STUDY AREA LOCATION
Source : GEM
Date :4/86
Scale : NT!
Fig. ;ES-1
-------
This Draft EIS ad-
dresses the project
alternatives/ affected
environment/ and
impacts.
The purpose of this
project is to develop
and evaluate a feasi-
ble wastewater man-
agement plan for the
study area.
A needs survey was con-
ducted in order to de-
termine the specific
wastewater needs of
the study area.
On-site systems gen-
erally do not fun-
ction adequately
in the densely pop-
ulated Cruz Bay
drai.nage basin.
the probable _
as a result of
tives
environmental impacts that could occur
implementing the feasible alterna-
The appendices of this document include preliminary cost
and design information for each of the feasible alterna-
tives and documentation of the special studies conducted
for this project.
B. PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of this project is to develop and evaluate a
feasible wastewater management plan for the Cruz Bay
study area. The EIS process has been undertaken in order
to address certain impacts and issues in more detail than
the previous Comprehensive Plan for the Sewage Needs of
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands and to permit the
construction of the selected
issuance of an EPA grant
project alternative.
for
Wastewater treatment and disposal needs are determined by
assessing factors such as potential public health ha-
zards, violations of water quality standards, and viola-
tions of the Territorial Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (TPDES) permits. Structures using inadequate
means of wastewater treatment and disposal are considered
"in need" of improvements.
A door to door survey was conducted for this project to
determine the nature and extent of these wastewater
treatment and disposal needs in the study area. This
survey found that structures located on large lots
outside of the densely populated Cruz Bay drainage basin
are generally not "in need" because the large lots offer
adequate space for on-site septic systems to function
effectively. However, most of the structures located in
the Cruz Bay drainage basin (called the "core study
area") are "in need" because the existing on-site sys-
tems, latrines, and direct discharge methods used in this
area fail to treat wastewater in an environmentally
compatible manner. In addition, the structures which are
served by the existing public treatment plant are con-
sidered to be "in need" because this plant does not
function adequately.
The discharge of poorly treated effluent from on-site
systems serving individual structures in the core study
area, as well as the public treatment plant present a
potential threat to public health. In addition, effluent
discharge from the treatment plant is in violation of the
plant's TPDES permit.
ES-2
-------
Structures In this
drainage basin are
generally In need
of improved waste-
water treatment.
Six wastewater manage-
ment program alter-
natives nave been
considered.
The needs survey indicated that nearly all of the struc
tures in the core study area are "in need" of a central
ized wastewater treatment system, while those outsiaei or
this area can continue to be served by on-site wastewater
treatment systems. Detailed information on tn,f neeasOT
the study area are presented in Chapter II ( ^'
tives") and Appendix A ("Needs Survey") of this
EIS.
C. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following alternative wastewater management programs
have been considered for addressing wastewater treatment
and disposal needs in the study area:
no action - including the continued use of existing
methods of wastewater treatment and disposal
rehabilitation - involving the improvement of the
performance of the existing Cruz Bay wastewater
treatment plant
on-site program - involving the use of on-site
systems for all structures not presently served by
the existing treatment plant
subregional program - involving either (1) the use
of separate centralized treatment systems for the
core study area and the outer study area, or (2) the
use of a centralized treatment system for the core
study area and on-site systems for the outer study
area
regional program - involving the use of a central-
ized treatment system for the study areas (core and
extended)
In addition, a primary treatment program has been con-
sidered as a subalternative to the wastewater management
programs evaluated. If allowed by the Clean Water" Act,
and if specific environmental criteria were able to be
met, a primary level of wastewater treatment could
potentially be used instead of secondary treatment for
either the subregional or regional program. Construction
md operation of new facilities to provide only primary
treatment would be less expensive than those for provid-
ing secondary treatment. However, the Clean Water Act
requires that all wastewater effluent discharged from
publicly owned treatment facilities must be treated to at
least secondary levels except for facilities which have
applied for a "marine discharge waiver" of secondary
treatment requirements, and which have been granted such
a waiver by EPA in accordance with Section 301(h) of the
ES-3
-------
The recommended man-
agement program is a
subregional plan
combining advantages
of both centralized
and on-slte treatment
systems,
Six feasible over-
all wastewater treat-
ment system alterna-
tives were considered
In detail,
An additional 6/873
meters of sewers ore
recommended to
ment an existin
col lection syst
Act. There is insufficient information on which to
determine whether such a waiver would be approvable, and
in any case, the statutory deadline for applying for this
marine discharge waiver expired on December 29, 198?.
Therefore, primary treatment is not considered to be an
implementable alternative.
Based on the findings of the Needs Analysis, the second
subregional program was selected as the proposed waste-
water management program. This program recommends the
use of a centralized treatment system for the core study
area and on-site systems for the extended study area.
Alternatives were also considered for the following
components of centralized treatment systems:
wastewater treatment processes
wastewater collection system technologies and
routings
wastewater effluent disposal technologies
sludge disposal technologies
wastewater treatment facility sites
Comparative analysis of the component alternatives has
produced six feasible overall treatment system alterna-
tives. The six overall system alternatives are struc-
tured to function under the second subregional management
program which recommends using a collection system for
the core study area and various on-site technologies for
the extended study area. In the core area, each of the
six overall system alternatives includes a new 200,000
gallons per day (gpd) treatment facility at a new site,
to replace the existing facility and site; A new waste-
water collection system is proposed to extend from the
existing sewer system. The proposed wastewater collec-
tion system includes the addition of approximately 6,873
m (22,680 ft) of sewers to the existing public wastewater
collection system. In addition to the portions of Cruz
Bay and Enighed served by the existing system, the
proposed system would serve Pine Peace, Power Boyd's
Plantation, portions of Contant and Pastore; and portions
of Cruz Bay and Enighed that are not currently served.
The existing system is comprised of 2,600 m (8,600 ft) of
sewers, including 1,282 m (4,232 ft) of 20 cm (8 in)
diameter gravity sewer, 803 m (2,651 ft) of 25 cm (10 in)
diameter gravity sewer, 409 m (1,349 ft) of 15 cm (6 in)
diameter force main, and 110 m (364 ft) of 5-10 cm (2-4
in) diameter force main. The existing system also
includes three pump stations (two ejector stations and
one influent pump station).
ES-4
-------
Two effluent disposal
systems have been con-
sidered: an ocean
outfall and land
application.
Land application
of treated effluent
at a near-by pri-
vate resort Is an
innovative/ low
cost approach for
wastewater dis-
posal .
in addition to this system, the following additions are
proposed:
6,621 . (21,850 ft) of 20 c. (8 1") «'»eter
sewer
145 m (480 ft) of 10 cm (4 in) diameter force main
106 m (350 ft) of 5 cm (2 in) diameter pressure
sewers
one additional pump station to lift flows from the
Power Boyd's Plantation area into the Cruz Bay
drainage basin
50 grinder pumps for use in residences that are
located below the sewer line.
The proposed system would include using the existing pump
stations. The capacity of the influent pump station
would be expanded, but the ejector stations would not be
altered. The proposed wastewater collection system is
shown in Figure ES-2. Each alternative also recommends
one of two effluent disposal systems, either ocean
outfall or land application.
All of the alternatives would also include the disposal
of sludge at the St. John municipal landfill until
analysis of the sludge indicates whether or not land
application is possible. A subalternative to these
disposal systems is effluent disposal through land
application at the Caneel Bay Resort. Land application
of effluent could be substituted into any of the feasible
overall system alternatives. This subalternative would
not impact those environmental characteristics and
features that would be negatively affected by the imple-
mentation of either the National Park Service land
application alternative or the ocean outfall alterna-
tives. In addition, the force main effluent pipe to
Caneel Bay would cost considerably less than the ocean
outfall system, approximately 1.5 to 1.8 million dollars,
depending on the plant site selected. Although this
effluent disposal subalternative has received much public
support and initial positive reaction from the Caneel Bay
Resort, it may be difficult to implement due to potential
legal, political, and contractual complications. There-
fore, it was not included with the following alternatives
in this Draft EIS. However, should additional support,
further commitments, and official approvals of this
alternative be presented during the draft EIS comment
inrthe'f" 1C°EIS recons1dered as a ^'^16 alternative
ES-5
-------
Given the aforementioned constraints,
alternatives are:
the feasible action
Alternative E,
comprised of a
Rotatating bio-
logical contacter
and Alternative
F, comprised of
an oxidation
ditch processing
plant,both at Site
#1 and with an
outfall into Tur-
ner Bay, are the
most feasible
alternatives.
Other alternatives
would have greater
adverse environ-
mental impacts
than the selected
alternatives.
Alternative A: Aerated lagoon treatment plant at
site #3 with land application efflu-
ent disposal
Alternative B: Aerated lagoon treatment plant at
site #3 with ocean outfall effluent
disposal
Alternative C
Aerated lagoon treatment plant at
site #2. with ocean outfall effluent
disposal
Alternative D: Recirculating sand filter treatment
plant at site #2 with ocean outfall
effluent disposal
Alternative E: Rotating biological contactor treat-
ment plant at site #1 with ocean
outfall effluent disposal
Alternative F: Oxidation ditch treatment plant at
site #1 with ocean outfall effluent
disposal
A comparative evaluation was conducted between each
overall wastewater treatment system based upon the
following criteria; cost, environmental impacts, imple-
mentability, and land lost to future development. In
addition to these criteria, comments from various govern-
ment agencies, the Citizen's Advisory Committee, and the
general public were also taken into consideration. This
evaluation resulted in the preliminary selection of
Alternatives E and F as the most feasible alternatives.
These alternatives are illustrated in Figures ES-2 and
ES-3. Alternative E, a rotating biological contactor
treatment plant and Alternative F, a oxidation ditch
treatment plant, would both utilize an ocean outfall
effluent disposal system in Turner Bay and would be
located at Site #1 (across the street from the WAPA power
plant). These alternatives also include the proposed
wastewater collection system described in the previous
section and illustrated in Figure ES-2.
Although alternatives E and F are the most costly in
dollars of the six alternatives, they will have the least
environmental impact, will cause the least amount of land
to be lost to future development, and are the most
implementable options for Cruz Bay.
ES-6
-------
-------
The use of on-site wastewater treatment systems,
including trench systems, seepage pits, evapotrans
piration beds, and mound systems, is proposed for
the extended study area.
-H - «9- - -_» -U
Till*
K f-: \ uKzvoi'S a A >
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agoncy, Region II
CE Magulre, New Britain. CT
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
EXTENDED STUDY AREA
Source : GEM
Date : 4/86
Scele : NTS
Fig.: ES-3
-------
The selection of
the most feasible
alternatives is
preliminary.
EPA will identify
the selected plan
after evaluating
all public com-
ments on this
draft EIS.
Existing and future
conditions of the
affected environ-
ment Mere analyzed.
Although Alternatives A-D are less costly than Alterna-
tives E and F, they would incur greater environmental
impacts. In addition, Alternative A or B would present a
major implementation issue due to the complications
involved with proposing any type of project in a National
Park area. Additionally, Alternatives C or D may pose
some implementability issues as well as eliminating 10
acres of land that has future potential as an area for
affordable residential development.
It should be noted that the proposal of Alternatives E
and F as the most feasible alternatives is preliminary,
and does not represent the ultimate selection of a
wastewater treatment plan for Cruz Bay. After receiving
and evaluating all public comments on this draft EIS, EPA
will prepare a final EIS which will identify the selected
project alternative. Because each of the alternatives
presented in the draft EIS would require a substantial
capital investment by the Government of the Virgin
Islands, the final EIS will address possible scenarios
for phasing the implementation of the selected project,
consistent with the goals and requirements of the Clean
Water Act. Although EPA may decide to award grant
assistance for implementing major portions of the se-
lected project, issuance of this EIS does not constitute
a commitment on the part of EPA to fund the project in
whole or in part.
D. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Analysis of the affected environment in the study area
included consideration of existing conditions (including
land resources, water resources, ecosystems, and econo-
mic/legal conditions, constraints to growth, and future
conditions including population and water use projec-
tions).
Existing sensitive conditions in the affected environment
relative to this project include:
shallow, easily eroded soils
surface water and marine water quality
significant habitats
endangered species
national park lands
cultural resources.
ES-7
-------
Population and per
capita water use
are expected to
Increase dramatically
in the next 25 years.
This project may cause
short-term Impacts to
solh water quality/
and the economy....
....and long tern im-
pacts on water quality,
land use/ and the
economy.
public ("P")
Zone Manage-
conveniences.
soil limita-
A Constraints Analysis was conducted to identify and
evaluate conditions which serve to limit (or constrain)
future development in the study area. The primary con-
straints are steep slopes, developed areas,
zones, National Park Service land, Coastal
ment land, existing water supply, and other
Other constraints include flood prone areas,
tions, significant habitats, aquifer recharge areas,
cultural resources, the existing public sewer system, the
existing power supply, the existing infrastructure, and
available services.
The analysis of future conditions focused on population
projections and water use. The study area's population
is projected to increase from approximately 1,900 (cur-
rent) to approximately 3,000 in design year 2010. Per
capita water use is also expected to increase (from 25
gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 50 gpcd) due to the
planned implementation of a new public water supply.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
Implementation of any of the feasible action alternatives
for this project would involve various short-term, long-
term primary, and secondary consequences or "impacts". A
comparative assessment of these impacts influences the
selection of a proposed alternative and the development
of recommended measures to lessen or "mitigate" impacts.
Principal short-term (construction-related) impacts
associated with the feasible alternatives are likely to
include potential disturbance to topsoil, surface water
quality, marine water quality, coastal and marine eco-
systems, and cultural resources. Project construction is
also likely to cause a positive short term impact to the
study area's economy.
Principal long-term primary impacts which may result •
project are associated with flood hazards, soi
~.—on, surface a
marine ecosystems, odors, land use, and
from
1
this project are associated with flood hazards, soil
erosion, surface and marine water quality, coastal and
marine ecosystems, odors, land use, and a wastewater
facility user fee.
No significant secondary impacts are expected to result
from the feasible alternatives because the implementation
of improved wastewater facilities is not likely to induce
development in the study area. However, the patterns in
which future development takes place may be influenced by
the layout and service area of these facilities.
ES-8
-------
Specific mitigation measures have been recomrnendein
Overall, Impacts on order to lessen the extent of adverse imPa"s c
£Uen22YK5?nent *111 expected to result from project implementation y ™ese
be positive. measures are properly practiced, adverse project impacts
would most likely be minimal. Overall,.the environmental
impacts of this project would be positive, particularly
with respect to water quality, the health ot coastal and
marine ecosystems, and public health.
ES-9
-------
CONTENTS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
A. Overview ES-1
B. Purpose and Need ES-2
C. Development and Evaluation of Alternatives ES-3
D. Affected Environment ES-7
E. Environmental Impacts of Feasible Alternatives ES-8
LIST OF FIGURES 111
LIST OF TABLES v
I. PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1
II. ALTERNATIVES II-l
A. Alternative Wastewater Management Programs 11-2
B. Wastewater Treatment Process Alternatives 11-12
C. Wastewater Collection System Technologies and 11-17
Routings
D. Wastewater Effluent Disposal Technology 11-22
Alternatives
E. Sludge Disposal Alternatives 11-26
F. Treatment Plant Site Alternatives 11-27
G. Overall Wastewater Treatment System 11-30
Alternatives
H. Proposed Wastewater Alternative 11-34
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III-l
A. Existing Conditions III-l
B. Environmental Constraints 111-30
C. Future Conditions 111-34
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES IV-1
A. Introduction IV-1
B. Short-Term Impacts IV-2
C. Long-Term Primary Impacts IV-12
D. Long Term Secondary Impacts IV-20
V. COORDINATION V-l
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS VI-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
APPENDICES ^^
A 1
A. Needs Analysis "~;
B. Constraints Analysis ^~:
C. Facilities Planning Information ^"r
D. Benthic Survey ®~l
E. Current Survey £-1
F. Species List £-1
G. Government Agencies and Officials "~1
H. Public Participation Program H-l
I. Glossary/Abbreviations used/Metric Conversions 1-1
J. Cultural Resources J-1
K. References K-l
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Following
Number Ti tle Page
ES-1 Study Area Location ES-1
ES-2 Proposed Alternative - Core Study Area ES-6
ES-3 Proposed Alternative - Extended Study Area ES-6
II-l Existing Public Wastewater Facilities II-?
II-2 Oxidation Ditch Process Schematic 11-13
II-3 Recirculating Sand Filter Process 11-14
11-4 Aerated Lagoon Process 11-15
II-5 RBC Process Schematic 11-16
II-6 Trickling Filter Process Schematic 11-17
II-7 Proposed Wastewater Collection System 11-21
II-8 Proposed Ocean Outfall Location 11-25
II-9 Treatment Plant Site Alternatives 11-28
11-10 Proposed Alternative - Core Study Area 11-35
11-11 Proposed Alternative - Extended Study Area 11-35
III-l Location III-l
III-2 Study Area III-l
III-3 Steep Slopes III-3
III-4 Flood Prone Areas III-3
III-5 Bedrock III-5
II1-6 Study Area Soil Types II1-7
III-7 Aquifer Recharge Areas III-7
III-8 Surface Water/Drainage III-9
III-9 Vegetation Types 111-13
111-10 Benthic Marine Communities 111-18
i i i
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.) Following
Page
III-ll Significant Habitat 111-20
111-12 National Park Service Land 111-22
111-13 Coastal Zone Management Land 111-24
111-14 Cultural Resources 111-24
111-15 Zoning 111-26
111-16 Land Use III-28
111-17 Population 111-34
IV-1 Turner Bay Area Benthic Communities IV-9
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Title Page
II-l Feasible Alternatives 11-32
II-2 Comparison of Feasible Overall 11-35
Wastewater Treatment System
Alternatives
III-l Soil Characteristics III-6
III-2 Existing Water Use 111-12
III-3 Population Trends 111-31
III-4 Existing Population Calculations 111-31
III-5 Summary of Environmental Constraints 111-32
III-6 Existing and Projected Water Use 111-38
Core Study Area
IV-1 Mitigation Measures for Soil and IV-5
Surface Water Impacts
IV-2 Mitigation Measures for Outfall IV-7
Construction
-------
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
-------
EPA may fund 55 - 100X
of eligible costs for
constructing munici-
pal wastewater faci-
lities In Cruz Bay.
An Environmental
Impact Statement
(EIS) Is required
for this project.
There are serious
deficiencies to the
existing public
wastewater facilities
in Cruz Bay,
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
A. INTRODUCTION
The Clean Water Act of 1972 and its Amendments authorize
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the
Construction Grants Program, to award grant assistance
ranging from 55% to 75% of the eligible costs of con-
structing municipal wastewater treatment facilities. In
addition, under the provisions of the Omnibus Territories
Act of 1977, the requirements for local matching funds
for Territories and Possessions of the United States can
be waived, allowing EPA to fund up to 100% of eligible
project costs. EPA has determined that the award of
grants for construction of wastewater treatment facili-
ties in the Cruz Bay study area represents a major
federal action significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment and that preparation of an environment-
al impact statement (EIS) is required. The EIS process,
mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, is
designed to evaluate a full range of wastewater manage-
ment alternatives, including the no-action alternative,
and compare the costs and potential environmental effects
of each.
EPA and its consultant, CE Maguire, Inc., believe that
the proposed alternative represents the most environ-
mentally sound, cost-effective, and implementable solu-
tion to the water pollution problems in the study area.
B. BACKGROUND
Since 1981, the centralized public wastewater treatment
and collection system facilities in the Cruz Bay area
have consisted of an extended-aeration package treatment
plant and approximately 1.6 miles of gravity collector
sewers and force mains. A 1983 study noted serious
deficiencies in the operation, maintenance, and safety of
the Cruz Bay facilities. In an effort to correct these
problems, the Government of the Virgin Islands developed
a draft facilities plan for the Cruz Bay study area
(entitled Comprehensive Plan for the Sewage Needs of Cruz
Bay, St. John, VI) and submitted it to EPA in 1985.The
plan proposed a treatment, system including an oxidation
ditch wastewater treatment plant, to be located at the
existing plant site, with an ocean outfall discharging
treated effluent in the vicinity of Turner Bay, as well
as additions to the existing collection system to consist
primarily of gravity collector sewers and grinder pumps.
After review of the draft facility plan, EPA decided to
prepare this EIS to more thoroughly evaluate all feasible
alternatives in terms of environmental and economic
impacts to the Cruz Bay area. The result of this process
1-1
-------
The EIS process
establishes a
wastewater manage-
ment plan for Cruz
Bay.
A door to door survey
was conducted to
Identify wastewater
treatment needs In
the study area.
On-slte wastewater
treatment systems
do not function
properly In the
densely developed
"core" study area.
has been the proposal of an environmentally sound,
cost-effective and implementable wastewater management
plan to serve the Cruz Bay study area for the foreseeable
future.
C. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
According to the 1980 U.S. Census, the total population
of St. John was 2,480, with approximately 1,930 persons
residing in the Cruz Bay study area. An initial task in
the preparation of this draft EIS was an analysis of the
wastewater treatment needs of the study area. This
included surveying the current wastewater treatment
methods utilized by the 535 structures presently located
in the densely populated Cruz Bay drainage basin, refer-
red to as the core study area, as well as a representa-
tive sample of structures presently located outside of
the drainage basin, referred to as the extended study
area.
The majority of the wastewater generated in the Cruz Bay
study area is treated by septic tanks, or by other types
of on-site disposal systems. Generally, the on-site
systems serving structures in the extended study area
function properly, due to large lot sizes which allow
wastewater to be treated effectively. However, the
on-site systems serving structures within the core study
area do not function properly due to steep slopes, small
lot sizes, and unsuitable soil conditions, which hinder
the ability of these systems to treat wastewater effect-
ively, and thereby, create a potential health hazard.
In addition, an existing centralized wastewater treatment
plant and collection system serves 92 structures in the
core study area. Based on on-site performance inspec-
tions and sampling surveys, the treatment plant does not
function properly, allowing inadequately treated waste-
water to be discharged to Enighed Pond"and Turner Bay.
This situation appears to be the result of inadequate or
deteriorating plant equipment, inadequate capability for
sludge treatment and removal, and the lack of funds to
provide for a sufficient operation and maintenance
program.
An additional concern is the anticipated increase in
water use in the Cruz Bay study area. Currently, water
in the Cruz Bay area is supplied from individual cisterns
and a public water supply, which obtains water pumped
from mid-island wells and barged from the desalination
plant on St. Thomas. Planning is underway for improving
the water supply situation on St. John. If the current
water supply is improved, water use is expected to
increase and to exacerbate the existing wastewater
treatment and disposal problems.
1-2
-------
Based on the findings of the draft EIS, the residents of
the Cruz Bay core study area are in need of an improved
centralized wastewater treatment system, and those
outside of this area should continue to utilize on-site
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities with im-
provements dictated by a case-by-case analysis. These
improvements are necessary to improve wastewater disposal
and water quality in the Cruz Bay study area, and there-
by, eliminate a potential public health hazard.
1-3
-------
II. ALTERNATIVES
-------
II. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Tins chapter will
evaluate alternative
wastewater manage-
ment programs.
The wastewater man-
agement programs are
comprehensive app-
roaches Including
five major components.
Component alterna-
tives are combined
to develop feasible
overall wastewater
treatment system
alternatives.
The preparation of an environmental impact statement for
a wastewater facilities plan is based upon the develop-
ment and evaluation of alternative methods of meeting a
study area's wastewater treatment needs. The purpose of
this chapter is to present this evaluation by screening
alternative wastewater management programs and various
alternatives for each component of an overall wastewater
treatment system. This will permit the development of
the most environmentally sound, cost-effective, and
implementable system for the Cruz Bay study area.
Wastewater management programs are comprehensive ap-
proaches to addressing the study area's wastewater needs.
A wastewater treatment system is the complete network of
wastewater facilities required to meet these needs. The
primary components of a wastewater treatment system are:
wastewater treatment processes
wastewater collection system technologies and
routings
wastewater effluent disposal technologies
sludge disposal technologies
wastewater treatment facility sites
Several alternatives have been developed for each of
these components. Each alternative has been evaluated
for its feasibility based on criteria such as topography,
availability of space, construction cost, operation and
maintenance (O&K) cost, degree of technological complexi-
ty, reliability, implementability and public acceptance.
The environmental impacts of each alternative are also a
primary evaluation criteria. Only the primary advantages
and disadvantages of each alternative will be discussed
in this chapter. A more detailed discussion of impacts
is presented in Chapter IV, Environmental Impacts of
Feasible Alternatives. This evaluation allows the
selection of the most environmentally sound, cost-effect-
ive, and implementable alternative technology for each
component. These component alternatives are then com-
bined to develop overall wastewater treatment system
alternatives. This chapter will first address the
wastewater management program alternatives, then the
feasible wastewater treatment technologies available, and
finally, the alternatives for an overall wastewater
treatment system.
n-i
-------
There ore six possl-
ole progrons.
No Improvements to
existing services
would be Instituted
under the no action
alternative.
The existing public
wastewater facilities
do not treat waste-
water In an environ-
mentally sound manner.
A. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Six wastewater management programs have been con-
sidered for this project. They are:
no action
rehabilitation of existing facilities
individual (on-site) wastewater management
program
subregional wastewater management program
regional wastewater management programs
In addition, a subalternative, the primary treatment
program, has been considered for the subregional and
regional programs. This subalternative would
involve the use of only a primary level of waste-
water treatment, rather than a secondary level.
Each program alternative will be discussed in the
following subsections.
1. No Action
The no action alternative would involve making
no changes or expansions to the study area's
existing wastewater treatment system. Most
structures would continue to use on-site
systems or direct discharge, as would all
future structures.
The layout of the existing public wastewater
facilities is shown in Figure II-l. These
facilities include an extended aeration treat-
ment plant with a wastewater flow capacity cf
76 cubic meters per day (m pd) (20,000 gallons
per day (gpd)), and a collection system with
over 1.6 kilometers (1 mile} of grav'ty sewers
and force mains and three pump stations.
Approximately 520 residents in the central Cruz
Bay area are served bv thes^ facilities,
creating average flows of 49 m~pd (13,000 gpd).
The system does not treat wastewater in an
environmentally sound manner. Appendix C.3
presents more detailed information on the
existing public wastewater facilities.
Approximately 1,500 residents of the study area
not currently served by the existing public
wastewater facilities continue to use on-site
systems or direct discharge to a waterbody for
disposal of wastewater. Direct discharge to
II-2
-------
CRUZ BA Y
FRANK BA Y
ENIGHED POND
n sim sum
KEY*
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY. ST. JOHN. US VIRBIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AEENCY. REGION II
CE MAGUIRE. INC. « NEW BRITAIN. CT
EXISTING PUBLIC WASTEWATER FACILITIES
MMCE- CE MASUIRE. INC.
MTI- 4/86
5CAU- )» . 500'
-------
Most on-slte treat-
ment systems do not
treat wastewater
effectively,
Some onslte systems
In the study area
fall to function
properly/ posing
threats to public
health and environ-
mental quality.
The no action alter-
native would Involve
no capital costs/ but
would cause a con-
tinued threat to the
environment,
The rehabilitation
alternative would
Involve the Improve-
ment and expansion
of existing public
wastewater facilities.
the sea or land is clearly not an environment-
ally acceptable means of wastewater disposal.
On-site systems can be an acceptable means of
wastewater disposal in some parts of the study
area, but are not in others. The discussion
presented in Appendix C.4 describes acceptable
on-site disposal systems in detail.
For example, on-site systems appear to function
effectively in outlying areas, as shown in
Figure ES-1, (such as Gift Hill, Fish Bay and
Monte) where lot sizes are relatively large,
slopes are relatively gradual, and the soils
are relatively deep and permeable. However,
they generally do not function well in the
densely developed and relatively steep portions
of the study area, as shown in Figure ES-1,
(such as Enighed, Cruz Bay, Contant, and Power
Boyd's Plantation). Some on-site systems in
the study area fail to function properly, some
are odorous, and many overflow during periods
of rainfall. These failures and overflows pose
threats to public health and environmental
quality.
The only advantage of the no action alternative
is that it would involve no capital cost,
because no new facilities would be constructed.
The primary disadvantage is that no action
would involve continued and increased environ-
mental degradation and public health hazards
caused by wastewater treatment and/or disposal
problems. Therefore, the no-action alternative
is clearly an unacceptable course of action.
2. Rehabilitation of Existing Facilities
The rehabilitation alternative would involve
improving the performance of Cruz Bay's exist-
ing wastewater treatment plant. This plant
currently does not provide an adequate level of
treatment for the estimated 49 m pd (13,000
gpd) of wastewater flow it receives. The
plant's primary deficiencies include:
malfunctioning pumps
inadequate aeration of basins
the absence of automatic chlorination
(disinfection) equipment
malfunctioning bar screen units
II-3
-------
Rehabilitation of
existing facilities
ts not a feasible
alternative.
The individual manage-
ment program would In-
volve the expansion
of existing on-site
systems.
inadequate sludge handling facilities
improper discharge of wastewater effluent
poor facility maintenance
inability to handle shock loadings caused
by septic system pump-outs being introd-
uced intermittently.
The rehabilitation of the treatment plant would
require the correction of these and other
deficiencies (such as the lack of an outfall
system). This would allow the plant to treat
and dispose of the existing wastewater flows to
the plant in an environmentally sound manner.
o
However, given its 76m pd 120,000 gpd) capaci-
ty and the estimated 380 m pd (100,000 gpd)
existing flow from the core study area, this
treatment plant could not adequately meet the
study area's wastewater treatment needs. In
addition, expansion of the existing plant would
be extremely difficult due to the physical
structure of the plant, as well as the con-
straints of the plant's site. Disadvantages of
this site are its location in the 100 year
flood zone, possible impacts from major storms
and their resultant wave action, and a poten-
tial conflict with the V.I. Port Authority plan
to develop a commercial port in Fnighed Pond
which would necessitate the removal of any
access to the site (McComb Engineering, 1985).
Consequently, rehabilitation and improvement of
existing facilities would not be a feasible
wastewater management program alternative for
the study core area.
3. Individual (On-site) Management Program
The individual management program would involve
the repair, rehabilitation and expansion of
existing individual ("on-site") systems. In
addition, future homes and businesses in the
study area would be required to construct and
use their own on-site systems.
Most of the residents in the study area use
on-site systems (particularly septic tanks) to
treat wastewater. As discussed under the no
action alternative, on-site systems function
effectively in some portions of the study area,
but very poorly in other portions. Wastewater
II-4
-------
Three types of on-
slte systems are
feasible for use In
the study area.
Each of these on-
slte systems Include
use of septic tanks
for primary treatment.
discharged from homes or businesses using an
on-site system is treated on the property of
the discharging source rather than piped to a
centralized facility for treatment.
Three types of
feasible for use
on-site systems considered
in the study area are:
conventional septic systems
septic tank/mound systems
septic tank/evapotranspiration beds
Appendix C.4 includes a detailed description of
these on-site technologies in terms of how they
function and under what conditions they func-
tion most effectively.
Each of these technologies includes a septic
tank as a means of primary treatment. The pur-
pose of the septic tank is to collect and trap
solids. These solids would then be periodical-
ly removed (typically once every 3-5 years) and
disposed of at a septage lagoon or suitable
wastewater treatment facility. Septic tanks
used in these systems should have at least a
1900 liters (500 gallons) capacity to be
effective.
The individual manage-
ment program would
Involve low capital
costs but would not
be feasible In many
areas.
The primary advantage of the individual manage-
ment program is that capital cost would be
relatively low (relative to other programs) as
no large-scale, centralized wastewater facili-
ties would be required. The primary disadvan-
tage is that use of on-site systems in many
parts of the study area is not feasible due to
the density of development and topography.
Therefore, reliance upon the use of on-site
systems alone would cause increased environ-
mental degradation and health threats due to
insufficient treatment and disposal of waste-
water effluent.
The subregional manage-
ment program addresses
the study area's waste-
water needs in terms
of development clusters.
4. Subregional Wastewater Management Program
The subregional management program addresses
the study area's wastewater needs in terms of
areas of dense development (or "subregions")
rather than on an individual or regional basis.
Typically, this would involve constructing
wastewater systems for the densely developed
areas and maintaining on-site treatment for
outlying homes which are not located in any
II-5
-------
The core study area
is densely developed
whereas the outer
study area Is sparse-
ly developed.
densely developed area. Subregional programs
are most suitable for areas with distinct
clusters of development and sufficient amounts
of land to site a wastewater treatment facility
near each cluster.
Two subregional management program schemes have
been considered for the study area:
using one community system for the core
study area and another for the extended
study area
using a community system for the core
study area and on-site systems for the
extended study area
The first of these subregional schemes would
require the use of two treatment plants with
accompanying collection and effluent disposal
systems. One treatment plant would serve all
structures in the core study area, shown in
Figure ES-1. The existing treatment plant near
Turner Bay could possibly be used for this
purpose, if rehabilitated and expanded. A new
treatment plant would be required to serve the
extended study area, including the areas of
Fish Bay, Gift Hill, Monte, and Roman Hill, as
shown in Figure ES-1.
The second of the subregional schemes would
require the use of a single treatment plant to
serve the core study area, as in the first
scheme. However, structures in the extended
study area would be served by individual
on-site systems rather than by a centralized
treatment plant.
The core study area, namely Cruz Bay, Enighed,
Pastory and a portion of Contant and Bethany,
is characterized by dense development and may
be considered one large cluster of development.
The extended study area is characterized by
very sparse, scattered development except in
small clusters such as Fish Bay, Gift Hill,
Bovocoap Point, and Roman Hill. The needs
survey conducted for this project (Appendix A)
indicated that on-site systems generally func-
tion well in the extended study area due to the
larger lot sizes, and some residents in this
area expressed opposition to the possibility of
II-6
-------
On-slte systems gen-
erally function well
In the outer study
area,
The second subregion-
al scheme is more
appropriate than
the first scheme.
A regional management
prograrnserves fbe_
neeas of the entire
study area with a
single centralized
wastewater treatment
system.
constructing public sewers. In addition, it
would not be cost-effective or environmentally
sound to use a community system in the extended
study area due to the expense of constructing
the extensive sewer lines that would be re-
quired to serve the widely scattered resi-
dences. Also, construction of a wastewater
collection system in the rural areas of St.
John would be likely to have the secondary
impact of inducing scattered development in
environmentally sensitive areas. For these
reasons, the second subregional scheme (using a
community system for the core study area and
continued reliance upon on-site systems for the
extended study area) is more appropriate than
the first scheme.
A primary advantage of the subregional waste-
water management program is that it provides
the environmental benefits of using centralized
treatment where on-site treatment may not be
appropriate. In addition, it avoids the
potentially high cost of connecting discrete
clusters of development to one centralized
collection system and the cost of constructing
a centralized treatment plant with capacity for
the entire study area. Another advantage of
this scheme is that it would allow different
methods of wastewater treatment to be used for
areas with different needs. Specifically, it
would allow centralized treatment in the
densely developed core study area and on-site
treatment in the sparsely developed extended
study area.
A primary disadvantage of both subregional
schemes is that each would involve a greater
capital cost than the no action or individual
programs. This is especially true for the
first subregional scheme, which would require
construction of two wastewater treatment plants
and an extensive collection system.
5. Regional Wastewater Management Program
A regional management program addresses a study
area's wastewater needs by serving the needs of
the entire study area with a single, centra-
lized, "regional" wastewater treatment system.
This system would include one centralized
treatment plant and one collection system which
would extend throughout the core study area and
the extended study area.
II-7
-------
A subalternatlve pro-
gram involving pri-
mary wastewater treat-
ment has been con-
sidered.
A primary level of
treatment could be
substituted for the
secondary level, If
allowed by the Clean
Water Act.
This subalternatlve
would Involve a lower
capital cost than
other alternatives
considered.
The primary advantage of this type of program
is that wastewater treatment at a single
centralized plant would take advantage of
economies of scale, and discharge of effluent
would be limited to a single, controllable
discharge point. The primary disadvantages are
that this program would involve a relatively
high capital cost (much higher than all other
programs) and require the extension of sewers
into areas where these sewers are likely to be
neither necessary, cost-effective, environmen-
tally sound, nor publicly acceptable.
6. Primary Treatment Program
This subalternative would involve the use of
centralized wastewater facilities, but would
use only a primary level of treatment under
either the subregional or regional program.
Both the subregional and regional wastewater
management programs assume a secondary level of
treatment (additional treatment measures beyond
those involved in primary treatment), as
presented in the preceding discussions.
Primary treatment generally consists of grit
removal, primary (initial) settling, and
disinfection of wastewater prior to disposal.
Secondary treatment includes primary treatment
measures as well as additional treatment
measures (e.g., aeration, biological digestion,
settling) prior to wastewater effluent dis-
posal. Secondary treatment removes additional
impurities that are not removable from waste-
water by only primary treatment.
If allowed by the Clean Water Act, and if
specific environmental criteria were able to be
met, a primary level of wastewater treatment
could potentially be used instead of secondary
treatment for either the subregional or region-
al program. Construction and operation of new
facilities to provide only primary treatment
would be less expensive than those for provid-
ing secondary treatment. However, the Clean
Water Act requires that all wastewater effluent
discharged from publicly owned treatment
facilities must be treated to at least second-
ary levels except for facilities which have
applied for a "marine discharge waiver" of
secondary treatment requirements, and which
have been granted such a waiver by EPA in
accordance with Section 301(h) of the Act.
There is insufficient information on which to
II-8
-------
Ocean disposal of
effluent after
primary treatment
would require key
performance
factors.
Killing of corals
can result in neg-
ative Impacts on
fauna as well.
determine whether such a waiver would be
approvable, and in any case, the statutory
deadline for applying for this "marine dis-
charge or 301(h) waiver" expired on December
29, 1982. This deadline can only be changed by
an amendment to the Clean Water Act.
The principal advantage of the primary treat-
ment alternative is that it would involve lower
capital costs (see Table C.5-9 of Appendix C)
than either the subregional or regional alter-
natives (using secondary treatment). This
alternative may be environmentally acceptable
if the characteristics of the discharge, as
well as oceanographic conditions in the area of
the outfall area are such that the effluent
could be discharged without creating adverse
environmental impacts. A determination concern-
ing the feasibility of granting such a marine
discharge waiver, if the Clean Water Act
currently allowed an application to be sub-
mitted, is outside the scope of this impact
statement. However, to aid public understand-
ing, the key performance factors which would
need to be demonstrated by an applicant for
such a waiver are addressed in the following
paragraphs.
an aquatic
of less than
biological,
assessments
It must be
To assess the effects to
environment of a discharge
secondary treated effluent,
water quality and physical
would need to be conducted.
demonstrated that the discharge will not
have an impact on the protection and
propagation of marine life immediately
beyond the zone of initial dilution (ZID).
Distinctive habitats of limited distribu-
tion, (e.g., coral reefs and seagrass
beds) must not be adversely impacted.
Coral reefs, coral outcroppings, and
epifauna (i.e., soft-coral, sponge)
communities are complex, highly productive
communities of plankton, algae, corals and
other invertebrates, as well as reef
habitat dependent finfish. Although
corals occupy only a portion of the reef,
or coral outcropping community, a selec-
tive killing of corals can result in the
migration or death of much of the other
fauna (Chester, 1969). Therefore, should
stress associated with the discharge of
II-9
-------
Even small local-
ized disturbances
can have lasting
effects,
The wastewater
discharge must
comply with all
applicable water
quality standards.
sewage exceed the tolerance of the coral
portion of the community, the entire
community can be adversely affected
(Johannes, 1975). Besides being sensitive
to stress, coral reefs, and to a lesser
extent individual coral organisms and
patch reefs, have a very slow recovery
rate. Up to a decade is needed for a reef
to recover from even a small, localized
disturbance. Because of the slow growth
rate of Caribbean coral reefs (117 to 833
years to accrete 1m), full recovery from
severe damage to a well developed reef may
require centuries. Depression of algal
grazers (e.g., certain fish, sea urchins)
can inhibit reef recovery by allowing
benthic algae to monopolize the hard
substrates, thereby effectively displacing
other organisms which may colonize these
habitats, or occupy dependent niches.
More extreme habitat modifications may
totally preclude complete recovery.
Furthermore, because of the extremely slow
recovery rates, a rare event (e.g.,
unusual hydrographic conditions, plant
failure) can have long lasting effects on
corals, especially older, well developed
reefs.
It must be demonstrated that the discharge
will comply with all applicable water
quality standards. These include, but are
not limited to BOD, DO, suspended solids,
turbidity, pH, fecal coliform and the
mixing zone standards. Effluent and
ambient concentrations of DO, suspended
solids, fecal coliform, other applicable
substances, and pH levels must be known to
assess the potential for violations of the
water quality standards. A great degree
of initial dilution serves to prevent
elevated concentrations of pollutants from
severely impacting receiving waters and,
therefore, is conducive to the attainment
of water quality which assures protection
of marine organisms. Since the outfall/-
diffuser location and design (i.e., port
spacing, port diameter and configuration,
velocity and angle of discharge, depth of
discharge) significantly affects the
degree of initial dilution which an
outfall can achieve, these variables must
be known before an evaluation of the
facility's compliance with water quality
standards can be made.
11-10
-------
Proposed discharge
must comply with
VI law.
There must be no
significant ad-
verse Impact on
recreational
activities.
It must also be demonstrated that concen-
trations of toxic substances will not
cause any adverse impacts beyond the ZID.
Toxic pollutants and pesticides can exert
a multitude of adverse lethal and sub-
lethal effects on marine organisms. Any
pollutants and pesticides being discharged
from the treatment plant must therefore be
identified and quantified. Wet and dry
weather analyses of treatment plant
effluent must be conducted to ascertain
any concentrations of toxic constituents
present. If toxics are found in the
effluent, the sources should be identified
and if applicable, an industrial pretreat-
ment program must be developed and imple-
mented.
The proposed discharge must also comply
with all applicable provisions of State
Law. The Virgin Islands Department of
Health regulation Title 19, Section
1404-322, requires a minimum of 85 percent
suspended solids removal and a minimum of
95 percent BOD removal. This might
preclude the Cruz Bay Wastewater Treatment
Plant from being eligible for a 301(h)
waiver from secondary treatment (assuming
that such a waiver would be allowable
under the Clean Water Act).
It must be demonstrated that the proposed
discharge will not have an adverse impact
on recreational activities, or public
water supplies, and will not result in any
additional treatment requirements for
other point and nonpoint sources.
To evaluate the above, more extensive
monitoring and sampling than was performed
for this impact statement would need to be
conducted both at reference stations, and
at various stations near and at the
discharge site. Qualitative and quantita-
tive sampling of marine life, including
but not limited to phytoplankton, benthos,
epibenthos, finfish, and especially
distinctive habitats, is necessary to
determine areas of potential impact. If
the data demonstrates that the receiving
waters or marine communities are already
stressed, then a stressed water demonstra-
tion must be conducted to determine wheter
11-11
-------
Sewage particles
can nave a nega-
tive impact on
coral.
Primary treatment is
not considered an
implementable alter-
native.
There are five
feasible wastewater
treatment processes.
the discharge will further contribute to,
increase, or perpetuate stressed condi-
tions, contribute to further degradation
if pollution from other sources increases,
and/or retard recovery if pollution from
other sources decreases.
The transport and dispersion of diluted
wastewater and particulates must be such
that water use areas, as well as any areas
of biological sensitivity are not adverse-
ly affected. Various data including the
solid mass emission rate, average facility
flow, oceanographic current speeds,
current directions, and stratification
patterns must be known to determine areas
of potential impact, as well as level of
potential impact, from effluent transport
and dispersion. Coral distribution is
limited by light penetration, therefore,
an increase in suspended solids concentra-
tion in the vicinity of the coral can have
negative impacts. The deposition of
sewage particles can physically impact
upon the corals, smothering them, reducing
growth, or inducing diseases. Therefore,
the area of potential impact, concentra-
tion of suspended solids and solids
deposition rate, must be determined to
assess any potential impact of the dis-
charge.
Because insufficient information is available
to determine whether primary treatment would
meet the marine discharge [301(h)] waiver
criteria, and because the statutory deadline
for applying for such a waiver is long passed,
primary treatment is not considered to be an
implementable alternative, and is therefore
rejected from further consideration.
B. VIASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
Wastewater treatment processes are methods of remov-
ing solids and other pollutants from wastewater
before it is disposed of as effluent. The processes
typically involve the use of a wastewater treatment
plant to remove solids and to biologically and/or
chemically breakdown other impurities. Of the many
wastewater treatment processes available, the five
processes listed below have been considered as
potentially feasible alternatives for this project.
11-12
-------
The Oxidation ditch
treatment process
uses a modified form
of extended aeration.
This process pro-
duces relatively
small amounts of
sludge.
Advantages Include
ease of construction,
relatively low main-
tenance and process
)ntrol< and flexi-
llity In sludge
lling.
Oxidation Ditch
Intermittent Sand Filter
Aerated Lagoons
Rotating Biological Contactors
Trickling Filters
Each of these processes is described and discussed
in terms of advantages, disadvantages, and estimated
costs in the following subsections. More detailed
cost information for each treatment process alterna-
tive is presented in Appendix C.5.
1. Oxidation Ditch Process
The oxidation ditch technology uses a modified
form of extended aeration to treat wastes. In
this system, the wastewater is introduced into
aeration channels which are laid out in a shape
similar to a race track. Aeration is generally
provided by surface aerators which keep the
wastewater moving around the channel at a
velocity high enough to prevent solids in the
wastewater from settling to the bottom.
The energy use for this process is moderately
high. However, the long detention time results
in a low volume of sludge. Furthermore, the
sludge is considered stabilized and can be
disposed of without undergoing any additional
treatment.
As shown on the flow schematic in Figure II-2,
raw wastewater would be pumped into the aera-
tion channels for treatment following screening
and grit removal. Sludge accumulated in the
final clarifier would be thickened and subse-
quently applied to sand drying beds, while
screenings and grit would be deposited directly
in the sludge disposal site. The clarifier
overflow would be disinfected and discharged
directly into the effluent disposal system.
As with the other alternatives, there are ad-
vantages and disadvantages associated with this
option. The ease of construction of the treat-
ment facility, and the relatively low mainte-
nance and process control needed, when compared
with other systems, make this process attrac-
tive. In addition, the ability to store sludge
without wasting (removing sludge from the
treatment process for disposal) for a long
period of time (90 days) allows a great deal of
flexibility in handling sludge. This plant
requires approximately .6 ha (1.5 ac) of land
and 1.4 ha (3.5 ac) for a buffer area.
11-13
-------
RETURN SLUDGE
RAW
WASTE
*
SCREENINGS
TO LANDFILL
TO
EFFUENT
DISPOSAL
SEDIMENTATION
BASIN
OXIDATION DITCHES
SEDIMENTATION
BASIN
SLUDGE
THICKENING
DRY SLUDGE
STOCKPILE
SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY. ST. JOHN. US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION II
CE MAGUIRE. INC. * NEW BRITAIN. CT
OXIDATION DITCH PROCESS
sioicc- CE MAGUIRE. INC.
lire. 1/06 sci
N.T.S.
FIH1E- 11-2
-------
The recirculating
sand filter treat-
ment process removes
solids from waste-
water by filtering
It through sand
beds,
This alternative Is
relatively Inexpens-
ive, reliable, re-
quires little opera-
tion and maintenance
effort, and produces
a better than sec-
tary level quality
effluent.
The estimated capital cost for this treatment
plant alternative is $3,933,600. Annual opera-
tion and maintenance costs for this alternative
are estimated to be $97,000.
2. Recirculating Sand Filter Process
The recirculating sand filter treatment process
is a multistage process derived from the
intermittent sand filter technology. Waste-
water is applied evenly to specially prepared
sand filter beds after primary solids removal
by septic tanks or lagoons. Wastewater is
treated as it percolates through the filtering
sand media. Effluent from this phase of treat-
ment is collected by drains in the base of the
bed and conveyed to a recirculation chamber
where a portion of it is recycled back through
the sand filter beds, thereby injecting fresh
wastewater into the flow stream and minimizing
odor sources. The remaining portion of the
sand filtered effluent is piped to a disinfec-
tion unit and is then piped into the disposal
system. The process is illustrated in Figure
II-3.
The primary advantage of this alternative is
that it is relatively inexpensive and simple to
operate in relation to other alternative
technologies considered. In addition, the
technology can consistently produce a better
than secondary level quality of effluent. It
is a very reliable technology and requires
relatively little operation and maintenance
effort.
The primary disadvantage of this alternative is
the amount of land area required. Based on
estimated average wastewater flows from the
study area, a 1.7 hectare (4.3 acre) site would
be required for a recirculating sand filter
plant to treat this capacity effectively and an
additional 2 ha (5 ac) for the buffer area.
The estimated capital cost for this treatment
plant alternative is $2,528,000. Annual
operation and maintenance costs are estimated
to be $47,000.
11-14
-------
RAW
WASTE
SCREENINGS
TO LANDFILL
SEPTIC
TANKS
SEPTAGE
LAGOONS
1
V
RAKINGS TO
LANDFILL
REORCULATION
CHAMBER DISINFECTION
DOSING
CHAMBER
/
L
t t t t
* 4 4 4
I* A * i
I
j*-.
— p>
TO
EFFUENT
DISPOSAL
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN E1S
CRUZ BAY. ST. JOHN, US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION
CE HAGUIRE. INC. • NEW BRITAIN. CT
RECIRCULATING SAND FILTER PROCESS
SIHKE. CE MAGUIRE. INC.
MT£. t/B6
SCtLC- M.T.S.
note. ||-3
-------
3. Aerated Lagoon Process
Aerated lagoons
treat wastewater
biologically by
utilizing a mech-
anical or diffused
air system,
This treatment
method requires
little or no opera-
tor expertise for
operation and main-
tenance,
Aerated lagoons are earthen basins designed for
the biological treatment of wastewater. The
aeration is provided by mechanical or diffused
air systems. A diffused air system consists of
plastic pipes supported near the bottom of each
lagoon. The pipes have holes in the top
through which compressed air is pumped. In the
facultative lagoons, such as the type proposed
in this alternative, both aerobic and anaerobic
metabolism occur. A large fraction of the in-
fluent sewage ("solids") and the biomass pro-
duced settle to the bottom of the lagoon where
anaerobic decomposition takes place. To mini-
mize infiltration of untreated wastewater into
the ground, lagoons are lined with an impervi-
ous flexible lining. The treated effluent
would be disinfected and discharged to a
disposal site. This process is illustrated in
Figure II-4.
This treatment process requires little or no
operator expertise for operation and mainte-
nance. Only periodic cleaning of the diffusers
is needed to maintain satisfactory operation.
Furthermore, sludge disposal requirements are
minimal. The sludge can be removed by means of
a "mud cat" dredge (a small dredge that floats
on the surface of the lagoon while removing
sludge) operation which means the lagoon need
not necessarily be taken out of service for
dredging during sludge handling operations.
Another advantage of the lagoon system is that
it provides for flow equalization. The treat-
ment plant and outfall can be sized for average
flow rather than the peak flow sizing that must
be utilized for other alternatives. Finally,
energy requirements are relatively low compared
to other processes considered because of the
surface reaeration and photosynthetic activi-
ties that take place, and control systems are
relatively simple. Therefore, the cost for the
electrical/instrumentation and control building
are significantly less than for other alterna-
tives.
The major disadvantage of the lagoon system is
that it requires a 2.2 ha (5.5 ac) site. Also,
this system would require an additional 2.4 ha
(6.ac) for buffer area. Other potential
problems include the breeding of mosquitos and
11-15
-------
RAW
WASTE
FLOW
MEASUREMENT
DISINFECTION
AERATED AEROBIC -
FACULTATIVE LAGOONS
TO
EFFUENT
DISPOSAL
SCREENINGS
TO LANDFILL
GRIT TO
LANDFILL
I
I
Jfr
SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS
DRY SLUDGE
STOCKPILE
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY. ST. JOHN, US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION II
CE MA6UIRE. INC. • NEW BRITAIN. CT
AERATED LAGOON PROCESS
SlUCE- CE MAGUIRE. INC.
MTE-
M.T.S.
F1IME- ll-i
-------
R.B.C.'s hove rel-
atlvely high initial
capital costs.
RBC's offer a
high level of
treatment with a
minimum of pro-
cess control.
other disease vectors due to the exposed
surface of the lagoon. Odor nuisance can also
occur. Lagoons also require continual mainten-
ance to prevent the growth of weeds on their
banks.
The estimated capital cost of this treatment
plant alternative is $2,097,000. Annual
operation and maintenance costs are estimated
to be $42,000.
4. Rotating Biological Contactor Process
Rotating biological contactors (RBC's) are a
relatively new addition to secondary wastewater
treatment technology. This process utilizes a
series of 3.7 m (12 ft) diameter discs mounted
on 7.6 m (25 ft) long horizontal shafts rotat-
ing slowly in a tank filled with wastewater.
The disc becomes the media onto which microor-
ganisms grow and treat the wastewater. RBC's
are similar in theory to trickling filters
(discussed later), except that with the latter,
wastewater is passed over a fixed filter media
(rock or plastic). RBC's can provide a high
level of treatment with a minimum of process
control.
The process flow diagram shown in Figure II-5
indicates that the process involves screening
and degritting followed by fine screens. This
is different from all the other treatment
alternatives in that the fine screens are an
additional preliminary treatment process to
prevent the RBC disc media from becoming
clogged with heavy solids. Clogging would tend
to reduce the treatment efficiency significant-
ly, and could even break the horizontal rotat-
ing shaft due to the increased weight. The
sludge resulting from this process must also be
digested to reduce the number of pathogens
present.
As the equipment for RBC's and associated tank-
age are quite expensive, the RBC's have a rela-
tively high initial capital cost. However,
their ease of operation and resistance to high
strength loads (shock loads) are a few of the
reasons why this process is often selected for
use. The estimated capital cost for this
treatment plant alternative is $3,548,100.
Annual operation and maintenance costs for this
alternative are estimated to be $110,000. The
11-16
-------
RAW .JPUMPING
WASTED STATION
SCREENINGS
TO LANDFILL
ROTATING
FINE
SCREEN
SEDIMENTATION
FLOW
MEASUREMENT
ROTATING
BIOLOGICAL
MEDIA
ROTATING
FINE
SCREEN
FINAL
SEDIMENTATION
GRIT TO
LANDFILL
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
ROTARY THICKENER
SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS
DISINFECTION
TO
EFFUENT
DISPOSAL
DRY SLUDGE
STOCKPILE
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY. ST. JOHN. US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION II
CE MAGUIRE. INC. • NEW BRITAIN. CT
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
PROCESS
sinict- CE MAEUIRE. INC.
MTE' A/8 6 SCJ
flfUIC- 11-5
-------
RGB plant would
land, and 1.3 ha
5. Trickling Filter
require .5 ha (1.25 ac) of
(3.25 ac) for a buffer zone.
frlckllng filter sys-
:ems treat wastewater
jy filtering it through
ds of rocks contain-
ng micro-organisms.
Hostewater collection
systems must be con-
structed for both the
regional and sub-
regional programs.
The trickling filter system is a common method
of wastewater treatment that has been in wide-
spread use since 1936. The process involves
the application of wastewater onto a bed of 2.5
to 12.5 cm (1-5 in) diameter rocks for filtra-
tion and aerobic biological treatment. Waste-
water is distributed evenly over the bed of
rocks by an overhead (usually revolving)
distribution arm and filters (trickles) through
the rock media. Microorganisms attached to the
rocks breakdown the organic material in the
wastewater as it trickles through the rock
media. This process is illustrated in Figure
II-6.
Trickling filters are relatively simple to
operate and have a high degree of mechanical
reliability. However, they do not produce as
high a quality of effluent as other processes
considered, such as the oxidation ditch or RBC
process. In addition, this process generally
requires long recovery time from plant upsets
and has potential for disease vector and odor
problems. This facility requires a site area
of approximately .6 ha (1.5 ac) and an addi-
tional 1.2 ha (3 ac) for buffer area. The
estimated capital cost for this treatment plant
alternative is $6,083,900. The annual opera-
tion and maintenance cost for this alternative
is estimated to be $108,000.
C. WASTEHATER COLLECTION SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES
AND ROUTINGS
A wastewater collection system is a network of pipes
(known as interceptors, laterals, and force mains)
and pumps used to convey wastewater flows from indi-
vidual sources to a centralized treatment facility.
Both the subregional and regional wastewater manage-
ment programs would require collection systems.
Two sets of alternatives must be considered for col-
lection systems: (1) types or technologies of
wastewater collection systems; and (2) routings for
the collection system.
11-17
-------
TWO STAGE
TRICKLING FILTER
DISINFECTION
RAW
WASTE
TO
EFFUENT
DISPOSAL
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
FINAL
SEDIMENTATION
SCREENINGS
TO LANDFILL
SLUDGE DRYING
BEDS
DRY SLUDGE
STOCKPILE
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY. ST. JOHN. US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. RESIQN
CE MAGUIRE. INC. • NEW BRITAIN. CT
TRICKLING FILTER PROCESS
since. CE MASUIRE. INC.
«/86
-------
1. Technology Alternatives
Gravity sewers which
may be utilized in
conjunction with
lift and pumping sta-
tions are a tradition-
al method of waste-
water collection and
conveyance.
This method requires
little operation and
maintenance and is
not vulnerable to
power failures.
A primary disadvant-
age of gravity sewers
is that high excava-
tion and pump station
expenses may be in-
volved.
The following four collection system technology
alternatives have been considered for this
project:
conventional gravity sewers
pressure sewers
vacuum sewers
small diameter gravity sewers
Each of these technologies is described and
discussed in terms of its advantages, disadvan-
tages, and estimated costs in the following
subsections:
a. Conventional Gravity Sewers
The traditional method of wastewater col-
lection and conveyance for community or
municipal treatment has been the use of
gravity sewers. This method relies upon
gravity flow and, therefore, must follow
natural drainage patterns. Because of the
need to maintain downward slope, installa-
tion may require construction at substan-
tial depths, which can result in high
construction costs, especially when ground
water and large amounts of rock are
encountered. In conjunction with gravity
sewer installation, lift stations or
pumping stations are used to raise waste-
water from lower to higher elevations.
Advantages of gravity sewers are that they
require little operation and maintenance
and are not vulnerable to power failures.
Due to the fact that the study area is
comprised of a single major drainage
basin, flows could, in many cases, easily
be collected by gravity sewers constructed
along natural drainage ways. The princi-
pal disadvantage of this collection method
is that excavation and pump station expen-
ses may be involved, contributing to
higher construction and capital costs if
topography is not amenable to gravity
flow. A typical cost for a 20 cm (8 in)
gravity sewer is $240/m ($80/ft) instal-
led.
11-18
-------
Pressure Sewers
Pressure sewer sys-
tems utilize grinder
pumps, Small dia-
meter pipes convey
wastewater.
Vacuum sewer systems
utilize negative
pressure.
Pressure sewer systems utilize grinder
pumps and small diameter pipe to convey
wastewater. The grinder pump, located in
a basement, underground sump, or other
central collection point for one or a
group of buildings, discharges a finely
ground wastewater slurry into the pipe
under pressure.
The major advantage of the pressure sewer
is that the direction of flow is indepen-
dent of ground slope and depth of instal-
lation is decreased. Consequently, it is
generally less expensive and easier to
install than gravity sewer pipe, given
variable topography. It should also be
noted that a pressure system is not
subject to infiltration, unlike gravity
sewers.
The principal disadvantages of this system
are its vulnerability to power failures
(which are not unusual on St. John) and
mechanical breakdowns, its long detention
times under low flow conditions creating
odor nuisance, as well as its relatively
high operation and maintenance cost.
The costs involved in the pressure sewer
alternative are typically $4,000 to $6,000
for each grinder pump and $99/m ($25/ft)
installed for the pressure sewer main.
Vacuum Sewers
The vacuum sewer system utilizes negative
pressure (vacuum) to transport wastewater.
A valve separates the collection system
(under a constant vacuum) from the house
plumbing (atmospheric pressure). This
valve is pneumatically operated and will
open when a predetermined depth of waste-
water is reached in the inlet pipe and a
proper vacuum is reached in the main.
When the valve opens, the wastewater is
admitted to the system. The maximum indi-
vidual obtainable total lift is approxi-
mately 4.5 m (15 ft). However, greater
lifts are possible through the use of
successive stages.
11-19
-------
Vacuum sewers are
used primarily for
sewering low lying
development.
Small diameter
gravity sewers are
similar to conven-
tional gravity
sewers. However,
they may be used in
much flatter terrain
because most solids
in the effluent are
removed prior to
conveyance.
As with pressure sewers, this system may
have initial capital cost advantages over
a gravity system; however, continuous
maintenance requirements, replacement
costs for mechanical devices, operating
costs, and standby power requirements can
nullify these initial capital cost advan-
tages. Vacuum sewers are primarily of
value for sewering lowlying development
complexes.
The costs of a vacuum sewer system typi-
cally include the inlet valve at $300
each, the vacuum sewer main at $130/m
($40/ft) installed and the vacuum station
at $50,000 each.
d. Small Diameter Gravity Sewers
This collection system technology is
similar to conventional gravity sewers in
that wastewater flows entirely by the
force of gravity through the system. The
main difference between these technologies
is that the small diameter sewers require
the use of on-site septic or settling
tanks for the initial removal of solids
before the effluent enters the collection
system. As most of the solids are re-
moved, the collection pipes may be smaller
in diameter (generally no more than 10 cm
(4 in)) and may be used in much flatter
terrain than the conventional gravity
sewers.
The primary advantage of this technology
is that it is relatively free of mechani-
cal components, yet it may be used in
relatively flat or very gently sloping
terrain. Primary disadvantages are that
individual settling tanks would be re-
quired and that the solids or sludge would
have to be periodically removed from each
individual settling tank. Operating and
maintenance costs would, therefore, be
greater for this collection system tech-
nology alternative than for the other
alternatives considered.
11-20
-------
Alternative routings
for an expanded waste-
water collection
system are limited,
It may be costly to
extend sewers to some
portions of the study
nt-fir*
area,...
... but these areas
are in need of sewer
service.
2. Routing Alternatives
The findings of the needs analysis conducted
for this project indicate that there are
clusters of development in the study area which
are not served by the existing wastewater
treatment system, but are in need of this
service. Alternative routings for expanding
this system to meet these needs were consid-
ered. Given the routing of the existing
collection system, the location of the clusters
in need of service, and the preference to
follow existing roadways or right-of-ways
rather than cutting across undisturbed pro-
perty, available routing alternatives are very
limited.
The routing which is considered to best meet
these criteria is illustrated in Figure II-7.
Proposed interceptors extend from the existing
collection system east along Center Line Road;
southeast through Enighed, Contant, and Pine
Peace; and southwest to Moravian Point.
Proposed collector sewers branching off from
these interceptors would be routed through the
streets of Enighed, Contant, Pine Peace, Power
Boyd's Plantation, Bethany, and Pastory.
The proposed collection system will require one
new pumping station to be located near Power
Boyd's Plantation. This is necessary to convey
the wastewater from this area over the ridge
line. All existing pump stations will be
upgraded where necessary.
Alternatives to portions of this routing were
considered, but would involve either not
serving houses determined to be in need of
service or laying sections of the collection
system in undisturbed and private property. In
particular, the alternatives of extending or
not extending sewers into the Power Boyd's
Plantation area and the cluster of development
adjacent to the upper portion of Center Line
Road (east of Cruz Bay Proper) were considered.
The relative isolation of these clusters from
the concentrated development in the core study
area would make it relatively costly to extend
sewers into the areas. However, based on the
severity of the need for improved wastewater
treatment in these areas, the cost of extending
sewers to these areas appears warranted.
11-21
-------
FRANK BAY
EXISTING PIMRSTA,
FERRY DOCK
Tl Sim SKOIE
KEY«
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM
PROPOSED COLLECTION SYSTEM
PROPOSED GRINDER PUMPS
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY. ST. JOHN. US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION II
CE MAGUIRE. INC. * NEW BRITAIN. CT
PROPOSED WASTEWATER COLECTION SYSTEM
S"««. CE MAGUIRE. INC.
4/86
IUU- |" - 500'
H-7
-------
There are two feasi-
ble alternatives,
1.) Spray Irriga-
tion on land/
and
2.) Ocean outfall
Spray Irrigation
disposes of waste-
water effluent by
spraying the effluent
over a large tract of
land.
General requirements
for spray Irrigation
include:
1.) adequate soil to
absorb effluent,
2.) relatively flat or
gently sloping
terrain, and
3.) Isolation and pro-
tection from possi-
ble human contact.
The configuration of the proposed collection
system is preliminary, subject to comments on
the Draft EIS and any changes necessary during
the design of the system.
D. WASTEWATER EFFLUENT DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES
Wastewater effluent disposal technologies are
methods of disposing of wastewater after it has been
treated to- remove pollutants. The following two
technologies have been considered as potentially
feasible alternatives for this project:
spray irrigation on land
ocean outfall
Other effluent disposal alternatives include aquifer
recharge and domestic reuse. These were initially
considered, but were eliminated from further consi-
deration due to the extremely high costs which would
be incurred in developing adequate, reliable treat-
ment processes. Operation and maintenance costs
would also be concurrently high.
1. Spray Irrigation
Disposal of wastewater effluent by spray irri-
gation involves the application of effluent to
a tract of land by means of sprinklers at a
controlled rate. Effluent is absorbed into the
soil and taken up by vegetation. This method
is currently used by Caneel Bay Plantation Inc.
on St. John in order to dispose of wastewater
effluent from the hotel/ restaurant operation
and to irrigate lawns.
It is estimated that approximately 9 ha (23 ac)
would be required to adequately dispose of the
projected 758 m pd (200,000 gpd) of wastewater
effluent. The actual disposal site should be
surrounded by a 30 m (100 ft) wide buffer area
in order to avoid possible impacts to surround-
ing areas. The entire spray irrigation site,
including the buffer area, would be approxi-
mately 13 ha (33 ac). While there are no spec-
ific Virgin Island regulations regarding spray
irrigation systems, the following general
requirements would need to be considered:
adequate soil to absorb effluent
relatively flat or gently sloping terrain
and
11-22
-------
A primary advantage of
spray Irrigation Is
that It allows the
reuse of water In a
water scarce environ-
ment.
isolation and protection from possible
human contact
Based on these requirements and the physical
characteristics of the study area, there are
only two feasible spray irrigation sites.
The first of these sites is in a ravine, behind
the National Park Service maintenance garage,
just north of Cruz Bay proper. This site is
adjacent to the alternative treatment plant
site #3 and would therefore be most appropriate
for use in conjunction with wastewater treat-
ment at site #3.
The other site is the Caneel Bay Resort,
located approximately one mile north of the
northern study area boundary. Caneel Bay
currently uses its effluent to spray irrigate
its lawns. The resort's groundskeepers have
indicated that they would be interested in
receiving up to 100% of the wastewater for this
purpose. However, there may be some difficul-
ties in implementing such a system in respect
to any unforeseen legal/jurisdictional or
contractual/financial issues between private
and public entities.
Other sites for spray irrigation were investi-
gated, but were considered not feasible due to
land capacity constraints.
A primary advantage of the spray irrigation
method of effluent disposal is that it would
provide a secondary benefit of reusing water in
an environment where water is an extremely
limited resource. If properly managed, a spray
irrigation site could be used to cultivate
ornamental plants or fodder for livestock.
Another advantage to this type of treatment
alternative is the lack of impacts on coastal
and marine resources normally associated with
an ocean outfall alternative. Furthermore, a
spray irrigation system is generally less
expensive to construct than an ocean outfall,
because of the higher cost of underwater
construction. Advantages of pumping wastewater
to the Caneel Bay Resort are that it is an
option available to all treatment facility
types and that it is inexpensive to construct
(approximately 1.5 million dollars).
11-23
-------
riimn+nr"*** -
*/1 *j \jJJVURtuyca. ——.
ude special pro-
cedures to Maintain
the quality of.tire
effluent/ higner
operation ana main-
tenance costs/ and
potential logistical
problems,
The ocean outfall
method Involves the
dispersion of efflu-
ent Into offshore
waters via an under-
water pipe.
A primary disadvantage of this alternative is
that special procedures must be incorporated
into the treatment process to assure that the
effluent is consistently of sufficient quality
(i.e., secondary treatment with disinfection
and generally no greater than 200 parts per
million of chloride) to permit the successful
growth of the site's vegetation. Other disad-
vantages are the operation and maintenance
costs would be higher than an ocean outfall,
additional land would be required, and there is
potential for oversaturation of soils with
waste that could cause effluent runoff to
downstream waterbodies. Another disadvantage is
that both of the sites considered suitable for
land application present legal, political, or
logistical issues which could make implementa-
tion of this alternative complicated.
2. Ocean Outfall
Disposal of effluent by means of an ocean out-
fall involves conveying effluent seaward
through an underwater pipe and releasing it
offshore in deep water. Effluent is released
further through a diffuser at the end of the
outfall into underwater currents which further
disperse and dilute effluent. The length,
route, and depth of the ocean outfall would be
designed to avoid environmental impacts to
coral reefs, other sensitive marine ecosystems,
and coastal recreational and commercial activi-
ties. Ocean outfalls are currently used to
dispose of effluent from Charlotte Amalie on
the Island of St. Thomas, and from Christian-
sted on the Island of St. Croix.
Turner Bay Is con-
sidered the most
appropriate area for
an ocean outfall.
Based on the location of alternative treatment
plant sites, and an assessment of the areas
ocean currents and coastal and marine re-
sources, Turner Bay is considered the most
appropriate site for an ocean outfall. Other
areas along the coast of the study area were
investigated, but were considered unsuitable
because of conflicts with existing land uses
and more valuable marine and coastal resources.
Several possible outfall alignments extending,
seaward from the sand spit separating Turner
Bay and Enighed Pond have been considered. A
preliminary alignment, based on the findings of
11-24
-------
An ocean outfall
system avoids all
the problems assoc-
iated with a spray
Irrigation system.
the benthic and current study (Appendices D and
E) conducted during the preparation of this
draft EIS, is presented in Figure II-8.
Preliminary findings indicate that an outfall
greater than 1,000 m (3,200 ft.) offshore may
be needed to avoid impacts to sensitive marine
ecosystems and coastal resources.
A primary advantage of the ocean outfall
alternative is that it would avoid all the
previously discussed problems associated with
implementing a spray irrigation system. Other
advantages are that operation and maintenance
costs would be less than for the spray irriga-
tion alternative, no additional land would be
required for wastewater facilities, and no
potential land-related impacts such as over-
saturation of soils (causing effluent runoff to
downstream waterbodies and perhaps erosion)
would be involved.
An additional advantage is that an ocean
outfall option can be utilized with any of the
treatment plant and site locations.
It should be noted that spray irrigation of
treated effluent would not be precluded from
future implementation. The outfall could still
be used during periods when effluent was either
not needed or was unsuitable for spray irriga-
tion.
A primary disadvantage of this alternative is
that it would involve higher construction costs
and more complicated construction techniques
than the spray irrigation system. An important
disadvantage of an ocean outfall is that there
would be some short-term impacts during con-
struction, and the possibility of long-term
impacts to marine and coastal resources if not
designed properly.
11-25
-------
90
Title:
Source: GEM
Date: 4/86
----"----49—20"~
GENERAL LOCATION of the
PROPOSED OCEAN OUTFALL
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John,US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Megulre. Inc.. New Britain, CT
PROPOSED OCEAN
OUTFALL LOCATION
Scale: 1"- 1.100'
Fig: II-8
-------
The residue remain-
ing after the treat-
ment process is
sludge. There are
three feasible
sludge disposal
methods.
Other methods of
sludge disposal
were Judged to be
inappropriate.
The first alterna-
tive involves remov-
ing the sludge from
the treatment plant
to a disposal faci-
lity on St. Thomas.
E. SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
The two products of wastewater treatment are treated
wastewater effluent and sludge. Sludge is the resi-
due which remains after the treatment process has
removed impurities from wastewater. The following
sludge disposal methods have been considered as po-
tentially feasible alternatives for this project.
They are:
removal of sludge to an existing treatment
facility
landfill ing
land application
Other methods of sludge disposal, such as sludge
lagoons, composting, incineration, and ocean dis-
posal, were judged to be inappropriate (due to cost
or environmental impacts) and were eliminated from
detailed consideration as alternatives. Sludge
incineration would involve extremely high energy
requirements and costs, and ocean disposal of sludge
is significantly less environmentally sound than
other alternatives.
1. Removal to a-n Existing Facility
The first sludge disposal considered feasible
would involve removing sludge from the treat-
ment plant and transporting it by a special
truck (via ferry) to an existing sludge dis-
posal facility on St. Thomas (probably at the
regional facility on Long Point Peninsula,
which is presently under design). The primary
advantage of this alternative is that it would
not involve any land use or other environmental
impacts associated with sludge disposal on St.
John. The primary disadvantage is that pur-
chasing a truck and transporting the sludge on
a continuous basis would involve significantly
greater costs than the other feasible alterna-
tives considered.
2. Landfill ing
The second feasible alternative would involve
removing sludge from the treatment plant and
transporting it to the St. John municipal
landfill in Adrian for final disposal. This is
the method currently used by DPW for disposing
of sludge from the existing Cruz Bay treatment
11-26
-------
Landfill disposal
Involves disposing
of sludge at the
existing municipal
landfill on St. John.
Land application of
stabilized sludge
Is another viable
alternative.
plant. The primary advantage of this alterna-
tive is that it would be relatively inexpensive
and simple to transport sludge to the landfill
on St. John, as compared with transporting it
to St. Thomas. The primary disadvantage is
that precautionary measures must be taken to
assure against public health, odor, aesthetic,
or other impacts associated with sludge dis-
posal. Assurance against public health im-
pacts, such as an increase in the amount of
flies, is particularly important as the Is-
land's clinic is located directly above
(approximately 200 m (660 ft) from) the land-
fill. Another important disadvantage is that
in the future this landfill may not have
adequate capacity to dispose of sludge in an
environmentally sound manner.
This alternative is recommended in the Interim
Sludge Management Plant for the US Virgin
age
Jdy
Islands study prepared for VIDPW by deJongh/URS
Associates in 1985.
3. Land Application
The third feasible alternative considered
involves applying stabilized sludge to a tract
of land to be used as soil conditioner or
fertilizer. A primary advantage of this
alternative is that- it would provide a secon-
dary value for the sludge through reuse. This
alternative could also be relatively inexpen-
sive, depending on the distance and accessi-
bility of a potential land application site
from the treatment plant.
The primary disadvantage is that a relatively
large amount of land, up to 20 ha (50 ac) which
is isolated and protected from human contact,
would be required for the land application
site. Another disadvantage is that not all
types of sludge are suitable for land applica-
tion. It may be more feasible to dispose of
the sludge at the landfill until periodic
testing determines that it is suitable for land
application. Testing should then be carried
out on a continuing basis to insure that the
sludge remains suitable for land applications.
F. TREATMENT PLANT SITE ALTERNATIVES
Each of the wastewater treatment technologies
considered for this project would require a rela-
11-27
-------
Three feasible
treatment plant
sites have been
identified given
the existing con-
ditions of the
study area.
Site #1 is located
on the site of the
old town landfill.
tively flat .6-2.2 ha (1.5-5.5 ac) site. Proximity
to areas served by the treatment system and proxi-
mity to potential effluent disposal sites are other
important requirements. Given these requirements
and the existina conditions of the study area, three
feasible treatment plant sites were identified.
The existing treatment plant site was originally
considered as a feasible site alternative. However,
use of this site for a new treatment plant would
require the filling of up to 1.2 ha (3 ac) of
Enighed Pond in order to provide an adequate plant
site. Other disadvantages of this site are that it
is in the 100 year flood zone and is relatively
unprotected from storms, wave action, and may create
a conflict with the Virgin Island Port Authority
(VIPA) plan to develop a commercial port in Enighed
Pond (McComb Eng.4 1985). Any port alternative
would require removal of the access bridge to
existing site, thereby eliminating the only means of
accessing the plant.
Other sites were initially considered, but were
eliminated from further consideration because they
did not meet these or other requirements. For
example, one site, located in an abandoned quarry
just east of Power Boyd's Plantation, was initially
examined, but considered unsuitable due to steep
terrain consisting of solid exposed rock, the
proximity of the site to a major (and ecologically
valuable) gut, and the distance of the site from the
concentrated areas of development in the core study
area. Another site, located east of (directly
across the road from) the Virgin Grand Hotel site at
the head of Great Cruz Bay, was eliminated from
further consideration due to its distance from the
concentrated development and service area of the
core study area, as well as the cost of pumping
sewage to the site over a ridge extending from
Contant to Bethany. The effluent would also have to
be pumped back over again for disposal. The remain-
ing three sites are discussed in more detail below
and are shown in Figure II-9.
1. Site #1 - East of Enighed Pond
The first feasible site considered is located
on the eastern bank of Enighed Pond. Portions
of the site are currently used for an existing
pump station, storage of gravel for construc-
tion of the Virgin Grand Hotel, and storage of
junk cars and other mechanical debris. The
site, which was once part of Enighed Pond, is
11-28
-------
FRANK
KEY»
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PLANT SITES
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN/US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION II
CE MABUIRE. INC. • NEW BRITAIN. CT
TREATMENT PLANT SITE ALTERNATIVES
Sim* CE HABUIRE. INC.
MH- V86
I" - 500' »«»«• 11-9
-------
Site Wi Is located
behind the VIPA
auxiliary power
Generating station,
lust east of site
II,
characterized by filled land and is primarily
barren of vegetation except for bermuda grass
(Cynodon dactyl on) and mangroves along the
shore of the Pond.
Primary advantages of this site are that it
offers a sufficient amount of flat, easily
accessible land, it is already disturbed, it is
not presently used for any long-term activity,
it is located on publicly-owned and publicly
zoned land, and it would not be in conflict
with VIPA's plans.
Primary disadvantages of the site are that it
is near existing residential and commercial
development, it is desired by some residents
for recreational use, it is in the 100 year
floodplain, and it is located on fill material
which may require further soil stabilization
prior to construction.
Site #2 - Above the Power Station
A second feasible site considered is located
east of Site #1 and directly behind the VI
Water and Power Authority (WAPA) auxiliary
power generating station. The site is char-
acterized by moderately sloping, undeveloped,
dry evergreen woodland. A gut which drains to
Enighed Pond forms the northern boundary of the
site.
Primary advantages of this site are that it is
above the 100 (and 500) year floodplain, it
offers a larger tract of land which can accom-
modate the aerated lagoon or recirculating sand
filter plant alternatives, and it would not
conflict with VIPA plans.
Primary disadvantages of site #2 are that it is
privately-owned (making it more expensive than
Site #1), it is zoned for residential use,
making it one of the few large tracts of lands
still available for residential development by
the local population, it is only partially
disturbed, it is not as flat as the other sites
therefore requiring more site preparation, and
it is near residential and commercial develop-
ment.
Site #3 - Behind NPS Garage
The third feasible site considered is located
in a valley behind the U.S. National Park
Service (NPS) maintenance garage, just north
11-29
-------
Site #3 is located
behind the U.S.
National Park
Service maintenance
garage.
Analysis of the
various alternatives
has yielded six
feasible overall
treatment system
alternatives.
(inside) of the NPS boundary. The site is
bisected by a small gut and is characterized
mainly by dry evergreen woodland, except for
moister vegetation in the gut. The soils that
cover this site have fewer limitations for
building foundations than the other soils in
the study area.
Primary advantages of this site are that it is
relatively isolated from development and in a
convenient location for effluent disposal by
land application either on-site or at Caneel
Bay. Also, there would be adequate land
available for either the aerated lagoon or
recirculating sand filter alternatives. A
treatment plant at this site could still
utilize an ocean outfall if land application
was not possible.
The primary disadvantage is that it may not be
possible to use the site because of restric-
tions on the use of NPS land for non-park
related activities. These include restrictions
such as the requirement that the NPS must
charge fees and lease rates for use of park
lands at rates comparable to the private
sector, restrictive land use covenants stipul-
ated in the deeds of ownership, the NPS policy
of not considering projects if there are other
viable alternatives, and the possibility of
long delays or blockage from using a NPS site
if lawsuits against such a project were brought
to bear by various conservation groups.
G. OVERALL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Previous sections of this chapter have identified
and evaluated alternatives for the various compon-
ents of an overall wastewater treatment system.
Specifically, alternatives have been considered for
a wastewater management program, treatment process,
collection system technology and routing, effluent
disposal technology, sludge disposal method, and
treatment plant site. The purpose of this section
is to identify and evaluate overall treatment system
alternatives which incorporate one alternative of
each of these components.
A further screening of component alternatives has
been made based on the relative advantages and
disadvantages of each of the alternatives discussed
in this chapter. This screening has yielded the
selection of feasible alternatives, which are
11-30
-------
Each of these six
alternatives inc-
ludes a new treat-
ment plant and
expanded collection
system for the core
study area.
presented in Table II-l. This table also summarizes
the reasons that each of these alternatives passed
the second level of screening. (More detailed
discussions of the relative advantages and disadvan-
tages of each alternative are presented in the
previous sections of this chapter.)
Comparative analysis of these feasible component
alternatives has resulted in the development of six
feasible overall treatment system alternatives. The
six overall system alternatives are structured to
function under the second subregional management
program which recommends using a collection system
for the core study area and various on-site techno-
logies for the extended study area as described in
Appendix C.4 (on-site systems). In the core area,
each of the six overall system alternatives includes
a new 200,000 gallon per day (gpd) treatment plant,
at a new site, to replace the existing plant and
site. A new wastewater collection system is pro-
posed to extend from the existing sewer system. The
proposed wastewater collection system includes the
addition of approximately 6,873 m (22,680 ft) of
sewers to the existing public wastewater collection
system. In addition to the portions of Cruz Bay and
Enighed served by the existing system, the proposed
system would serve Pine Peace, Power Boyd's Planta-
tion, portions of Contant and Pastore; and portions
of Cruz Bay and Enighed that are not currently
served.
The existing system is comprised of 2,600 m (8,600
ft) of sewers, including 1,282 m (4,232 ft) of 20 cm
(8 in) diameter gravity sewer, 803 m (2,651 ft) of
25 cm (10 in) diameter gravity sewer, 409 m (1,349
ft) of 15 cm (6 in) diameter force main, and 110 m
(364 ft) of 5-10 cm (2-4 in) diameter force main.
The existing system also includes three pump sta-
tions (two ejector stations and one influent pump
station).
In addition to this system, the following additions
are proposed:
6,621 m (21,850 ft) of 20 cm (8 in) diameter
gravity sewer
145 m (480 ft) of 10 cm (4 in) diameter force
main
106 m (350 ft) of 5 cm (2 in) diameter pressure
sewers
11-31
-------
TABLE II-l
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
COMPONENT
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
REASON SELECTED
CO
ro
Management Program
Treatment Process
Collection System Technology
Collection System Routing
Effluent Disposal Technology
Sludge Disposal Method
Treatment Plant Sites
. Subregional System
Aerated Lagoon
Oxidation Ditch
RBC
Recirculating Sand Filter
Trickling Filters
Gravity Sewers
Pressure Sewers
As shown in Figure I1-7
Spray Irrigation
Ocean Outfall
Landfill (short-term)
Land Application (long-term)
Site #1
Site #2
Site #3
Allows most appropriate solution to
the wastewater needs of each area.
Other alternatives require more land
than is available at the four feasible
treatment plant sites.
Most cost-effective, yet technically and
environmentally sound.
Least impacts, yet serves clusters in
greatest need.
Most cost-effective, yet environmentally
sound.
Most cost-effective, yet technically and
environmentally sound, provided proper
mitigation is assured, allows option to
use sludge for fertilizer or soil
enhancer if tests indicate that this
would be environmentally sound.
Other sites considered were too rugged
or too distant from the service area and
potential effluent disposal sites.
-------
Land application
effluent disposal
at Caneel Bay may
not be an Imp-
lementable sub-
alternative.
one additional pump station to lift flows from
the Power Boyd's Plantation area into the Cruz
Bay drainage basin
50 grinder pumps for use in residences that are
located below the sewer line.
The proposed system would include using the existing
pump stations. The capacity of the influent pump
station would be expanded, but the ejector stations
would not be altered. The proposed wastewater
collection system is shown in Figure II-7 and
presented in more detail in Appendix C.5, Table
C.5-1. Each alternative also recommends one of two
effluent disposal systems either ocean outfall or
land application.
All of the alternatives would also include the
disposal of sludge at the St. John municipal land-
fill until testing indicates whether or not land
application of the sludge is possible. A sub-
alternative to these disposal systems is effluent
disposal through land application at the Caneel Bay
Resort. It could be substituted into any of the
feasible overall system alternatives. This sub-
alternative would have significant positive impacts
on those environmental characteristics and features
that would be negatively affected by the utilization
of either the land application or ocean outfall
alternatives. In addition, the force main effluent
pipe to Caneel Bay would cost considerably less than
the ocean outfall system, in the range of 1.5 to 1.8
million dollars, depending on the plant site select-
ed (See Appendix C.5). Although this effluent
disposal subalternative has received much public
support and initial positive reaction from the
Caneel Bay Resort, it may be difficult to implement
due to potential legal, political, and contractual
complications. Therefore, it was not included with
following alternatives in this Draft EIS. However,
should additional support further commitments, and
official approvals of this alternative be presented
during the draft EIS comment period, it could be
reconsidered as a viable alternative in the final
EIS.
11-33
-------
Table 11-2 summarizes
the advantages and
disadvantages of
the six alternatives.
Given this common base, the feasible overall treat-
ment system alternatives are distinguished as
follows:
Alternative A: Aerated lagoon treatment plant
at site #3 with land application
effluent disposal.
Alternative B: Aerated lagoon treatment plant
at site #3 with ocean outfall
effluent disposal.
Alternative C: Aerated lagoon treatment plant
at site #2 with ocean outfall
effluent disposal.
Alternative D: Recirculating sand filter
treatment plant at site #2 with
ocean outfall effluent disposal.
Alternative E: Rotating biological contactor
treatment plant at site #1 with
ocean outfall effluent disposal.
Alternative F: Oxidation ditch treatment plant
at site #1 with ocean outfall
effluent disposal.
The advantages and disadvantages of these six
alternatives, are summarized in Table II-2. This
table shows the degree of impact each alternative is
likely to have in terms of cost-effectiveness,
environmental soundness, implementability and land
lost to other types of future development. More
detailed cost information for the feasible alterna-
tives is presented in Appendix C.5.
H. PROPOSED WASTEWATER ALTERNATIVE
Alternatives E and
F have been select-
ed as the feasible
alternative.
Based on the criteria presented in Table II-2 and
comments from the public and regulatory agencies,
Alternatives E and F, as shown in Figures 11-10, and
11-11, were selected as the most feasible wastewater
treatment plans for Cruz Bay. Although alternatives
E and F are the most costly in dollars of the six
alternatives, they are the least costly in terms of
impacts on the environment, amount of land lost to
future development, and are the most implementable
options for Cruz Bay.
11-34
-------
i I-MJUL. J. I
I
OJ
cn
FACTORS
Monetary Cost ($1,000 of
Capital Cost*:
Annual O&M Cost*:
Total Present Worth***
Environmental Impact
Cultural Resources:
Flood Prone Areas:
Ecosystems
Terrestrial :
Coastal :
Marine:
Soils/Erosion:
Endangered species:
Air Quality, Noise
and Aesthetics:
Water Qua! ity
Groundwater:
Surface Water:
Marine Water:
Economy:
Other Projects:
Other Factors
Implementabil ity:
Land Lost for Future
Development:
Reliability:
COMPARISON OF FEASIBLE OVERALL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE
A B C D E
dollars)
10,735 10,131
260 250
: 9,908 10,072
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
9,958
257
9,975
0
0
0
0
0
10,226
262
10,311
0
0
0
0
0
10,312
316
11,265
0
0
0
0
0
0
ALTERNATIVE
F
10,698
303
11,514
0
0
0
0
0
Legend:
++ potentially significant beneficial impact/factor
+ minimal beneficial impact/factor
0 neutral or no impact/factor
- minimal adverse impact/factor
-- potentially significant adverse impact/factor
*From Table C.5-10, Appendix C.5
**From Table C.5-11, Appendix C.5
***From Table C.5-9, Appendix C.5
Source: CE Maguire, Inc. May, 1986.
-------
FRANK BA Y
PROPOSED TREATMENT
PLANT SITE
SHP'STA. ENIGHED POND
SI»Ti SSO»E
GENERAL LOCATION of the
PROPOSED OCEAN OUTFALL
KEY'
EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM
-PROPOSED COLLECTION SYSTEM
PROPOSED GRINDER.PUMPS
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN. US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION II
CE MAGUIRE. INC. • NEW BRITAIN. CT
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
CORE STUDY AREA
SIDRCE. CE MAGUIRE. INC.
4/8fi
SUL(. I" • 500' FIGUlEi H-IO
-------
The use of on-site wastewater treatment systems,
including trench systems, seepage pits, evapotrans
piration beds, and mound systems, is proposed for
the extended study area.
*> 9
ft f:\/>/•;/! \'o cs BA
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, New Britain, CT
Title :
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
EXTENDED STUDY AREA
Source : CEM
Date : 4/86
Scale : NTS
-------
Alternative E,
comprised of a
Rototatlng bio-
logical contacter
and Alternative
F, comprised of
an oxidation
ditch processing
plant,both at Site
#1 and with an
putfall into Tur-
ner Bay/ are the
most feasible
alternatives,
uther alternatives
would hove greater
adverse environ-
mental impacts
than the selected
alternatives.
The selection of
the most feasible
alternatives is
preliminary.
EPA Hill Identify
the selected plan
after evaluating
all public com-
ments on this
draft EIS.
The components which form Alternatives E and F are a
rotating biological contactor treatment plant and an
oxidation ditch treatment plant, respectively, both
capable of processing 200,000 gallons per day of
wastewater. Also, both facilities would be located
at site #1 (across the street from the WAPA power
generating plant) and both would utilize an ocean
outfall effluent disposal system. These alterna-
tives also include the proposed wastewater collec-
tion system for the core study area as described in
the previous section and illustrated in Figure
11-10, in addition to continued use of individual
on-site systems for the extended study area. These
on-site systems include, but are not limited to
trench systems, seepage pits, evapotranspiration
beds, and mound systems.
Although Alternatives A-D are less costly than
Alternatives E and F, they would incur greater
environmental impacts. In addition, Alternatives A
or B would present a major implementation issue due
to the complications involved with proposing any
type of project in a National Park area. Also,
Alternatives C or D may pose some implementability
issues as well as displacing 10 acres of land that
would be lost to residential and other types of
future development.
It should be noted that the identification of
Alternatives E and F as the most feasible wastewater
treatment options is preliminary, and does not
represent the ultimate selection of a wastewater
treatment plan for Cruz Bay. After receiving and
evaluating all public comments on this draft EIS,
EPA will prepare a final EIS which will identify the
selected project alternative. Because each of the
alternatives presented in the draft EIS would
require a substantial capital investment by the
Government of the Virgin Islands, the final EIS will
address possible scenarios for phasing the implemen-
tation of the selected project, consistent with the
goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Although EPA may decide to award grant assistance
for implementing major portions of the selected
project, issuance of this EIS does not constitute a
commitment on the part of EPA to fund the project in
whole or in part.
11-36
-------
. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
-------
This chapter discuss-
es aspects of the
environment that will
be affected by the
project,
St. John is located
at the Northern end
of the Lesser
Antilles archipelago
in the Caribbean Sea.
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the various
environmental characteristics and features which may be
affected by this project. This information will .provide
a basis for identifying and analyzing the impacts associ-
ated with each of the feasible alternatives identified in
the previous chapter.
For the purpose of discussion, the various elements of
the affected environment are divided into three separate
categories:
Existing conditions within the study area, including
environmental, demographic, physical, and socio-
economic characteristics;
Environmental, physical and infrastructure con-
straints to development; and
Anticipated future conditions, including population
and water use projections.
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. Location
The Island of St. John is located at the northern end of
the Lesser Antilles archipelago in the Caribbean Sea, as
shown in Figure III-l. It is the northeastern point in
the triangle formed by the U.S. Virgin Islands (VI). The
Island is approximately 5 kilometers (km) (3 miles (mi))
east of St. Thomas, 60 km (37 mi) north of St. Croix, 50k
(31 mi) east of Puerto Rico, and less than 3k (2 mi)
southwest of Tortola, in the British Virgin2Islands, The
approximate area of St. John is 32k (20 mi ).
The study area includes approximately 760 hectares (ha)
(1900 acres (ac)) of land (roughly 15 percent of the
Island's total area) in the southwestern portion of St.
John, as shown in Figure III-2. This area includes a
core study area of approximately 196 ha (490 ac) which is
the major population center and the focus of facility
planning for this study. The study area boundary is
defined by the VI National Park Boundary, except at the
northwestern limit where the boundary extends into the
National Park to follow the drainage divide. This
portion of the National Park has been included in the
study area because it is part of the Cruz Bay drainage
basin and because several residences are located there.
III-l
-------
UNITED STATES
ST. JOHN
STUDY AREA
\
\
\
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
\
\
\
\
\
HISPANIOLA
\
/
U. S. VIRGIN
ISLANDS
PUERTO
RICO
CARIBBEAN
SEA
o
0
0
VENEZUELA
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, CT
Tttlo:
LOCATION OF STUDY AREA
: CE MAGUIRE. INC.
Date: 2/86 Scal«:
N.T.S.
I Figure: |||-1
-------
Title:
NATIONAL PARK
Study Area Boundary |
NPS Boundary
SKipper Jacob
CORE STUDY AREA
Core Area Bcunda
EXTENDED STUDY AREA
STUDY AREA
BOUNDARY
endezvons
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, CT
STUDY AREA
source: GEM, INC. (USGS 1982 BASE)
Date; 1/86 |Seals: 1"^ 1.350' JFIgure: III-2
-------
Climate and Meteorology
St. John has a seml-
arid climate,
Rainfall varies
greatly according to
seasons.
There is a high rate
evapotranspira-
on,
111
tt
St. John is in a semi-arid climate characterized by low
rainfall, consistently warm temperatures, and an almost
constant breeze.
The average annual rainfall in the study area is 100-112
centimeters (cm) (40-45 inches (in)). The amount of
rainfall varies greatly according to seasons -- more than
half of the average occurs during August-November, while
very little occurs during December-June. This relatively
low amount of rainfall during the winter months is accom-
panied by generally clear skies. The orographic effect
(a meteorological condition in which mountains form a
barrier to air currents, causing moist air to be lifted
to higher elevations and resulting in precipitation) of
cool air being forced upward over the mountains of St.
John by the tradewinds generally causes more rain on the
lee side of the mountains than on the windward side.
The temperature in the study area generally ranges from
21 Centigrade (C) (70 Fahrenheit (F)) to 32C (90F). Un-
like rainfall, there is little seasonal variation in
temperature. The climate is cooled by the almost con-
stant easterly tradewinds which pass through this section
of the Caribbean. Windspeed ranges from 3-9.4 kilometers
per hour (kph) (5-15 miles per hour (mph)).
The steady wind, clear skies, and shallow soils which are
characteristic of the study area combine to cause a high
rate of evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration is the
return of water to the atmosphere through the combined
processes of direct evaporation by the sun and transpira-
tion by vegetation.Over 90 percent of the rainfall in the
study area is returned to the atmosphere by this process.
Therefore, very little of the inland rainfall reaches the
sea as runoff except during major storms.
Tropical storms strike St. John once or twice each year,
but the estimated frequency of actual hurricanes is once
in every eighteen years. Storms bring heavy rainfall and
often cause destructive flooding along the coast and in
the drainageways, known locally as "guts".
Physiography and Topography
The physiography of the study area is characterized by
very rugged terrain, a jagged coastline, numerous bays
and coastal lagoons/ponds, and deep intermittent stream
valleys or guts. The area's highest point, Margaret
Hill, rises 255m (840 ft) above sea level.
III-2
-------
A 501 or larger
gradient is con-
sidered a constraint
to development in
the study area.
Much of the lower
land along the coast
is prone to Inunda-
tion during a 100
year flood.
The topography of the study area is shown in Figure
III-2, a United States Geological Survey (USGS) base map
with 40 ft. contour intervals.
Two features of the study area's physiography that are
significant to the subject project are steep slopes and
flood prone areas. They warrant more detailed discus-
sion.
a. Steep Slopes
Steep slopes serve as a constraint to development
because they present potential problems with ero-
sion, instability, drainage, and access. This
feature is discussed further as a constraint to
development in Appendix B, Constraints Analysis.
Slopes of over 15 percent gradient are typically
considered "steep slopes" (as a constraint to devel-
opment) in the continental United States. However,
due to the predominance of steeply sloping hillsides
and severe relief found in the study area, a more
accurate delineation of this constraint is slopes of
greater than 50 percent. This delineation was
selected because development generally occurs on
land with slopes of up to (but no greater than) 50%
in the study area. The location of greater than 50
percent slopes in the study area is shown in Figure
111-3. Approximately 68 hectares (ha) (170 acres
(ac)), or 9 percent of the study area is occupied by
steep slopes.
b. Flood Prone Areas
Much of the flat land along the coast and in the
mouths of guts of the study area is prone to inunda-
tion during a 100-year flood. A 100-year flood is a
flood of the magnitude which is expected to occur
once in 100 years. This land is shown in Figure
III-4. Flood prone areas cover approximately 72 ha
(180 ac), or 9% of the study area.
Typically, the flood prone area is a coastal fringe
between 0 and 5 feet (ft) above mean sea level
(msl). The area at the head of Fish Bay, combined
with areas around Chocolate Hole, Great Cruz Bay,
Enighed Pond, and Cruz Bay constitute the majority
of the study area's flood prone land. Areas of
development which would be particularly affected by
a 100-year flood include:
The police station and shops surrounding the
ferry dock in downtown Cruz Bay;
III-3
-------
Brothers
NATIONAL PARK
StUdy Area Bounds
.60-""
^ Dipper Jaooty
>Rock
Moravian) '
Co're Area B<
STEEP SLOPES
(GREATER THAN 50%)
endezvons
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
STEEP SLOPES
Source: CE MAGUIRE, INC.
Date; 1/86 |Scale; ' 1*01.350' JFIgure; III-3
-------
NATIONAL PARK
FLOOD PRONE AREiAS
(100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE)
enctezvous
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Maguire, Inc.. New Britain, CT
FLOOD PRONE AREAS
Source: FEMA, 1980
Date; 1/86 |scal«; 1'Vl.350'
-------
Five homes on Moravian ("Moorehead") Point
which would be cut off from the rest of St.
John;
The existing pump station and wastewater
treatment plant on the berm separating Enighed
Pond from Turner Bay, and;
ofedevelopmenf which • Tne Vir9in Grand Hotel complex being con-
would be affected by structed at the head of Great Cruz Bay.
a 100-year flood.
Other flood prone areas are within the various guts
located in the study area. Flash flooding will
occur in these guts during periods of long duration
or high intensity rainfall. This occurs in particu-
lar along Centerline Road itself where many of the
houses are built directly on the floor of a gut. An
additional flood prone area with similar charac-
teristics is the gut near Serendip Apartments that
flows into Enighed Pond. Flood prone areas are dis-
cussed further as a constraint to development in
Appendix B.
4. Geology
St. John is a volcanic island rising from a 200m (660 ft)
deep shelf which extends from Puerto Rico to the British
Virgin Islands. The Island was formed by the folding and
uplifting of volcanic extrusive material on the floor of
St John Is a volcan- this snelf- The geology of the Island and the study area
Ic'lsland. in particular are discussed separately in the sections
entitled bedrock, surficial materials, and soils.
a. Bedrock
The most detailed information on bedrock formations
on St. John is from a 1966 report by T. W. Donnelly,
entitled "Geology of St. Thomas and St. John, U.S.
Virgin Islands". According to Donnelly, the study
area is underlain by bedrock of the Louisenhoj and
Water Island Formations as shown in Figure III-5.
. . . . The Louisenhoj Formation consists primarily of
lyfngthe study breccia (fractured rock), water-laid tuff (compacted
area is very hard. volcanic fragments), and intermittent layers of
limestone. The Water Island Formation is formed of
volcanic flows and breccia. Both formations are
characterized by fine-grained, extrusive igneous
basal rock with very low permeability. As such, the
bedrock underlying the study area is very hard, and
difficult to excavate.
III-4
-------
Eroded bedrock has
created "alluvial
fans" which are more
permeable and suit-
able for excavation
than Its parental
bedrock,
The overwhelming
majority of the
study area Is char-
acterized by soil
which has severe
limitations for
sewage disposal and
building foundations.
b. Surficial Materials
The prominent valleys in the study area are formed
by Guinea Gut and Battery/Fish Bay Gut. (Streams
and other surface water features will be discussed
under Section 5, "Water Resources".) Exposed
parental bedrock has been eroded over the years by
runoff and/or human activities. The eroded material
has been carried into the valleys by runoff, account-
ing for the generally deeper soils in the valleys
than on hillsides.
Alluvial deposits from these erosive processes have
accumulated at the mouths of Guinea and Fish Bay
Guts. These deposits are as deep as 150 cm (60 in)
and cover the flat areas at the Great Cruz Bay and
Fish Bay, as shown in Figure III-5. Other alluvial
deposits are located around Enighed Pond, and in the
area of the ponds inland of Chocolate Hole and Hart
Bay. The alluvium consists of unconsolidated rock
fragments and clayey-loamy soil. This material is
more permeable and suitable for excavation than its
parental bedrock.
c. Soils
The soils in the study area are derived from basal
volcanic bedrock parent material. The soil layer
over bedrock is generally very shallow, in most
places no more than 50 cm (20 in), and in many
places barren bedrock is exposed. Soils are deeper
in valleys and alluvial plains.
According to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) (1970), the overwhelming majority of the study
area (more than 80 percent) is overlain by soils of
the Cranmer Series, as shown in Figure III-6. These
soils are characterized by shallow and well-drained
gravelly clay loam. They generally cover the
moderately to steeply sloping hillsides of the study
area. Cranmer soils have severe limitations for
sewage disposal and building foundations, due
primarily to their shallowness and slope. They are
quickly saturated during periods of rainfall, as the
shallowness of these soils makes their water storage
capacity low. These characteristics of the Cranmer
and other soil series are shown in Table III-l.
III-5
-------
NATIONAL PARK
Study Area Boundry
ipperJaqo
ock
FAULT
LOUISENHOJ FORMATION
Y///Ji WATER ISLAND
FORMATION
ALLUVIUM
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Maguire. Inc., New Britain, CT
udv/Ar«« Boundary
BEDROCK
Source: DONNELLY, 1957
Pate; 3/86 | Scale: 1" 1.350 JFIgure: IH-5
-------
Soil Series
Cranmer and Others
Cranmer (CrE,
CrF, CsF,
CrC, CsE2)
Jaucus (JuB)
Volcanic Rock
Tidal Flat (TF)
Isaac (ISE, IsDz)
San Anton (SaA)
Pozo Blanco (PbC)
TABLE III-l
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Limitations Limitations
for On-site for Building
Description Sewage Disposal Foundations
gravelly
clay loam,
clay, gravel-
ly clay
sand
rock
sand, silt,
mud
gravelly
clay loam,
clay, clay
loam
clay loam,
gravelly
clay loam
clay loam,
silty clay
loam, loam
severe
severe
moderate
moderate
severe
moderate
severe
moderate
% of
Approximate Total
Acreage in Study
Study Area Area
1,660
120
94
22
87.6
6.3
5.0
1.1
Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of the U.S. Virgin Islands, 1970.
III-6
-------
The study area's
groundwater
resources are
limited.
Other important soil series present in the study
area are Pozo Blanco, San Anton, and Isaac soils.
These soils are generally deeper than the Cranmer
soils and, therefore, have a greater water storage
capacity. They have moderate to severe limitations
for on-site sewage disposal systems and building
foundations, as shown in Table III-l. They are
located on or near the coast, often in the alluvial
plains (Figure III-6).
Jaucus sand, volcanic rock, and tidal flats also
cover small portions of the study area's surface.
5. Water Resources
Water resources in the study area consist of ground
water, surface water, marine water, and public water
supply. Each of these features will be discussed in
terms of quantity, quality, use, and other character-
istics relevant to this project.
a. Groundwater
Groundwater resources in the study area are limited
to the aquifers which underlie three coastal allu-
vial deposits and to the inland well fields located
just outside the study area, as shown in Figure
III-7. The quality of groundwater in the coastal
aquifers is likely contaminated by salt water
intrusion due to the aquifers' proximity to the sea.
There is a significant groundwater supply in Adrian,
outside the northeast border of the study area, as
shown in Figure 111-7. Wells extract water from
this aquifer for the public water supply. Use of
this groundwater for public consumption is discussed
further in Subsection d., "Water Supply".
The absence of other groundwater resources within
the study area is due primarily to the shallowness
of the soils, the extremely high evapotranspiration
rate, and the low permeability of the bedrock.
Most of the soil layer in the study area is too thin
to store groundwater permanently. Water which seeps
into the soil during or after rainfall is most often
quickly evaporated by the sun or transpired by
vegetation. Water which is not lost through evapo-
transpiration is unable to pass into the bedrock,
and, therefore, flows down gradient to guts or the
sea as subsurface or surface flow. The poor water
storage capacity of soils and underlying bedrock in
the study area is evident from observing the high
runoff on slopes and in guts during and immediately
after high intensity and/or long duration rainfall
events.
III-7
-------
NATIONAL PARK
, P
Stii'dy Area Boundarjrj
.60-' ' ^
NPS Boundary
Shipper Jacolj
Moravian!
CRANMER AND OTHER SOILS
AVy.1 ISAAC SOIL
SAN ANTON SOIL
POZO BLANCO SOIL
endezvous
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
StudV ArealBoundary
STUDY AREA SOIL TYPES
Source: SCS, 1970
Date: 1/86 scale: 1V1.350'' Figure: III-6
-------
NATIONAL PARK
Sfttdy Area Bounda
NPS Boundary
Skipper Jacob
Moravian)
COASTAL AQUIFIERS
rxx/i INLAND AQUIFERS
endezvous
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay. St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
AQUIFER AREAS
USGS, 1984
Data: 1/86 |Se«te; 1 #1.350
-------
Surface water is
limited due to the
amount of rainfall
and high evapo-
transplration rate.
Surface water fea-
tures, lagoons or
coastal ponds provide
Important ecological
functions.
b. Surface Water
Surface water features in the study area consist of
intermittent streams, coastal ponds, and lagoons, as
shown in Figure 111-8. The amount of surface water
is limited due to the low amount of rainfall and the
high evapotranspiration rate on St. John.
There are no permanent streams in the study area.
Water flows in the guts only during and after peri-
ods of heavy rainfall. During periods of very heavy
rainfall, guts overflow and water flows down streets
and hillsides as surface runoff.
The major guts in the study arca «,c n,c , ,*„
Bay/Battery Gut, which flows into Fish Bay, the
Guinea Gut which flows into Great Cruz Bay, and an
unnamed gut which generally follows Center Line Road
(Route 10) to Cruz Bay and discharges into the
easternmost cove in Cruz Bay, known locally as "The
Creek". Surface water runoff from the subdrainage
basin surrounding Monte flows into Rendezvous Bay or
Chocolate Hole, and runoff from the subdrainage
basin surrounding Enighed flows primarily into
Enighed Pond and Turner Bay.
Six lagoons or coastal ponds are located along the
coast of the study area, in the vicinity of Hart
Bay, Chocolate Hole, and Turner Bay. These surface
water features provide important ecological func-
tions, such as sediment trapping, flood control, and
fish and wildlife habitat.
Each of these ponds contains high concentrations of
salt water with the exception of the pond directly
north of Hart Pond, which contains a less saline
brackish water. The saline ponds are fed by the
sea, either through subsurface intrusion or high
seas during storms. These ponds, particularly
Enighed Pond and the pond at the head of Chocolate
Hole, may have been inner bays at one time, cut off
by a natural process of sediment and vegetation
build-up on a sandbar or reef. During periods of
drought (in the late winter and spring), these ponds
may become "hypersaline", an effect caused by
evaporation of the water and consequent accumulation
of the excess salt in the pond basin.
III-8
-------
Enighed Pond is im-
portant to the study
because wastewater
effluent flows into
it from various
sources.
Water quality is not
regularly monitored
in the surface water
features.
Marine water is inter-
related with groundwater
and surface water.
Enighed Pond is of particular importance to this
study because overflows from failing on-site septic
systems used by many homes on the surrounding hill-
sides flow into this pond, as does the discharge
from the existing public wastewater treatment plant
(see Figure II-l in the previous chapter). The soil
discharges poorly treated wastewater effluent into
the pond. Therefore, the Pond is quite turbid, with
the water quality degraded and eutrophication taking
place. Residents once fished from this Pond but no
longer do so because of the potential health threat
from eating fish caught in this Pond.
The Pond does support biota of surprisingly high
diversity. This ecosystem is discussed in Section 6
of this chapter.
A narrow channel connects Enighed Pond to Turner
Bay, providing minimal tidal flushing that carries
some of the wastewater effluent from the Pond into
Turner Bay.
Neither the Pond nor the channel is regularly moni-
tored for water quality.
c. Marine Water
Marine water is the third essential component of the
interrelationship between water resources in the
study area. Water from the sea affects groundwater
and surface water through subsurface intrusion and
coastal flooding. It is, in turn, affected by both
ground and surface water as the eventual recipient
of runoff. For the purpose of this discussion,
"Marine Water" may be defined as water in the bays
and nearshore waters (generally less than 1 km (.62
mi) offshore) surrounding the study area.
The bays which cut into the coastline of the study
area are Fish Bay, Rendezous Bay (which includes
Klein Bay, Monte Bay, and Hart Bay), Devers Bay,
Chocolate Hole, Great Cruz Bay, Turner Bay, Frank
Bay, and Cruz Bay. The bays on the south coast of
the study area receive little use by humans and are
more likely to have excellent water quality and
habitat value for marine life. Great Cruz Bay
serves as an anchorage for many yachts and is
currently disturbed by the construction of a large
hotel complex at the head of the Bay. The construc-
tion impacts, particularly sedimentation, are not
major and are not expected to have a long-term
effect on the quality of water in this bay.
III-9
-------
NATIONAL PARK
Study Area Boundary
NPS Bounldar
ipperJaqo
ock
LAGOONS OR COASTAL PONQS
MAJOR GUTS OR INTERMITTENT
STREAMS
MAJOR DRA
NAGE DIVIDES ^
endezvous
49
NPS Boundary
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
Title;
SURFACE WATER/DRAINAGE
Source: USGS/CEM
Pate; 2/86 I Scale: 1'-? 1,350 [Figure; III-8
-------
Cruz Bay, the most
active bay in the
study area, con-
tains various
contaminants from
run off.
A detailed study
of marine currents
has been conducted
for this project.
The quality of
marine water off-shore
or the study area Is
very good.
The primary source
of drinking water for
residents and com-
mercial establish-
ments Is from roof
top catchment and
cistern storage
systems.
Cruz Bay is the most active, in terms of human use.
It serves as sheltered anchorage for many yachts and
other boats; a docking for ferries from St. Thomas,
cruise ships, supply ships, and VI National Park
ships; and an approach and landing area for the sea
plane from St. Thomas and other nearby Islands.
Water quality in Turner Bay is of particular impor-
tance to this study because effluent from the exist-
ing wastewater treatment plant that works its way
into Enighed pond is introduced to Turner Bay via
connecting the channel from Enighed Pond. The VI
Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
(DCCA) has conducted monthly water quality sampling
in Turner Bay since 1973 in order to monitor the
impact of this discharge. A record of the quality
of these water samples is contained at the back of
the Benthic Survey report in Appendix D. Water
quality in Turner Bay does not consistently meet the
VI coastal water quality standards. For example,
some of the samples taken contained fecal coliform,
nitrate, and nitrite levels which were above the
maximum levels allowed by the standards.
Marine currents in the nearshore and offshore waters
surrounding the study area flow in variable direc-
tions and are very strong. A detailed study of
current velocity, direction, and dispersion rates
has been conducted as part of this project. A
comprehensive presentation of the study's findings
is presented in Appendix E.
The high velocity and dispersion rate of the marine
currents serves to dilute the wastewater effluent
that is discharged directly to the sea by several
homes near the shore in Turner Bay and off Moravian
Point.
d. Water Supply
Residents and commercial establishments in the study
area obtain drinking water primarily from rooftop
catchment and cistern storage systems. These
systems are required in all new homes by the VI
building code. Each 30.3m (100 ft ) of rooftop may
supply .019m (5 gallons (gal)) per day, according
to (Grigg, 1985, p.7). The quality of this water is
generally acceptable to residents for drinking.
In addition to rainwater catchment, water is barged
from the desalination plant in St. Thomas (300,000
gallon capacity per barge). Water is also pumped
from the wells of the aquifer underlying the Adrian
111-10
-------
Water Is also barged
from the desalina-
tion plant in St,
Thomas.
Public consumption Is
the primary use of water
In the study area.
area. Residents prefer the taste of rain water to
the desalinated or well water, but must rely on the
latter sources during droughts.
The water imported from St. Thomas is mixed with the
water pumped from the Adrian aquifer and stored in
four municipal water tanks near the center of Cruz-
Bay. The combined capacity of these tanks is 3030m
(800,000 gal).
This water is distributed to residents in concen-
trated areas of Cruz Bay through a network of pipes.
This water distribution system is operated by the VI
Department of Public Works (DPW) and constitutes the
only public water supply in the study area.
The VI Water and Power Authority (WAPA) operates the
desalination plant located in Krum Bay on St.
Thomas. DPW must purchase water from WAPA and
transport it by barge to St. John. Consumers pay
DPW $14.50/3.79 mj (1,000 gal) for this water,
although the cost to DPW is .greater. In fiscal year
1984, an estimated 246,212nr (6.5 million gal) of
water was brought to St. John this way. While the
desalination plant produces a relatively reliable
supply of water, the high cost to DPW plus the cost
of barging it to St. John make this an impractical
water supply source.
It is less expensive to pump water from the Adrian
wells and pipe this water approximately 3.2 km (2
mi) to the municipal storage tanks. Approximately
379m pd (100,000 gpd) of water is currently being
pumped from the Adrian wells. However, this source
is unreliable in both quantity and quality. Over
pumping of these wells could cause groundwater
contamination through salt water intrusion. The
well pumps are therefore shut off completely by DPW
during severe droughts.
e. Water Use
Water in the study area is primarily used for public
consumption by residents. Other uses are commercial
(plumbing in shops and other businesses) and insti-
tutional (plumbing for the public school and govern-
ment offices and a supply for the fire department to
fight fires).
Table III-2 shows the estimated amount of current
water use in the study area by categories of use.
These estimates reflect very conservative water use
by residents of the study area, due to the limited
water supply. Residents are forced to conserve,
III-ll
-------
TABLE 111-2
EXISTING
Residential
Population (persons)
Use per capita per day (gpcd)
Total Residential Water Use
Hotels
# Rooms
Use per room (gprd)
Total Hotel Water Use gpd
Restaurants
# Tables
Use per table per day (gptd)
Total Rest. Water Use (gpd)
Workers
# Workers
Use per worker per day (gpwd)
Total Worker Water Use (gpd)
Schools
# Students
Use per student (gpsd)
Total School Water Use (gpd)
WATER USE
1985-86 % of Total Use
1,869* 51
25
47,400**
84 14
150
12,600
188 20
100
18,880
490 8
15
7,350
400 7
15
6,000
Total Water Use
92,203
TOTAL 100
*520 Served by existing sewer system.
**13,000 gpd flow to existing sewer system.
gprd = gallons per room per day
gptd = gallons per table per day
gpwd = gallons per worker per day
gpsd = gallons per student per day
111-12
-------
Ecosystems on St. John
may be divided into
three groups:
. terrestrial,
. coastal, and
. marine.
Terrestrial ecosystems
are defined by vege-
tation types.
using rainwater for potable and cooking purposes and
water from the public water supply for washing or
supplementing potable water when necessary. Those
who are not served by the public water supply are
particularly conservative in their water use,
especially during droughts.
Ecosystems
Ecosystems are interrelated communities of plants, ani-
mals, bacteria, and other physical and chemical features
which occur in any given environment. The diversity and
character of ecosystems in the study area have been
shaped by climatic, meteorological, geologic and hydro-
logic conditions. The extremely dry climate and thin
soils, for instance, are responsible for the predom-
inantly scrub-covered or nearly barren hillsides, while
the deep "gut" valleys provide a protected environment
for more dense, moist vegetation. An unusually dry fall
may diminish the success of a moist forest ecosystem and
promote the spread of a dry scrub ecosystem in its place.
Ecosystems on St. John may be divided into three distinct
groups: terrestrial ecosystems, littoral or coastal
ecosystems, and marine ecosystems. The following discus-
sion will focus on the location, habitat value, and
general status of the various ecosystems within each of
these groups. Terrestrial and coastal ecosystems are
shown in Figure III-9.
a. Terrestrial Ecosystems
A recent study by the U.S. National Park Service
(NFS) identified and analyzed vegetation types on
St. John (Woodbury and Weaver, 1984) The categories
identified in the NPS report are considered eco-
systems because they correspond with animal habi-
tats. Terrestrial ecosystems in the study area are
categorized by the following vegetation types:
Dry Evergreen Woodland
Dry Evergreen Thicket or Scrub
Thorn and Cactus
Upland Moist Forest
Basin Moist Forest
Gallery Moist Forest
Pasture
Urban
Figure III-9 shows the location of these ecosystems.
111-13
-------
NATIONAL PARK
Sjtndy Area Boun
ipper Jacfo
ock
MANGROVE FRI
DRY EVERGREEN
UMY tVtrHJHttl>
THORN AND CAQTUS
URBAN
XvvSfl PASTURE
ALLERY
MOIST FOREST
MOIST FOREST
Boatman
Pt
JPLAND
MOIST FOREST
ROCK PAVEMEN
AND COASTAL HEDGE
endezvous
Stutfy Area Boundary
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
™et VEGETATION TYPES
Source; WOODBURY/WEAVER, 1985; GEM, 1986
Date; 2/86 Jscale; 1V 1,350 |Flgure: |||-9
-------
The dry evergreen
woodland is the
most well-rep-
resented of all
the ecosystems in
the study area.
Because of shallow
soils and exposure
to wind and salt
spray, the vege-
tation is short.
(1) Dry Evergreen Woodland
The dry evergreen woodland ecosystem is pre-
dominantly characterized by dense stands of
relatively short (usually less than 10m (33
ft.) in height) evergreens located on hillsides
which are well-drained and covered by a thin
layer of soil. This is the most well-repre-
sented of all the ecosystems in the study area.
It is located primarily in the center of the
study area, although it extends to the shore on
the northern side of Cruz Bay. Species diver-
sity in this ecosystem is relatively low due to
stresses associated with its dry and unpro-
tected character. Dominant plant species
include the common sea grape, Coccoloba uvi-
fera, the shrub Oplonia spinosa, the vfne
Tragia volubilis, and the herb Talinum trian-
gulare. Dominant animal species include the
indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus). and
various reptiles. Other animals present
include the feral goat, donkey, pig, common
rat, norway rat, house mouse, bat, and possib-
ly, the white tailed deer. The dry evergreen
woodland is generally not a suitable habitat
for the various species of shorebirds which
inhabit St. John.
(2) Dry Evergreen Thicket or Scrub
This ecosystem is characterized by dense stands
of scrub vegetation, usually less than 3m (10
ft) tall. Many of the dominant trees and
bushes have very small leaves and long thorns.
This ecosystem is well represented in the study
area; particularly on coastal hillsides, but
also on the eastern slopes of Gift Hill. The
shallow soils and exposure to wind and salt
spray account for the shorter, tougher charac-
ter of vegetation than in the dry evergreen
woodland ecosystem.
Dominant species of vegetation include the sea
grape, Coccoloba uvifera and various scrubs of
the Croton-Acacia association. While the
mongoose and various reptiles may thrive in
this ecosystem, the scrub cover type generally
provides neither the cover nor the access
necessary for larger mammals such as the deer
or donkey.
111-14
-------
(3) Thorn and Cactus
The thorn and cactus
ecosystem on Lind
Point provides
habitat for few
animals.
The upland moist
forest ecosystem is
characterized by well-
developed stands of
relatively tall,
broad-leafed trees.
Basin moist forest
ecosystems are locat-
ed in low elevations
near the coast.
This ecosystem is characterized by short dry
scrub and cactus growing from rocky slopes
above the shoreline. Only a small portion of
the study area, the tip of Lind Point, is
characterized by the thorn and cactus ecosys-
tem. Dominant species of vegetation include
the scrub Pic ten a aculeata and the cacti Pilo-
cereous rpyenii and OptunTa (Consolea) rube-
scens.This dry, rocky environment provides
habitat for few animals, but reptiles, such as
the dwarf gecko Spaerodactylus macro!epis may
thrive.
(4) Upland Moist Forest
This ecosystem is located in the high, gently
sloping interior land in the northeastern part
of the study area and is characterized by well-
developed stands of relatively tall broad-
leafed trees. The gentle slopes allow more
retention of rain water than in previously
discussed ecosystems, providing habitat for
more water-dependent species. Portions of this
area were evidently not affected by the early
settlers' clear-cutting for agriculture.
According to Woodbury and Weaver, "this forest
is variable ranging from degraded in stages of
recovery, through almost pure stands of the
cinnamon or bay rum tree, to an almost virgin
stand with few or no introduced species."
(1985, p. 12). Larger mammals which need water
frequently would be more successful here than
in previous ecosystems, as would various
species of birds due to the presence of both an
emergent and continuous canopy of trees (pro-
viding surveillance and cover potential).
(5) Basin Moist Forest
This ecosystem is generally characterized by
three layers of trees: a lower layer at 5-10m
(16-33 ft) above ground level, a middle layer
at 15m (50 ft), and an emergent canopy rising
up to 20-25m (65-80 ft). Most of the trees are
evergreens. What distinguishes it most from
the upland moist forest, however, is its
location in low elevations near the coast. The
basin moist forest ecosystem occupies only a
small portion of the study area near Hart Bay
and Chocolate Hole. The ecological signifi-
cance of this ecosystem is enhanced by its
111-15
-------
The gallery moist
forest ecosystem Is
highly dependent on
rainfall,
Pasture land Is
characterized by
moderate slopes,
proximity to the coastal ponds surrounding
these two bays. As the ponds provide a valua-
ble feeding habitat for many species of birds,
the nearby multistoried canopy of the basin
moist forest is likely to provide a valuable
nesting habitat. This ecosystem also provides
adequate habitat for many mammal and reptile
species.
(6) Gallery Moist Forest
This ecosystem is characterized by the tallest
(up to 30m (100 ft) tall) and most water-depend-
ent terrestrial vegetation in the study area.
Confined to major guts, the gallery moist
forest is also shaded and well-protected from
the wind. Most of the trees are young, how-
ever, due to occasional destructive flooding.
Both the canopy and understory are relatively
dense, providing cover for large and small
animals. This ecosystem, like the other moist
forests, is more suitable to large, water-
dependent mammals than other ecosystems. Due
to its varied cover and distribution in the
study area, the gallery moist forest is also
likely to provide suitable habitat for a wide
diversity of wildlife species. However, more
than any one other ecosystem its condition and
health depends on periodic rainfall.
(7) Pasture
The two small tracts of pasture land in the
study area are characterized by moderate slopes
with an extremely short herbaceous cover,
typically bermuda grass (Cynodon dactyl on) with
occasional Acacia scrubs. These areas are no
longer in active agricultural use.
(8) Urban
Much of the western portion of the study area
is urban land, covered primarily by buildings
and infrastructure. This category has little
ecological value.
b. Littoral/Coastal Ecosystems
The Woodbury and Weaver study addressed two very
small but important ecosystems associated with the
study areas littoral zone: the mangrove fringe and
rock pavement/coastal hedge. Another ecosystem
which will be addressed in this subsection is the
sandy beach.
111-16
-------
The Mangrove fringe,
rock pavement/coastal
hedge and the sandy
beach are three other
ecosystems.
(1) Mangrove Fringe
The mangrove fringe is the most sensitive of
all ecosystems to impacts resulting from human
activities occurring in the study area.
Fringes are located on the shore of Fish Bay,
along the north shore of Cruz Bay, the pond at
the head of Chocolate Hole, and degraded or
incompletely zoned fringes surrounding Enighed
Pond.
The underwater roots of mangrove trees are
often encrusted with marine shellfish. Sub-
merged mangrove root areas also serve an
important function as nurseries for juvenile
fish and other marine organisms.
In addition to their function as landbuilders,
mangrove communities protect coastal areas from
erosion with their prop roots acting as sedi-
ment traps, while slowing down water velocity.
They are particularly important in limiting
shoreline damage caused by hurricanes. They
also help protect marine water quality by trap-
ping sediment and contaminants associated with
runoff water.
(2) Rock Pavement and Coastal Hedge
The steep rocky promontories in the study area
are characterized by a mixture of barren
bedrock and very short (usually less than 1m
(3.3 ft)) brush cover. Exposure to the prevail-
ing wind and salt spray stress these plants and
limit their height to 1m (3.3 ft). This
ecosystem is found on the east and southeast
faces of Dittlif Point, Boatman Point, Bovocoap
Point, and Maria Bluff/Blasbalg Point.
Most of the brush, or hedge, consists of the
species Coccoloba uvifera, the common sea
grape. Various species of cacti are also
present. The hedge provides excellent nesting
habitat for shore birds such as the sandwich
tern, roseate tern, royal tern, and laughing
gull.
(3) Sandy Beach
The sandy beach ecosystem includes the primari-
ly vegetation-free, sandy fore-beach and the
vegetated berm. This ecosystem is found at the
heads of Hart Bay, Chocolate Hole, Great Cruz
Bay, Turner Bay, Frank Bay, and the west cove
of Cruz Bay.
111-17
-------
A detolled study of
benthlc-marlne com-
munities offshore of
the study area has
been conducted.
Coral reef communities
are among the most
complex and productive
ecosystems.
Beaches in the less disturbed areas of Hart Bay
and Chocolate Hole may provide nesting habitat
for the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbri-
cata). Other species of sea turtle (See
Section 7 of this Chapter) tend to be more
selective in terms of nesting habitat, but have
been known to nest in more remote beaches on
St. John, outside of the study area. Hawks-
bills generally nest in the vegetated berm
rather than the sandy fore-beach.
Various crabs and shorebirds also inhabit the
beaches in the study area.
c. Marine Ecosystems
A detailed study of benthic-marine communities
offshore of the study area has been conducted for
this project. Detailed findings of this study are
included in Appendix D and summarized in this
subsection.
The two distinct marine ecosystems that have been
identified are the coral reefs and the grass beds as
shown in Figure 111-10.
(1) Coral Reefs
The clear nearshore waters surrounding St. John
support an abundant growth of coral. Deep
reefs surround nearly the entire south coast of
the study area. In Hart Bay, Monte Bay, and
part of Fish Bay there are shallow reefs of
mixed corals closer to the shore. Coral com-
munities off the west coast are dominated by a
large reef near Moravian Point and Turner Bay.
The above-referenced study focuses on this reef
because it is close to the existing treatment
plant and, therefore, may be impacted by this
project.
Coral reef communities are among the most com-
plex and productive ecosystems. They support a
higher density of organisms than other marine
habitats and the widest variety of species.
Coral species common in the littoral waters
surrounding the study area include elk horn
coral (Acropora palmata), various sea fans
(Gorgonacea spp.j, soft corals (Alcyonacea
spp.), brain coral (Daploria scrigosi), finger
coral (Porites porites furcata) and fire coral
(Millepora alcicrovis).
111-18
-------
ZONES :
ALGAL PLAIN —
SEAGRASS
SUBTIDAL
BEDROCK
DEEPER REEF
CORAL
TERRACE
O CURRENT
METER LOCATION
Q UNDERWATER
SURVEY STATION
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Bay, St. John,US Virgin Island*
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Megelre, Inc., Mew Britain, CT
Trtle:
TURNER BAY AREA
BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
1 Source: DCCA-NRM
Priv mamtd buoys
I 25
Battery ^\S
Cruz Ba/^ Pi
10
4 sec
5M
4 . & Marker
Frank Bay
n
»: 1"- 2OOm. JFIo:TII- 1 O
-------
The grass bed eco-
system provides an
important feeding
habitat for marine
turtles.
Coral reef communities support many tropical
and reef fishes as well as sponges, brittle
stars, annelids, a wide variety of arthropods
and other invertebrates. Large numbers of
larvae released by organisms inhabiting coral
reefs join floating planktonic species, and
serve as the foundation of the food chain for
larger organisms.
Beyond its habitat value, the coral reef
ecosystem is valuable for protecting the
shoreline from wave action and stabilizing the
benthic slope.
(?) Grass Beds
Beds of turtle grass (Thallassia testudinum)
and manatee grass (Cymodecea manatorum)are
located in large patches surrounding the study
area. One large patch is situated in Turner
Bay. The grasses, usually less than 1m (3.3
ft) in height, grow in depths of up to 9m (30
ft) where light penetration is sufficient for
photosynthesis to take place.
The grasses are sometimes interspaced with
patches of reef or sandy bottom. They may be
accompanied by the algae Holicystis osterhon-
tii, Canterpa spp., and Padina spp.
This ecosystem provides an important feeding
habitat for marine turtles, including the
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata). leatherback
(Dermochelys coriacea), and green (Chelonia
mydas) turtles.
Other species which may be present in this
ecosystem include the queen conch (Strombus
gigas), Helmut shells (Cassias tuberosa and
Grithium litteratum), sea cucumber (Holothuria
mexicana), and sea urchins (Tripneustes escul-
entus and Litechinus variegatus).Many species
of fish visit and feed in this ecosystem.
7. Rare and Endangered Species
In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, EPA initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) in order to identify threatened and
endangered species which may be affected by this project.
The following information is based directly on the
results of these consultations.
111-19
-------
There are seven en-
dangered species of
birds in the study
area,
Several species of both flora and fauna which are present
in the study area are considered endangered, threatened,
rare or endemic.
Endangered species are those which are in immediate
danger of extinction throughout all or most of their
range, and threatened species are those which are likely
to become endangered in the near future (Dowhan and
Craig, 1976). Rare species are those which do not occur
commonly in a given area, and, therefore, generally
include both endangered and threatened species. Endemic
species are those which occur only in a specific area of
the world. In addition to these classifications, both
the United States and the Virgin Islands maintain lists
of endangered and threatened species, as shown in Appen-
dix F. These lists differ somewhat according to the
status of the species in the United States in contrast to
its status in the Virgin Islands.
a. Vegetation
Two species of vegetation which occur in the study
area are listed as endangered by the Institute of
Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico: Zanthoxylum
thomasianum and Tillandsia lineatispica. The
former, commonly known as prickly ash, is found on
the eastern slopes of Gift Hill. The latter is a
small herbaceous shrub which is found in the same
area. In addition to these, Erythrina eggersii, a
small leguminaceous shrub found in Fish Bay Gut, is
being proposed as a Category 3 species. Inclusion
in Category 3 means that the species should be
recognized as threatened, but more study is required
to determine its actual population status.
Two species which are found on Maria Bluff have
recently been listed by Woodbury and "are believed
to be extremely limited in distribution" (R. Boulon,
DCCA, January 21 Letter to EPA). These are Byrsoni-
ma sp. and Psidium sp. Significant habitat for
species of vegetation are shown in Figure III-ll.
b. Wildlife
Most of the threatened or endangered species of
wildlife in the study area are birds. The following
terrestrial birds are considered locally endangered:
(1) White Crowned Pigeon (Columba 1eycocephala),
found on the east side of Fish Bay;
(2) Puerto Rican (Stolid) Flycatcher (Myiarchus
stolidus) found in the lower parts of the Fish
Bay watershed;
111-20
-------
NATIONAL PARK
Study Are* Bou/n/da/r
0—^ /
SIGNIFICANT HABITAT
endezvous
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
NPS Boundary
I
Stud
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
SIGNIFICANT HABITAT
source: DGCA, CE MAGUIRE, INC.
Pate; 1 / 86 [scale; 1 "» 1.3 5 0' {Figure; |||-11
-------
Marine turtles which
Inhabltat waters
around St. John ore
also endangered.
(3) Puerto Rican Screech Owl (Otus nupides), may be
found in the upper parts of Fish Bay and
Battery Gut;
(4) Antillean Nighthawk (Chordeiles gundilachii),
may be found in the study area; and
(5) Peregrine Falcon (Falco perigrinus), may be
found in the study area.
Locally endangered marine birds found in the study
area are the brown pelican (Pelicanus occidental is),
and the roseate tern (Sterna~dougal1i).
Both species roost and nest in numerous places along
the shore. The pelican is also on the Federal
Endangered Species list, while the tern is proposed
for the Federal Threatened Species list.
Three species of marine turtles have been observed
offshore of the study area. The federally endan-
gered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata),
feeds on nearshore reefs and may nest on south coast
beaches. The federally endangered leatherback
turtle (Dermochelys cpriacea) and the federally
threatened green turtle(Chelonia mydas) feed on
nearshore grass beds. The loggerhead turtle (Caret-
ta caretta) and the olive ridley turtle (Lepido-
chelys olivacea) have not been observed in the
vicinity of the study area in many years.
The federally endanged humpback whale (Megaptera
novaengliae) has been observed offshore of St. John
in the winter and spring.
Finally, the locally endangered common iguana
(Iguana iguana) was at one time frequently observed
in the Great Cruz Bay/Chocolate Hole area, but may
now be eliminated by its predator, the Indian
mongoose.
8. National Park/Protected Land
The majority of the Virgin Islands National Park land is
on St. John, occupying most of its northern shore,
central interior, and south central/eastern shore. Over
two- thirds of the Island is part of the National Park,
and is, therefore, protected under NPS regulations.
a. National Park Service (NPS)
Though the Park headquarters is located at Redhook
on St. Thomas, the operations office is located on
111-21
-------
Over two thirds of
the island is pro-
tected by the Nat-
ional Park Service
(N.P.S.).
Regulations .and
special conditions
listed in the Virgin
Islands National Park
General Management
Plan dictate use of
NPS land,
St. John at Cruz Bay Creek. The maintenance activi-
ties are also located near Cruz Bay Creek, just east
of the operations office.
The park boundaries are shown in Figure 111-12. As
mentioned above, the Park's umbrella shape covers
most of St. John's northern shore, central interior
and south central/eastern shore. The boundaries of
the National Park will be changing if proposed
additions and deletions in the Virgin Islands
Development Concept Plan are implemented by congres-
sional legislation. These proposed additions/dele-
tions are also shown in Figure 111-12.
The NPS has governing powers on all federally-owned
lands within the park boundaries, as well as off-
shore water areas, though these offshore water zones
also fall under the supervision of the Army Corps of
Engineers, the VI government and the U.S. Coast
Guard.
The National Park Service cooperates with the VI
government in matters pertaining to traffic control,
street rights-of-way, public health and safety laws,
water resource regulations, wildlife and environ-
mental statutes. Also, all acts of the VI govern-
ment and U.S. Code of Federal Regulations apply to
lands and waters within the National Park Bound-
aries.
Regulations through various permits and agreements
have been established to supplement park operations.
Among those are the following regulations and
conditions listed in the VI National Park General
Management Plan.
(1) August, 1982 zoning regulations that permit
residential development on most privately owned
park lands,
(2) Act 806 (1962) which specifies road maintenance
and improvements by the park service, but
allows ownership and jurisdiction to remain
with the VI government,
(3) Various concessionaire contracts for related
visitor services,
(4) The Cruz Bay playing field (baseball diamond)
near the NPS visitor center,
(5) Seaplane ramp in Cruz Bay for connecting
service with St. Croix and St. Thomas,
111-22
-------
NATIONAL PARK
Study Ar«« BOH*
60
NPS pounder*
LANDS TO BE
ADDED BY THE NPS
LANDS TO BE
DELETED BY THE NPS
NPS LAND
CRUZ BAY WASTE WATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, CT
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
|Fl9uros 111-12
-------
The Enighed Pond area
is designated as an
area of particular
concern.
(6) Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
bulkhead use in Cruz Bay Creek,
(7) Telephone Company utility rights-of-way, and
(8) Radio tower usage agreements with various
private and public agencies.
b. Coastal Zone Management
The areas designated in the proposed Coastal Zone
Management Plan are shown in Figure 111-13. Most of
the southern section within the study area is
designated for Residential Low Density and Protec-
tion. The area surrounding the ponds just north of
Chocolate Hole and Hart Bay are designated for
preservation. The Cruz Bay area, the Frank Bay area
and the site of the Virgin Grand - St. John Hotel
are proposed for Conservation, Recreation and
Traditional Uses. Both the Chocolate Hole/Hart Bay
area and the Cruz Bay/Enighed Pond area are desig-
nated as "Areas of Particular Concern" (APC). The
Virgin Islands CZM Act of 1978 requires that the CZM
Program especially recognize APC's by making "provi-
sion for procedures whereby specific areas may be
designated for the purpose of preserving or restor-
ing them for their conservation, recreational,
ecological, or esthetic values." (Section
306(c)(a)).
A Coastal Zone Manage-
ment (CZM) permit Is
required for any dev-
elopment occurring in
CZM zones.
Water Dependent and Related Commercial - Marine
Facilities are proposed for Enighed Pond after
dredging operations take place. The Enighed Pond
area is an APC because of its sensitivity, i.e.,
ecological value and the potential for adverse
impacts due to development. The second APC is the
area northeast of Chocolate Hole designated for
preservation, conservation, recreation or tradition-
al uses.
A CZM permit is required for any development occur-
ring in these zones. The permit is granted on the
condition that the proposed development is consis-
tent with the type of land use proposed for that
zone by the Virgin Islands' CZM Act of 1978. Resi-
dential development is not considered consistent
with "preservation" and "conservation" zones shown
in Figure 111-13. Only certain levels of develop-
ment are consistent with the "Protection, Residen-
tial Low Density" zones.
111-23
-------
Valuable cultural
resources In the
study area should
be protected.
The air quality of
St. John Is excel-
lent.
The north shore of Fish Bay, though originally
planned for protection and residential low density,
is currently zoned for beach and resort activities
according to the Virgin Islands Government Zoning,
September 1983.
9. Cultural Resources
A Stage 1A Cultural Resource Survey was conducted by MAAR
Associates in June and July, 1985. It covered the area
known as the core (or original) study area. The expanded
study area was also studied under a Stage 1A Cultural
Resource investigation (February, 1986). A "Stage 1A"
survey is a preliminary investigation of existing records
that is conducted in order to identify the potential for
cultural resources in an area. Based on the recommenda-
tions of the stage 1A surveys, a stage IB survey was
conducted by MAAR in July, 1986 in order to investigate
the projects potential impacts on cultural resources more
closely. These surveys are summarized in Appendix J.
The areas of archaeological significance or sensitivity
are shown in Figure 111-14. They consist mainly of
historic and post-emancipation archaeological sites. The
stage IB survey did not find significant cultural re-
sources in sites which would be affected by the construc-
tion or operation of proposed wastewater facilities.
10. Air Quality
The Island of St. John has excellent air quality.
Pollutants and other particulates from automobiles have
no noticeable effect on the air quality and industry-
related pollutants are non-existent because there is no
industry on St. John. There is a small auxiliary elec-
trical generating station near Enighed Pond that operates
only when there is a transmission problem from St.
Thomas. Its infrequent use produces negligible amounts
of pollutants. Also, occasional fires occur at the
landfill site and are a source of air pollution. The
Island is constantly subject to strong easterly trade-
winds, which have a great effect on the dispersion/mixing
of the few existing pollutants. Future air emission
sources will exist from two 1260 Kv emergency generators
and a 360 Ib/hr incinerator atthe Virgin Grand Hotel near
Great Cruz Bay.
111-24
-------
NATIONAL PARK
Study Area Bonn
,60
NPS jBoundar
ipper Jacfo
ock
Moravian
Q
PROTECTION,
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
CONSERVATION,
TRADITIONAL USES
PRESERVATION
APC AREA OF
PARTICULAR CONCERN
endezvous
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, SL John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, CT
COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT LAND
Sourc«: C Z M, 1979
[Figure; 111 - 1 3
-------
NATIONAL PARK
Study Area Bounda
60
NPS Bountiar
ipper Jacfo
ock
AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SENSITIVITY
endezvous
Boundary
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 81
CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, GT
Tlt'*! CULTURAL RESOURCES
Source: VIPWD/MAAR ASSOC., 1985
Pate; 1/8 6 [ Scale: 1"aa 1,350
[Figure; III- 1 4
-------
11. Noise
Power boats, the
sea plane and the
few vehicles on St.
John are primary
sources of noise.
Zoning and land use
regulations are im-
plemented by the
Virgin Island Plan-
ning Office.
Primary sources of noise on St. John include the Island's
few vehicles, powerboats and the seaplane (located in
Cruz Bay). The electrical generator near Enighed Pond
may also emit significant decibel (dBA) levels, but since
it^is used only as an emergency backup generator, the
noise impacts are minimal. There are various short-term
or temporary noise impacts on St. John. The most note-
worthy are construction projects, outdoor music concerts,
diesel trucks and poorly maintained automobiles and
motorcycles.
12. Energy
St. John is supplied with electrical power from an under-
water cable across Pillsbury Sound from Redhook, St.
Thomas to a point near Moravian Point. As mentioned
before, there is also an emergency generator located on
the east end of Enighed Pond. Power generation is
adequate for St. John's demand, but maintenance should be
improved to ensure power generation.
Nearly all of the electricity is used for domestic
lighting and appliances. There is no dominant user of
electricity on St. John due to the lack of industry,
heavy or otherwise. In the future, however, the Virgin
Grand Hotel (currently under construction) will in all
likelihood be a major user of electricity on St. John.
Gasoline is imported to St. John from St. Thomas and is
distributed by several gas stations for private use in
cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, etc.
13. Zoning and Land Use
The Virgin Island Planning Office (VIPO) is the principal
governmental body responsible for implementing regula-
tions affecting zoning and land use on St. John. Their
goals are to protect the National Park lands and other
natural resources while maintaining flexibility for
improvements to the Islands and their inhabitants so that
public service is sustained.
The VIPO has adopted a land use plan in accordance with
the recommendations of the Coastal Zone Management
Program of 1972, 1978. Zoning and land use patterns are
described in the following subsections.
111-25
-------
a. Zoning
Existing zoning boundaries are shown in Figure
111-15. Most of the land within the study area is
zoned as R-2 Residential, low-density, one and two
family houses, and comprises 368 ha (920 ac).
Residential zones Maximum density allowed is 2 dwelling units (du) per
predominate within 10,000 square feet (fir). R-2 zoning is primarily
tne siuay area. located inland, but also encompasses the Great Cruz
Bay, Chocolate Hole and Moravian Point areas.
Lands zoned for residential, low-density use (R-l)
comprise the next greatest amount of land area.
These lands occupy 234.4 ha (586 ac) and allow for a
maximum of 2 du/1/2 acre. R-l zoning is also
located in the interior of the Island, while also
encompassing Rendezvous Bay and Fish Bay.
Lands zoned for public use (P) account for the third
largest area in the study area. Some residential
and commercial activity had once been allowed within
the borders of the VI National Park. However, zon-
ing policies are now more restrictive to develop-
ment. Public lands occupy 52 ha (130 ac) in the
study area. These areas are identified as the VI
National Park and Enighed Pond.
Waterfront-pleasure (W-l) zoning occupies 36.4 ha
(91 ac) within the study area~ Its maximum allowa-
ble density is 2 du/10,000 ft . Areas of W-l zoning
include the northeastern shore of Chocolate Hole,
the eastern shore of Great Cruz Bay, the southern
and southwestern shore of Cruz Bay and the north-
eastern shore of Frank Bay.
Next are areas of R-3, R-4, medium-density residen-
tial areas that occupy 16 ha (40 ac) within the
study area. The maximum density allowed within this
zone is 80 persons per acre. R-3 zoning exists
along the northeast shore of Cruz Bay and R-4 zoning
exists in St. John's most heavily populated areas of
southern Enighed and northeastern Contant.
Business-secondary/neighborhood zoning (B-2) allows
maximum density of 80 persons per acre and occupies
1.6 ha (4 ac) in the study area. It is located
northwest of Roman Hill and northeast of Great Cruz
Bay along Route 104.
The area shaded in grey on Figure 111-15 is a highly
detailed mixed area of zoning that includes all of
the aforementioned zones.
111-26
-------
NATIONAL PARK
Study Ar«a BO
.60
AREA OF DETAIL
ED ZONING DIVISI
WATERFRONT, BUBLIC)
(RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS
R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, - R
ESIDENTIAL ZONES
B-2 - BUSINESS ZONE
W-1 - WATERFRONT ZO
P - PUBLIC ZONE
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay. St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region Bl
CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
ZONNG
; VI PLANNING OFFICE, 1972
1/86 Iscale: 1'^1,350' |Flguresv|||-15
-------
b. Land Use
Figure 111-16 shows the distribution of land use on
Pnrk and wooded land St> John within the study area- Sparsely developed
use predominates on park/wooded lands occupy the greatest amount of land
St. John. in the study area. Nearly all of it is located
inland. There is some housing in these areas, but
it is very sparse. Sparsely developed park/wooded
lands account for 465.74 ha (1164.36 ac) in the
study area.
Residential land accounts for the second greatest
percentage of use in the study area. It occupies a
total of 274 ha (686 ac). There are two types of
residential land use in the area, residential
low-density and residential medium-density. Resid-
ential low-density accounts for 261 ha (651 ac). It
is defined by a maximum of 2 dwelling units per 1/2
acre and is identified throughout the study area.
Residential medium-density accounts for 14 ha (35
ac) and is defined by 80 persons per acre. The area
of residential medium-density is located on the
southeast shore of Enighed Pond and north of Great
Cruz Bay.
Commercial land use in the study area is contained
within three areas totalling 11 ha (27 ac). The
largest of these is located in the Cruz Bay area.
It includes a mixture of hotels/condominiums, office
buildings and numerous shops and restaurants.
Another area of commercial activity occurs on a
small strip east of Enighed Pond. This includes a
solar energy distributor and a converted warehouse
containing several stores. Finally, there is a
proposed area of commercial use, including the
Virgin Grand - St. John Hotel, now under construc-
tion. It is located on the east coast of Great Cruz
Bay.
St. John's government is concentrated in Cruz Bay.
The total amount of land in the study area occupied
(and proposed) by government/institutional lands is
7 ha (18 ac). These areas include the administra-
tor's residence in Cruz Bay, the customs office,
gravel stockpiles and propane tanks in the VI
National Park, the school buildings and proposed
government center in Enighed along the north shore
of Enighed Pond and a small section of land between
Turner Bay and Enighed Pond that contains the sewage
111-27
-------
The primary influx
of money into St.
John's economy is
from tourism.
Commercial activity
is concentrated in
Cruz Bay.
treatment plant. The smallest land use, .39 ha (.97
ac), in the study area is the Port area near the
ferry dock and the docks near the National Park
Service and customs office.
There are currently four proposed developments and
an ongoing hotel expansion project in the study
area. An open market is proposed across from the
National Park Service docks, a government center
near the existing school, a proposed marine terminal
in Enighed Pond and the aforementioned Virgin Grand
Hotel. In addition, the Gallows Point hotel complex
is being expanded.
14. Economic Characteristics
Due to its low productivity, capacity, and lack of
natural resources, St. John is heavily dependent on the
importation of goods and services from its neighbors in
the West Indies, United States and Europe. (United
States and European goods and services are usually
imported via St. Thomas.)
Since the 1950's, the primary influx of money has come
from tourism. (Documented from George F. Tyson, Jr.,
references, Cultural Resource Survey, St. John USVI, MAAR
Associates, Inc., September, 1985.)
The majority of the working population of St. John is
involved in various aspects of the tourism industry. The
economy will continue to be dependent on tourism, as
evidenced by the increasing amount of rental units and
the construction of the Virgin Grand - St. John Hotel.
The majority of commercial activity occurs in Cruz Bay.
Shops, restaurants, lodging and pubs comprise the blend
of activity on St. John. Cruise ships dock in Cruz Bay
and their passengers are taxied to all the local activi-
ties.
There are no industrial establishments on St. John. Lack
of relatively flat lands, water and population base will
likely prevent industry from establishing itself on St.
John.
The latest population figures (1980 U.S. Census) for St.
John show a population base of 2,490 people. Though the
current growth rate fluctuates between 1.2 and 1.6
percent per annum, the rate will probably increase as
facilities and services improve on St. John.
111-28
-------
rothers
78
EXISTING:
6.?
71
NFS Boundary
o->
RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY
COMMERCIAL
WOODED /SPARSELV DEVELC
"77,
\
GOVT./INSTITUTIONKL
PROPOSED:
(?) Proposed Open Market
Proposed Governrm
Proposed Marine T« rminal
nt Center
Proposed Hotel Conplex (Under Construction)^
'5) Existing Hotel (Under/Expansion)
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Maguire, Inc., New Britain, CT
Title;
LAND USE
source; D.I. GRIGG. CZM PROGRAM, GEM
Date; 2/86 |Scale: 1^1.350* JFIgura: |||^16
80 .
n /!
NATIONAL PARK
Blast
Jovocoap
Boatman
Pt
^
4,9
MPS
Boundary
-------
A marine and govern-
ment center are pro-
posed to be cons-
tructed in the study
area.
15. Other Projects
On-going territorial and local Government plans call for
two major publicly-funded construction related projects
in the study area: a marina and a Government center. It
is difficult to predict when or if either of these
projects will actually be implemented. Further, it is
unlikely that the availability of improved public waste-
water facilities would influence whether or not these
projects are implemented. Nonetheless, the projects must
be considered in terms of their relationships to the
present wastewater facilities plan.
The Virgin Islands Port Authority (VIPA) has recently
completed a feasibility study for a proposed project
involving the construction of a marine facilities center
in Enighed Pond. The proposed plan calls for dredging a
5.5m (18 ft) deep channel from Turner Bay into the Pond,
dredging and filling significant portions of the Pond's
shoreline, and emplacing docks, utilities, and other
facilities which would be required to support the marina.
The intent of this project is to establish a new port for
commercial shipping and other boat traffic so that Cruz
Bay may be used for bathing and other recreational
activities.
The second of these projects involves plans by the Virgin
Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
(DCCA) to develop a new Government complex associated
with the school in the center of Cruz Bay. This project
would incorporate the various Government offices which
are currently scattered around Cruz Bay and western St.
John. The complex would include the existing school,
fire station, library, as well as a proposed multipurpose
recreational and cultural facility.
In addition to these two major proposals, other projects
with peripheral importance to the wastewater facilities
are planned to occur in the study area. One such project
is a proposed farmer's and craft's market to be located
just inland of the current cargo wharf in the creek area
of Cruz Bay. Another is a proposed public housing
project in Adrian, outside of the study area. Several
privately funded projects, such as real estate develop-
ment in Fish Bay and The Virgin Grand Hotel complex at
the head of Great Cruz Bay, are planned or currently
under construction. The latter is fully self contained
and includes its own wastewater treatment facilities.
16. Growth Trends
It was not until 1950 that St. John's population grew
significantly. Beginning in 1960, the population surged
from the tourism market. This was primarily due to the
111-29
-------
The greatest popu-
lation increase
occurred In the
1960's.
Seventh-eight per-
cent of the Island
population lives In
the study area.
A detailed study of
development con-
straints In the
study area was con-
ducted.
Caneel Bay development and the designation of the VI
National Park. Past growth for St. John and Cruz Bay are
shown in Table III-3.
Since the United States' purchase of the Virgin Islands,
the Cruz Bay area has been the main population center on
St. John. The latest 1980 U.S. Census figures show that
of the 2,472 residents on St. John, 1,928 (78 percent)
people reside in the study area.* The recent Needs
Survey (Appendix A) conducted for this project in
January, 1986 estimated the study area population at
2,109 residents. Table III-4 shows the existing popula-
tion calculations as obtained from the survey.
Current population growth trends have ranged from 1.2
percent per annum to 1.6 percent per annum.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
A comprehensive study of constraints to development in
the study area was conducted as part of this project.
Complete results of this study are presented in Appendix
B. The results are summarized in this section.
The purpose of the Environmental Constraints Analysis was
to identify features which are likely to constrain growth
or development in the study area and to analyze the
influence each is likely to have on this growth. This
analysis is designed to yield an indication of future
conditions in the study area.
Table III-5 summarizes the constraining characteristics
evoluted in the order of the greatest constraining
influence to the least constraining.
The most constraining categories include land zoned "P"
for public use, National Park Service land, land designa-
ted for preservation or conservation under the CZM
program, land characterized by steep slopes, densely
developed areas and the limited water supply. The
combination of these constraints (considering occasional
overlap) covers approximately 390 ac, or slightly over 20
percent of the total study area. Based on the findings
of this analysis, it is very unlikely that development
would occur within these areas.
*The United States Census identifies the Cruz Bay census
tract as one that includes all the areas studied in the
recent Cruz Bay Wastewater Facilities Plan Needs Survey,
January, 1986 (see Appendix A).
111-30
-------
TABLE III-3
POPULATION TRENDS (in # of persons)
1950
St. John
Study Area
Percentage of St. John's
Population in the Study
Area 37%
1960
1970
1980
749
280
925
600
1924
1500
2472
1930
65%
78%
78%
Source: US Census Bureau. Study area populations are
estimates based on interpolation of census tracts.
TABLE III-4
EXISTING POPULATION CALCULATIONS*
No. Permanent Ave. No. Persons
Section Dwelling Units (du's)** Per Permanent du
Cruz Bay
Enighed
Contant
Bethany
Pastore
Total Core Study
Area
Other Areas***
Total Study Area
27
310
94
68
51
550
100
650
3.2
3.7
3.2
2.6
3.1
3.4
2.4
3.2
Population
86
1,147
301
177
158
1,869
240
2,109
*Prepared by CE Maguire, Inc.
**Includes single family homes and number of dwelling units in
each multi-unit housing structure. Does not include seasonal
homes.
***Estimated from on-site and aerial photo house counts. Number
of permanent du's is accurate to within 10 du's. Approximately
70% of the du's in the other areas are permanent, including
year-round rental units.
111-31
-------
TABLE II1-5
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS*
PERCENT
AREA OF
Most Constraining Categories (Approximate acres) STUDY AREA
Steep Slopes
Development Areas
Zoning "P"
NPS/CZM Land
Flood Prone Areas
Water Supply
Second Most Constraining
Soil Limitations
Significant Habitat
Aquifer Recharge Areas
Cultural Resources
Least Constraining Categories
Public Sewer System
Power Supply
Roadways, Other Infrastructure
Services
Supplies, Conveniences
170
40
130
155
180
na
1,660
140
100
263
na
na
na
na
na
9
2.1
6.9
8.2
9.5
na
87.6
7.4
5.3
13.8
na
na
na
na
na
*Prepared by CE Maguire, Inc.
na = not applicable, non-quantifiable constraints
111-32
-------
The second most constraining categories include flood
prone areas, areas with severe soil limitations, aquifer
recharge areas, areas of significant habitat, and areas
of archaeological sensitivity ("cultural resources").
While these areas should be protected due to environ-
mental or cultural value, it is not realistic to predict
that development will be completely constrained or
prohibited from them in the absence of protective meas-
ures. Further, many of these environmentally sensitive
areas are overlapped by the constraints in the first
category. Portions of the flood prone areas, for instan-
ce, are constrained by the "P" zone, National Park land,
CZM land, and densely developed areas.
The third and least constraining categories include
communication, travel and conveniences available and
other infrastructure and services.
Consideration of the realistic influence of the various
environmental constraints that have been identified in
this report is the first step to projecting the patterns
and extent of development which will occur in the study
area. This is a crucial step in designing appropriately
located and sized wastewater facilities to meet the
projected needs of the study area.
111-33
-------
Population and water
use are two Important
future conditions for
wastewater facilities
planning.
FUTURE CONDITIONS
Consideration of environmental constraints to development
in association with existing conditions establishes a
foundation of information upon which future conditions
may be predicted. The two future conditions which are
particularly important in wastewater facilities planning
are population and water use. The amount of water used
by each consumer is assumed to be equal to the amount of
wastewater generated by each consumer. EPA regulations
require a 20-year planning period (beginning when pro-
posed facilities are expected to become operational) for
wastewater treatment facility plans. Future conditions
are, therefore, projected to the year 2010.
Population is projected (predicted) based on many fea-
tures, including environmental constraints to development
on one hand, and pressure for development on the other.
Water use projections are based primarily on two factors:
the increase in the number of water consumers and the
increase in the amount of water used by each consumer.
Population Projections
Population projections for the study area to the year
2010 are shown in Figure 111-17. Separate projections
were made for the core area and extended area because of
the different development potential in these areas. In
particular, there are fewer constraints in the extended
area than in the core area.
The first step to making these projections was to consi-
der the development saturation point of the core and
extended study areas based on the environmental con-
straints analysis. The saturation point is a theoretical
estimate of the area's maximum capacity for development.
This is important because it establishes the upper limit
to which the area's population may increase. The satu-
ration point is determined by multiplying the number of
acres of developable (unconstrained) land in each zoning
district by the number of persons (or dwelling units
times the average of 3.4 persons per dwelling unit)
allowed per acre by current zoning regulations and adding
this allowance to the existing population.
These calculations yield a theoretical saturation popula-
tion of approximately 15,000 persons in the core study
area. It is extremely unlikely that the core area's
population will approach this point by 2010.
111-34
-------
3,000
2,500
2,000
< 1,500-
0.
0
a.
1,000 -
500 -
1950
LEGEND
POPULATION
TRENDS
POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
/
/
/2'e74
'
Study Area (Core and Extended
'3.oee study Areas)
core Study Area
X2.S55
X
/
2,317
x
/2.109
1.828
599
Extended Study Area
53 1
407
_l_
_I_
,
,
1960
1970
1980
YEAR
1990
2000
2010
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, CT
Tltto:
POPULATION
Source: CEM.CHjM, HILL, INC., 1983
Date: 4/86 Scale: NTS
Flg:IM-17
-------
Population predictions
are based on many
factors.
Population projections
for 1980 to 2060 re-
flect a 41Z rate of
growth in the core
and extended study
area.
This growth is more
likely to occur in
the extended study
area.
It is even more unlikely that the extended area's popula-
tion will approach the saturation point, given the great
amount of developable, relatively unconstrained land in
the area.
The next step was to establish a realistic growth rate
for the next 20 years and apply this to the existing
population. Population projections presented in DCCA's
Water Management Plan for the Public Hater System (CO
Hill Southeast, Inc. (for DCCA), 1983) are current!/
endorsed by VIPO. These projections reflect a 41 percent
rate of growth between 1980 and 2000 in a water manage-
ment district which generally includes the core study
area and southern portion of the extended study area.
The Comprehensive Plan for Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay
assumed that this growth rate could be equally applied to
both the core study area and the other portion of the
water management district (the southern portion of the
extended study area).
However; interviews with local officials, developers, and
citizens; analysis of environmental constraints to devel-
opment; and assessment of existing conditions indicate
that additional growth is more likely to occur in the
southern portion of the extended study area (particularly
in areas such as Fish Bay, Gift Hill, Monte and Great
Cruz Bay) than in the core study area.
Based on this information, it appears most likely that
the core study area will continue to experience the same
1.2 percent annual growth rate it has experienced in the
recent past. The extended study area is likely to
experience a sharply increased growth rate, probably more
than 41 percent, over the next 20 years. In this way,
the 20-year growth rate in the two portions of the water
management district will average approximately 41 per-
cent. Overall, it is projected that the study area's
population will reach approximately 3000 persons by 2010.
Population projections are shown in Figure 111-17.
Hater Use Projections
The greatest increases in water use in the study area
will come from the projected population increase and the
projected per capita water use increase.
111-35
-------
Population and per
capital water use
Increases will account
for the greatest In-
creases In water usage.
The D.P.W. hopes to
Implement a new
water system for
St, John in 2-3
years.
The projected population increase will cause a commensu-
rate increase in the study area's total residential water
use due to the increased number of water consumers.
Another substantial increase in total water use is ex-
pected due to a projected increase in the amount of water
consumed by each resident.
It is estimated that each resident currently consumes an
average of 7.6 m (25 gal.) of water each day
(deJongh/URS, 1985). This relatively low water use
reflects the extremely limited water supply in the study
area and the residents' strong efforts to conserve.
DPW has recently announced plans to implement an improved
public water supply system for St. John and hopes to
begin operating this system in 2-3 years. Implementation
of this system would nearly eliminate the water supply
constraint and allow residents the freedom to use larger
quantities of water. Presumably, the system would gene-
rate enough water for residents to wash clothes, dishes
and other household items and to shower and flush toilets
more frequently. The high cost of water is likely to
prohibit excessive or wasteful water use. It is, how-
ever, likely that per capita (each person's) water use
will increase dramatically once this water supply system
is implemented.
Per capita water use is projected to increase from 0.09m
(25 gal.) per day to 0.19m (50 gal.) per day. This pro-
jection is supported by the Environmental Laws and Regu-
lations of the Virgin Islands, (VIDCCA, 1979) which
states that wastewater facility design should use "an
average daily per capita flow of sanitary sewage of not
less than 50 gallons per day unless otherwise justified
by sound engineering data." (Title 19, Part VI, Chapter
53, Subc. 1404-233). The projection is further supported
by similar increases in per capita water use due to the
implementation of improved water supplies in other areas
of the Caribbean. (CE Maguire, Inc./EPA, 1984, 1985)
Another source of the projected water use increase is
non-residential water consumers, including the study
area's workforce, student population, hotels, and restau-
rants. (Projections for total water use are shown in
111-36
-------
Non-residential
per unit water con-
sumption Is not
expected to Increase.
Table III-6). Non-residential water use projections are
taken from the Water Management Plan for the Public Watpy
System. The projected growth rate between 1990 and 2006"
was applied to the projections for 2000 in order to
calculate the number of workers, hotel rooms, and restau-
rant tables expected in 2010. The projected 20-year
residential growth rate of 27 percent was applied to the
existing student population in order to calculate the
projected number of students in the study area in 2010.
These projections were then multiplied by the estimated
water use per unit (persons, rooms, or tables) as use in
the Hater Management Plan and shown in Table III-6.
No increase in per unit water consumption is projected
for non-residential users. This is because most or all
of these users currently have an adequate water supply
and would, therefore, not be greatly affected by the pro-
posed new public water system. No other non-residential
users have been considered in these projections because
water use in shops and other commercial or institutional
establishments is already considered under the "work-
force" category. There are no plans to locate industry
on St. John, and therefore, no industrial water use is
projected.
As shown in Table III-6, the overwhelming source of water
use is residential. Total water use in the study area is
projected to be approximately 727m (192,000 gal.) per
day in design year 2010. This water use estimate was
added to the projected infiltration rate of 6,000 to
8,000 gpd to calculate the treatment facility design
capacity of 200,000 gpd.
111-37
-------
TABLE II1-6
EXISTING AND PROJECTED WATER USE
CCRE STUDY AREA
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, VI
Type of Use
lesidential
Population (persons)
Use per capita per day (gpcd)
Total Residential Water Use
Tot. Res. Wtr. Use Growth Rate
1985/86
1,869**
25
47.400***
1990
2,013
25
50,325
6%
2000
2,267
50
113,350
125?:-
2010
2,555
50
127,750
13%
2040
3,687
50
184,350
44%
Notes*
a
b
,iote 1 s
= ROOTS
Use per room (gprd)
Total Hotel Water Use gpd
Growth Rate
84
15G
12,600
90
150
13,500
103
150
15,450
117
150
17,550
172
150
25,800
c
d
Restaurants
s> Tables
Use per table per day (gptd)
Total Rest. Water Use (gpd)
Growth Rate
188
100
18,880
207
100
20,700
248
100
24,800
20%
298
100
29,880
515
100
51,500
73%
e
£
1
Jorkers
$ Workers
Use per worker per day (gpwd)
Total Worker Water Use (gpd)
Growth Rate
490
15
7.350
512
15
7,680
558
15
8,370
n
608
15
9,120
5?
787
15
11,805
21%
9
h
Schools
# Students
Use per student (gpsd)
Total School Water Use (gpd)
Growth Rate
Total Water Use
Total Water Use Growth Rate
400
15
6.000
92,203
424
15
6.360
98,565
7%
477
15
7,155
169,125
84%
538
15
192,470
109%
775
15
11,625
4lf
285,080
309%
i
J
*Explaration of "Notes" is on following page.
**520 Served by existing sewer system.
***13,CCO gpd flow tc existing sewer system.
11-38
-------
TABLE III-6 (Cont'd.)
EXISTING AND PROJECTED HATER USE SOURCES AND COMMENTS
a. 1985/86 Core study area population based on count of
houses and persons per house from 1/86 needs survey.
Projections based on constant 1.2 yearly growth rate (see
explanation in Affected Environment chapter, Section
C.I.) Projections are unaffected by very high saturation
level (over 15,000).
b. 25 gpcd existing and projected 1990 flow based on flow
monitoring data from the Comprehensive Plan for the
Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay, VI, 1985. Projected increase
to 50 gpcd in 2000 based on plans to implement a new
water supply in Cruz Bay. VI Environmental Regulations
designate 50 gpcd as to flow to be used in wastewater
facilities planning.
c. Existing number of hotel rooms is based on a count mode
during the 1/86 needs survey. Projections based on 14.3%
ten year increase in # hotel rooms (between 1990 and
2000) in VI Water Management Plan, 1983. 14.3% applied
to interpolated 1990 population to obtain 2000
population, and again to the 2010 population to obtain
the 2000 population.
d. Estimated in Water Management Plan, 1983. No increase in
per table water use is projected to occur in response to
a new water supply as most non-residential water users
currently have their own adequate water supply system.
e. Existing and projected # tables obtained by same method
described in "c" (1990 - 2000 projected growth rate for
# tables applied to 1990 and 2000 projections).
f. Same as "d".
g. Same as "c", using 1990 - 2000 growth rate for workers.
"Workers" represents those who work in the core study area
vs. the area's workforce (residents who work in the area and
elsewhere).
h. Same as "d".
i- Existing # students based on 1/86 estimate by school
principal. Projections based on same growth rates as
population projections.
j. Same as "d".
111-39
-------
IV. IMPACTS
-------
In this chapter, the
impacts of feasible
alternatives are
Identified and
assessed,
There are six feasH
We wastewater treat-
ment system alter-
natives.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
A. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to address impacts, or
consequences, that can be expected to result from the
implementation of the feasible alternatives considered
for this project. The following six overall system
alternatives are structured under the second subregional
management program which recommends using a centralized
collection and treatment system for the core area and
various on-site technologies for the extended study area.
In the core study area, each of the alternatives includes
a new treatment plant at a new site to replace the
existing plant and site. They also include a wastewater
collection system that would utilize the existing sewers
in addition to extending new sewer lines into previously
unserviced areas. Each of the alternatives also recom-
mends either an ocean outfall or land application as a
means of disposing of the wastewater effluent. Addition-
ally, there is a possible subalternative to these ef-
fluent disposal systems in the form of an effluent force
main to the Caneel Bay Resort. All of these alternatives
also include disposal of the sludge at the St. John
municipal landfill until testing indicates whether or not
land application of the sludge is possible. Given this
common base, the feasible alternatives are distinguished
as follows:
Alternative A: Aerated lagoon treatment plant at
site #3 with land application efflu-
ent disposal.
Alternative B: Aerated lagoon treatment plant at
site #3 with ocean outfall effluent
disposal.
Alternative C:
Aerated lagoon treatment plant at
site #2 with ocean outfall effluent
disposal.
Alternative D: Recirculating sand filter treatment
plant at site #2 with ocean outfall
effluent disposal.
Alternative E: Rotating biological contactor treat-
ment plant at site #1 with ocean
outfall effluent disposal.
Alternative F: Oxidation ditch treatment plant at
site #1 with ocean outfall effluent
disposal.
IV-1
-------
This section add-
resses short term
impacts resulting
from the feasible
Alternatives.
Construction of
sewer lines in flood
prone areas will not.
cbuse increased flood
hazards.
The selection of a preferred alternative is based pri-
marily on the assessment of impacts, costs, and benefits
associated with each preliminary alternative. Environ-
mental impacts are predicted by considering the feasible
alternatives (Chapter II) in association with the affect-
ed environment (Chapter III). Impacts may be positive
(enhancing the general environment) or negative (degrad-
ing the environment) and are categorized as either
short-term (directly related to construction), long-term
primary (directly related to the implementation of
wastewater facilities), or long-term secondary impacts
(indirectly related to the implementation of wastewater
facilities). This chapter will address short-term,
long-term primary, and long-term secondary impacts
separately. Many of the potential negative impacts may
be avoided through careful design, construction and
location of the facilities. Others require mitigation
measures, or methods of minimizing the project's harm to
the particular feature of the environment. Where applic-
able, mitigation measures are recommended at the end of
each impact discussion.
B. SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
All feasible alternatives will likely have some short-
term impacts on land resources, water resources, eco-
systems, cultural resources, air quality, noise, traffic,
energy, local economy, and other projects.
1. Land Resources
a. Flood Prone Areas
Construction of wastewater treatment facilities at
site #1 would place the facilities in the 100 year
flood zone and would require protection from flood-
ing. The two existing pump stations, located at
both ends of Enighed Pond, would also require
protection from flooding. In addition, under all
feasible alternatives small portions of the proposed
sewer system would be constructed in areas prone to
100 and 500 year floods.
Specifically, proposed interceptors along the shore
of Frank Bay and the north shore of Turner Bay would
be constructed in the 100 year flood zone and
proposed interceptors along the southeast shore of
Enighed Pond would be constructed in the 500 year
flood zone. Finally, the land portion of an ocean
outfall would have to be constructed in the 100 year
flood zone.
IV-2
-------
Care must be taken
to protect nearby
stream courses/ drain-
age ways and coastal
ponds.
Short term impacts to
soil may result/
particularly along
steep slopes.
The actual construction activity would not cause any
reduced flood storage capacity or other increased
hazard of flooding. However, particular care must
be taken in flood prone areas to avoid short-term
impacts to nearby drainageways, streams, and coastal
ponds. These impacts and proposed mitigation
measures will
face water".
be discussed under "soils" and "sur-
During the design phase of this project and prior to
project implementation, a coastal zone management
program construction permit application must be
prepared. A comprehensive flood prone area impacts
mitigation program would have to be developed as
part of this process.
b. Bedrock/Surficial Geology/Soils
No project impacts on bedrock or surficial geology
features are expected. However, construction of the
proposed wastewater collection system, treatment
plant, and land portion of the ocean outfall may
cause short-term impacts to soil on or adjacent to
construction sites. The most severe impacts to soil
would involve erosion from construction, particular-
ly in moderately to steeply sloping areas. Soil
erosion impacts are important due to the overall
shallow depth of, or in some areas absence of, soil
cover in many areas of St. John.
Excavation of soil, required in order to place pipes
beneath the ground surface or to establish a founda-
tion for a treatment plant, would expose adjacent
soil layers to erosion from surface or groundwater
runoff and from human activities. Such impacts
would be particularly pronounced with respect to
construction of interceptors in steep roadways of
Contant, Enighed, and Pastore.
Although construction of a treatment plant at any of
the sites considered would be on somewhat level
terrain, the area of soil disturbance and exposure
would be greater than with construction of intercep-
tors. Soil erosion impacts would be slightly less
severe for construction of a treatment plant at Site
#3 than for construction at Sites #1 or #2 because a
portion of Site #3 is covered by the deep Pozo
Blanco soils. These impacts would be slightly more
severe for construction at site #2 as this site is
located on steeper sloped terrain than found at
sites #1 or #3.
IV-3
-------
There ore several mea-
sures that can be used
to mitigate these im-
pacts.
Construction in or near
surface water features
may lead to increased
erosion and a result-
ing increase in sil-
tation of surface
waters.
Construction should be
scheduled to take place
during dry periods.
General measures recommended to mitigate these
impacts include minimizing the amount of area
exposed to erosion at any given time, storing
excavated soils up-gradient of the cut, and using
hay bales or fabric fences around the construction
area to protect exposed soils from erosion by wind
and rainfall. Detailed measures for mitigating
short-term soil-erosion and related surface water
impacts are presented in Table IV-1.
Mater Resources
a. Surface Water Quality
The construction of wastewater facilities near
streams or ponds in the study area may have short-
term impacts on surface water quality. The most
significant potential impact would be increased
siltation and turbidity in these surface water
features that could occur as a consequence of the
previously discussed erosion impacts.
Specifically, construction of the proposed sewer
system along the shore of the small pond inland of
Frank Bay and Enighed Pond may impact Enighed Pond.
In addition, construction of a treatment plant at
site #1 may impact these ponds. Although treatment
plant sites #2 and #3 are located in proximity to
guts, impacts to surface water quality due to
construction would likely be minimal as water flows
in these guts only during occasional periods of very
heavy rainfall. It is recommended that construction
be scheduled to take place during dry periods when
the guts carry little or no flow. Other mitigation
measures for avoiding short-term surface water
quality impacts are presented in Table IV-1.
Another impact that may occur in the short-term
stems from the operation of construction equipment
near streams or ponds. Oil and/or gasoline leaking
from construction equipment may drain into these
features causing temporary contamination. By
bordering the construction site with hay or fabric
fences and maintaining equipment properly, this form
of impact can be avoided.
IV-4
-------
TABLE IV-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SOIL AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
The interceptors should be underground so that potential impacts
would only occur during construction.
Wastewater facilities should be located as far away from any
waterway as possible, within the requirement of maintaining
appropriate grade for gravity flow in sewers.
In those areas where roads parallel natural drainageways, the
pipeline should be placed beneath the road or very close to its
edge in previously disturbed areas.
Stream crossings should be avoided whenever possible.
Temporary construction easements should be kept to a maximum
width of 15 meters (50 feet), and permanent easements should be
kept to 8 meters (25 feet).
Construction roads, pipe storage areas, and spoils storage areas
should be confined to the upland side of the trench area so that
any erosion will go into the trench rather than being washed into
drainageways.
No more than 30 m (100 ft) of interceptor trench should be
excavated at one time, with pipe placement and backfilling taking
place immediately after trench excavation.
Topsoil should be stockpiled separately for future use as top-
dressing for those areas to be restored.
Excess materials resulting from excavating due to sewer pipe
placement and treatment plant construction should be saved for
use on other parts of system construction.
Water from dewatering operations (if required) should not be
discharged directly to surface waters without first being di-
rected to a temporary sedimentation basin.
The stream or shore side of the work area around the treatment
plant and along the interceptor route should be continuously
lined with either hay bales or filter fabric.
The work area should be restored, graded, dressed with topsoil,
seeded, and mulched immediately after construction. Open field
areas should be planted with indigenous grasses, and wooded areas
should be temporarily seeded with grass to stabilize the area for
ultimate colonization by nearby indigenous species.
Schedule construction near guts to take place during dry periods
when there is little or no flow in these guts.
IV-5
-------
Outfall construction
may cause short term
marine water quality
impacts.
Enighed Pond is the
only significant hab-
itat which may be
impacted by con-
struction activities.
b. Marine Water Quality
The principal short-term marine water quality
impacts would be caused by construction of an ocean
outfall. Excavation of an underwater trench along
the shallow portion of the outfall route (up to a
depth of 6 m (20 ft.)) and burial of the outfall
pipe in this trench would be required in order to
protect this portion of the outfall pipe from wave
action and dragging boat anchors. The outfall would
need to be anchored on the ocean floor along the
deeper portion of the route.
Excavation of the sand and silt required for this
underwater trench would cause a short-term increase
in the turbidity of marine water in Turner Bay. As
there is no evidence of contaminants in the sedi-
ments on the floor of Turner Bay, the suspension of
these sediments which may be expected during con-
struction would not impact the chemical quality of
marine water. Suspended sediments stirred into the
water by underwater construction activities can be
expected to resettle soon after the activities have
stopped.
Recommended measures to mitigate these short-term
marine water quality and other impacts related to
ocean outfall construction are listed in Table IV-2.
Additional details concerning impacts to marine
water quality are presented in the Benthic Survey
(Appendix D) and the Current Study (Appendix E).
Prior to construction of an outfall, applications
must be prepared for a Coastal Zone Management
program permit and a US Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404/Section 10 permit. A comprehensive
marine water quality impact mitigation plan should
be developed as part of this permit application,
with the necessary measures incorporated into the
project construction plans and specifications.
Ecosystems
Short-term project impacts on terrestrial, littoral or
coastal region, and marine ecosystems are expected to be
minimal. The only significant habitat which may be
impacted by construction activities is Enighed Pond. No
known threatened or endangered species would be impacted
by construction activities, with the possible exception
of marine turtles. A Biological Assessment will be
prepared to address detailed ecological impacts associ-
ated with the selected alternative. This assessment will
appear as an appendix to the Final EIS.
IV-6
-------
TABLE IV-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR OUTFALL CONSTRUCTION
Conduct any required dredging work as rapidly as possible (i.e.,
all equipment and materials should be available on-site at the
same time).
Conduct construction activity during calm water periods.
Use dredging methods which minimize resuspension of fine sedi-
ments and creation of a sediment plume.
Utilize floating booms or silt curtains to confine turbidity to
the immediate vicinity of actual dredging activity.
Stockpile spoils directly adjacent to excavated trenches and
utilize excess spoils for other parts of project construction.
Minimize the length of exposed open trench at any given time.
IV-7
-------
Most of the terres-
trial ecosystems
that might be dis-
turbed exhibit no
unusual ecological
significance.
A short term dis-
turbance of the
littoral (coastal)
ecosystems may re-
sult from construction.
Terrestrial Ecosystems
The majority of the terrestrial habitats that would be
disturbed by the construction of wastewater facilities
exhibit no unusual ecological significance. Construction
of the proposed wastewater collection system would take
place in existing roadways of "urban" areas (see Section
A.6.a.(8). of Chapter III), with the exception of the
short length of an interceptor sewer along a sandy bent
on the north side of Turner Bay. This berm is primarily
barren of vegetation and does not appear to provide any
unusually valuable habitat for wildlife.
Construction of a treatment plant at either site #2 or #3
would require clearing up to 2 ha (5 ac) of mixed dry
woodland and scrub habitat. Due to the abundance of
these habitat types throughout the study area, and the
proximity of these sites to urban land, the overall
ecological impact of construction would not be signifi-
cant. Construction impacts to terrestrial habitats at
site #1 would be further minimized as this site is
already disturbed.
The previously mentioned Biological Assessment will
address specific impacts of the preferred alternative to
terrestrial (and other) ecosystems in more detail. If
sensitive plant or wildlife habitat is identified on or
near proposed construction sites, plans will be developed
to avoid or minimize impacts to these natural resources
during construction. The same policy will apply to
littoral and marine resources.
Littoral Ecosystems
The project's primary short-term impacts on littoral
(coastal) ecosystems would probably result from construc-
tion of a short length of interceptor along a sandy berm
on the northern shore of Turner Bay and construction of
the land portion of the ocean outfall. Both of these
activities would involve short-term disturbance of a
section (up to 15 m (50 ft) wide) of previously disturbed
beach along Turner Bay. Disturbance to vegetation on the
beach can be minimized by keeping construction equipment
off the beach to the extent possible, minimizing strip
width to be used for burying pipes, and by placing spoils
directly adjacent to the trench or off of the beach.
IV-8
-------
The value of coral
reefs and sea grass
beds to marine life
make it -important
to minimize dis-
turbance of these
habitats.
Mitigation measures
should be followed
in order to reduce
impacts to reef
communities,
Construction of the land portion of the outfall and
construction of a treatment plant at site #1 could impact
a narrow, discontinuous fringe of extensively disturbed
mangroves on the northern and eastern shores of Enighed
Pond. If this site is selected, special care should be
taken to protect this mangrove fringe during construction
by implementing the erosion-sedimentation control mitiga-
tion measures recommended ir Table IV-1.
c. Marine Ecosystems
Short-term and long-term impacts to the coral reefs and
seagrass beds in Turner Bay would result from ocean
outfall construction. The value of these ecosystems to
marine life and their sensitivity make it particularly
important to minimize disturbance of these features. A
detailed study of marine resources and benthic communi-
ties in Turner Bay, in the areas offshore of Moravian
Point (the proposed outfall area) and surrounding Steven
Cay, has recently been conducted in order to evaluate
potential impacts in detail. Figure IV-1 shows the
location of various marine resources in relation to the
proposed outfall location. Complete findings of the
Benthic Survey are presented in Appendix D.
Outfall construction is proposed along a route which has
been identified as involving the least potential impact
to reefs and seagrass beds (see Figure IV-1). Construc-
tion along this route would require no reef removal.
However, the construction activity would impact reefs by
increasing the turbidity of the marine water and by
covering reefs with sediments stirred up during the
placement and securing of the pipe on the sandy bottom.
Such sedimentation could negatively impact the reef(s) by
limiting sunlight and oxygen availability to both the
reef(s) and dependent marine organisms which are sup-
ported by this ecosystem. The mitigation measures listed
in Table IV-2 should be followed in order to reduce both
short-term and long-term impacts to reef communities.
IV-9
-------
ZONES :
_63_ ________-4 —51
ALGAL PLAIN _
SEAGRASS
SUBTIDAL
BEDROCK
DEEPER REEF
CORAL
TERRACE
O CURRENT
METER LOCATION
UNDERWATER
SURVEY STATION
POSSIBLE
OUTFALL ROUTES
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. JohntUSVIrgln Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE MagMlre, Inc., Mew Britain, CT
Title:
TURNER BAY AREA
BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
| Score*: DCCA-NRM
lD«t*:4/86 \Sc«l«; 1 " = 2O O m. |Fla: IV - 1
-------
Special care should
be taken to avoid
disturbing marine
turtles In the con-
struction area.
No significant
cultural resources
were found In the
vicinity of proposed
..facilities.
Construction of the outfall along the recommended route
would also involve short-term impacts to the turtle grass
beds in Turner Bay. Excavation of a narrow trench would
be required to bury the 30 cm (10 in) diameter outfall in
areas where water depth is more than 6 m (20 ft).
Turbidity and sedimentation due to outfall construction
could impact turtle grass beds in a similar manner as
discussed with regard to the coral reefs. Therefore,
similar mitigation measures (Table IV-2) should be
implemented for construction in and near the turtle grass
ecosystems.
Special care should be taken to avoid disturbing marine
turtles which feed on these grasses. Although no turtles
have been reported in the Turner Bay area in recent
years, the outfall construction crew should be made aware
of their endangered/threatened status and work should be
temporarily halted if any are observed in the immediate
vicinity of the construction area.
4. Cultural Resources
Stage 1A and IB Cultural Resource Surveys were recently
completed for the study area (MAAR Associates, 1985 and
1986). Numerous areas of land around Cruz Bay and
Enighed Pond were identified by the Stage 1A Survey as
potentially sensitive archaeological sites (See Appendix
J). Portions of the proposed outfall line, where it
crosses the berm and beach at Turner Bay, have been
identified as such areas. In addition, treatment plant
sites #1 and #3 are also located in areas identified as
having potential for the presence of cultural resources.
The best mitigation measure to avoid disrupting to
potential cultural resources (ruins, artifacts, etc.)
during construction of these facilities is to identify
the specific locations of these resources and plan
accordingly so that sewer alignments and plant site
layout will avoid impacting them. To accomplish this, a
more indepth study of cultural resources (a Stage IB
Survey) was performed in the areas most likely to be
impacted by construction of wastewater facilities. As
summarized in Appendix i1, the Stage IB Survey found no
significant cultural resources in the vicinity of the
proposed treatment plant, collection system, or ocean
outfall sites.
Should artifacts or other cultural resources be uncovered
during construction, however, work should be stopped so
that these artifacts may be properly studied and removed.
If removal is not feasible, then construction plans may
need to be revised to avoid impacting the resource,
depending on the value and sensitivity of the resource.
For this purpose, it is recommended that a professional,
loca1 archaeologist be available on an on-call basis
during the construction phase of this project.
IV-10
-------
The construction of
any wastewater faci-
lity would result
in the generation of
a variety of airborne
contaminants,
In order to reduce
potential airborne
contaminants, a
variety of methods
should be implemented.
A number of positive
impacts on the Cruz
Bay areas economy will
result from the con-
struction of waste-
water facilities.
Air Quality
The construction of any wastewater facility would result
in the generation of airborne particulate matter, includ-
ing dust from clearing, excavating, and filling activi-
ties. In addition, a small amount of smoke, odor, and
exhaust emissions would be generated from diesel-powered
construction equipment. Minor additional quantities of
carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), oxides of nitro-
gen (NO ) and nitrogen dioxide (NCO could also be gene-
rated as a result of interrupted roadway traffic flow
patterns.
A variety of methods should be used to reduce potential
airborne contaminants generated during construction
activities. These include minimizing the amount of sur-
face area exposed at any given time, covering loaded
trucks, and removing dirt from paved roadways. Because
of the limited duration of construction activity at any
given location, and because of the local climatic condi-
tions which provide good dispersion of air pollution,
short-term air quality impacts are expected to be
negligible.
6. Economy
Construction of wastewater facilities for each of the
feasible alternatives would cause positive impacts on the
economy of the Cruz Bay area. This impact would be in
the form of a modest increase in money injected into the
area's economy through the following channels:
The acquisition and/or lease of construction equip-
ment and supplies (some of which may be purchased
locally),
The creation of 10-20 construction crew jobs for
qualified local residents,
The creation of jobs for "support" industries (such
as material and equipment supply and various ser-
vices), and
The induced spending or spillover into other parts
of the local economy as a result of this initial
boost.
It should be noted that the positive economic impact of
wastewater facility construction may not be noticeable as
it is likely to occur in the wake of a major construction
project for the Virgin Grand Hotel in Great Cruz Bay.
Construction of wastewater facilities is therefore
expected to continue as a positive force in the local
economy rather than create a new surge to this economy.
IV-11
-------
Construction of other
major projects in the
Cruz Bay Area may be
disrupted due to the
construction of waste-
water facilities.
It is not. expected that the construction required for any
of the feasible alternatives will have any negative im-
pacts on the area's economy.
Other Projects
Construction of wastewater treatment facilities for this
project may disrupt construction of other projects
planned for the Cruz Bay area by overburdening the area's
limited, services, transportation and supplies. While
construction of the Virgin Grand Hotel should be com-
pleted by the time work is initiated on the wastewater
treatment facilities, construction of a proposed marine
terminal project in Enighed Pond could coincide with the
facility construction.
Careful coordination should be maintained with the Virgin
Islands Port Authority (VIPA) regarding plans for the
marine terminal project to assure that adequate resources
are available for construction activities. If construc-
tion of both projects does coincide, it may be prudent to
schedule certain phases of each project with respect to
the other. For example, as VIPA plans call for the
dredging of a 5 m (16 ft) deep channel as an inlet
through Turner Bay to Enighed Pond, it. may be wise to
schedule the ocean outfall construction and dredging of
this channel to occur at the same time. Specific, impacts
of the selected alternative on the VIPA project will be
addressed in the Final EIS.
LONG-TERM PRIMARY IMPACTS
Implementation of the feasible alternatives considered is
likely to involve long-term direct impacts on land re-
sources, water resources, ecosystems, cultura1 resources,
air quality, noise, energy use, land use, the local
economy, and other projects that, are planned.
IV-12
-------
Land Resources
Impacts to the sewer
system in flood prone
areas would be minimal.
Long term soil impacts
may result from a treat-
ment plant at Site #1 or
from a spray Irrigation
effluent disposal sys-
tem
Flood Prone Areas
Portions of the proposed collection system, the land
portion of the outfall, and all of treatment plant
site #1 are located in the 100 year flood zone. The
collection system and land portion of the outfall
would be buried, and therefore their presence would
cause no long-term impact to flood hazards. These
pipes and accompanying access covers would be pro-
tected from infiltration during floods by watertight
seals. The two existing pump stations, located at
either end of Enighed Pond, would need to be pro-
tected from flooding. No new pump stations would be
required in flood prone areas.
Location of a treatment plant at site #1 would cause
a slight decrease in the flood storage capacity of
the area surrounding Enighed Pond. The 0.8 to 2ha
(2-5ac) treatment plant site would be surrounded by
an artificial berm built up to an elevation of
approximately 3.3m (10 ft) in order to protect
facilities against a 100 or 500 year flood. Treat-
ment plant sites #2 and #3 are not in the 100 year
flood zone, and therefore no flood protection would
be necessary.
Soils
There may be long-term soil impacts from locating a
treatment plant at either site #1 or from operating
a spray irrigation effluent disposal system at Site
#3. Site #1 is covered primarily by fill-soils and
might require that the plant site soils be
stabilized in some manner. If site #1 is selected
as the preferred treatment plant site, the actual
characteristics of these soils in regard to
structural stability would be determined through
borings and soil samples. Mitigation measures
should be developed as required during the design
phase of this project, depending on the findings of
the borings and soil samples on this site.
Operation of a spray irrigation effluent disposal
system would involve periodically loading the soil
with water and nutrients. Oversaturation or
unevenly distributed irrigation of these soils could
cause erosion. Furthermore, if there was a failure
by the treatment process to remove contaminants from
the wastewater, it could cause the transfer of these
contaminants into the soil. In particular, the high
chloride content of wastewater introduced by the
IV-13
-------
Erosion may result
from oversaturation
or unevenly distri-
buted Irrigation.
desalinated water used in Cruz Bay is difficult to
remove through the wastewater treatment process.
Filtration of chlorides and other contaminants into
soils through spray irrigation would degrade the
quality of these soils for growing vegetation.
Filtration of the nitrate and other nutrients into
these soils from properly operated facilities would
generally improve the quality of these soils for
supporting vegetation growth, however.
Long-term soil erosion and contamination impacts
associated with spray irrigation may be mitigated
through careful surveillance of the actual irriga-
tion procedure, alternating portions of the spray
irrigation site to be irrigated, proper maintenance
of irrigation equipment, and careful testing of
effluent for levels of contaminants. If unaccept-
able levels of any contaminant are found, the spray
irrigation process should be discontinued until the
proper level of treatment may be obtained. The
Caneel Bay Resort has the capacity to store excess
effluent while treatment facilities are repaired or
improved.
If spray irrigation becomes the preferred alterna-
tive of effluent disposal, a comprehensive spray
irrigation management plan should be developed.
More detailed impacts and mitigation measures would
be addressed in this plan.
Water Resources
a. Groundwater
Groundwater may be im-
pacted by the spray
Irrigation effluent
disposal option.
Some of the sprayed
effluent may augment
the groundwater reserve.
No long-term impacts to groundwater are expected to
occur from the operation of the collection system,
ocean outfall, or treatment plant. These facilities
would be watertight sealed in order to avoid infil-
tration of wastewater or effluent into groundwater.
The spray irrigation effluent disposal option could
impact groundwater in the coastal alluvium of the
Caneel Bay area. The amount of ground water stored
in this alluvial layer is not known, but it is
likely that this water is saline due to saltwater
intrusion from the sea.
Some of the effluent sprayed on Caneel Bay's lawns
would be expected to pass through the soil layer and
augment the groundwater reserve. The introduction
of contaminants carried by the effluent to the spray
IV-14
-------
irrigation site should be avoided, as discussed
under long-term impacts to soil. Effluent-borne
contaminants such as chloride could impact ground-
water as significantly as it would soils, therefore,
a spray irrigation management plan would be required
to address groundwater impacts and mitigation
measures in more detail.
b. Surface Water Quality
Implementation of any of
the feasible action al-
ternatives is likely to
result In an overall
positive long term Im-
pact to surface water
quality.
An overall positive long term impact to surface
water quality would be expected to result from the
implementation of any of the feasible alternatives.
The elimination of poorly treated effluent dis-
charges to streams and coastal ponds will reduce the
turbidity and the amount of contaminants in these
surface water features. For example, increased
clarity in the now murky Enighed Pond may be ex-
pected to occur as a long-term positive impact.
Operation of the collection system, outfall, and
treatment system would not be likely to cause any
adverse impact to surface water. Reduced nutrient
loads in coastal ponds may result from implementa-
tion of improved wastewater treatment.
Operation of a spray irrigation effluent disposal
system could impact streams in the vicinity of the
Caneel Bay lawns. Most of the effluent would be
expected to be absorbed by surface vegetation and
soils, or pass into the alluvium as groundwater.
Turing periods of heavy rainfall, however, effluent
could flow over saturated soils as surface runoff
into nearby streams. This overflow would probably
cause a change in the water quality of these streams
even though the effluent would be heavily diluted by
the time it reached the stream. Nonetheless, this
potential impact could be mitigated by surrounding
the spray irrigation site with runoff collection
ditches that would contain excess runoff until the
site's soil is less saturated. When the soil dries
out, the runoff collected in the ditch could then be
pumped back up to the grassed areas. Surface water
quality impacts and mitigation measures would be ad-
dressed further in the previously mentioned spray
irrigation management plan.
IV-15
-------
Initial dilution of
treated effluent in
the waters of the Pills-
bury Sound would be
sufficient under nor-
mal operation.
c. Marine Water Quality
Operation of an ocean outfall could impact marine
water quality offshore of Moravian Point. Marine
benthic and current studies have recently been
conducted in this area in order to evaluate poten-
tial ocean outfall impacts. The benthic study
includes water quality sampling data for this area.
Reports of these studies are presented in Appendix
D (Benthic Survey) and Appendix E (Current Study).
An outfall pipe would have to be greater than 1,000
m (3,200 ft.) long in order to avoid potential
impacts of discharging effluent near reefs surround-
ing Mingo Rock and Steven Cay. At this length,
treated effluent would be discharged (through the
diffuser section at the end of the outfall) into
water approximately 18 m (60 ft.) deep.
Treated effluent is composed primarily of fresh
water and would rise through the denser saltwater
until mixing brings the plume into equilibrium with
the seawater. This process is known as initial
dilution. Preliminary estimates suggest that
initial dilution in these waters would be in excess
of 100:1. With this level of dilution, water
quality criteria for these waters would not be ex-
ceeded under normal operating conditions. Even
during a period of equipment failure, water quality
would not be significantly degraded beyond the zone
of initial dilution because the treatment system is
designed to provide adequate treatment during such
breakdowns (i.e., the passive elements of prelimina-
ry bar screen removal and sand filtration prior to
disinfection).
The settling of effluent particles would likely
cause a very slight increase in benthic productivity
in areas of deposition. This effect is not con-
sidered significant because of the low solids
content of the effluent and because of the wide-
spread dispersion anticipated from the proposed
outfall site. These assumptions and impacts are
under more detailed study and will be described more
fully in the Final EIS.
Ecosystems
The implementation of any of the feasible action alter-
natives would cause a positive impact to the littoral and
IV-16
-------
Long-term positive
impacts to the surround-.
ing ecosystem would
result from project
implementation.
Location of the treat-
ment plant at site #1
would have the least
long term impact to
the natural environ-
ment.
aquatic ecosystem of Enighed Pond. The decreased turbi-
dity and contaminant load described under "water re-
sources" may increase the value of this pond as habitat
for fish and other aquatic species. A more healthy man-
grove fringe would provide an improved habitat for shore
birds and aquatic life. The expected decrease in nu-
trient loading to Enighed Pond (due to the elimination of
poorly treated effluent runoff) may decrease the value of
this habitat for some aquatic species. This is not
considered a significant adverse impact, however, because
other species would thrive under the changed conditions.
The location of a treatment plant at site #1 would not
cause long-term loss of habitat but would at sites #2 or
#3. Treatment plant site #1 is in a location that is not
considered a valuable plant or wildlife habitat.
Locating a treatment plant at either site #2 or #3 would
cause the loss of up to 4 ha (10 ac) of mixed dry
woodland/scrub which is an ecosystem of relatively low
habitat value and high availability compared to other
ecosystems represented in the study area.
The proposed alignment of the ocean outfall pipe would
not have any long-term impacts on the corals or seagrass
beds. Corals that may have been disturbed during outfall
construction may grow back while any seagrasses disturbed
may or may not be reestablished. The findings of the
benthic and current studies indicate that, if properly
located, the continuous discharge of treated effluent
through the ocean outfall would have minimal impact on
marine ecosystems. For the diffuser to be properly
located it must be placed well beyond reefs to allow the
ocean currents to carry contaminants away from these
valuable marine habitats. The greatest potential for
impact from an ocean outfall would be from cjTTjDrine if it
is used to disinfect the effluent.^ Dilution ratios have
been calculated for thi3 and other contaminants in the
current study in order to assure that the diffuser is
located far enough from reefs so as to avoid any impact
on them. The proposed outfall location and surrounding
marine ecosystems are shown in Figure IV-1.
The discharge of treated effluent may create a slightly
improved habitat for fish and other marine species that
thrive in a nutrient-rich environment, but only in the
direct vicinity of the effluent discharge.
Air Quality
Potential air quality impacts of the feasible alterna-
tives are all related to sewage odors which may emanate
from pump stations and treatment facilities. Sewage
odors such as hydrogen sulfide could be severe in the
IV-17
-------
Elimination of poorly
functioning wastewater
treatment systems will
improve air quality.
Additional noise is
not expected. Im-
pacts on energy and
traffic generation
will be minimal.
vicinity of the pump stations if odor controls were not
used. This problem would be particularly bad during
times of low flow when sewage would become very septic as
it sits in the pump station's wet wells. If saltwater
contamination of the water supply was significant, the
higher sulfide concentration would magnify the odor
problem. Such odor problems would be of particular
concern because of the close proximity of the pump
stations to residential areas.
For these reasons odor controls will be required at all
pump stations. Such controls would typically include the
filtration of pump station air through activated carbon
filters. Odor controls at the treatment plant site
should be of a similar nature but of larger scale.
Adequate ventilation of the influent headworks and the
emplacement of buffer zone vegetation and a berm sur-
rounding the plant site will mitigate this potential
adverse impact.
The continued disposal of sludge at the sanitary landfill
may also increase odors in the Adrian area, where this
landfill is located. Careful odor controls, including
pretreatment of sludge before disposal, should be assured
in order to mitigate this potential impact. In addition,
the possibility of using sludge to enhance gardens should
be pursued if tests indicate that this would be
environmentally sound.
An overall positive air quality impact is likely to occur
by the elimination of poorly functioning on-site waste-
water treatment throughout much of the core study area.
This would eliminate odors that are generated by failing
septic systems or latrines, particularly during and after
periods of rainfall.
Noise, Energy and Traffic
Noise, energy and traffic impacts that may occur due to
the implementation of any of the feasible action alterna-
tives would probably be minor. The noise of pump
stations and machinery at the treatment plant would pro-
bably not be significantly greater than the noise of
machinery used for Cruz Bay's existing wastewater facili-
ties. The operation of a new pump station near Power
Boyd's plantation would introduce a new source of noise
to this area, but this and other related long-term noise
impacts could be mitigated by assuring that all equipment
is well-muffled.
Long-term energy impacts are not likely to result from
the energy consumption of treatment facility machinery.
The Cruz Bay area's energy supply is considered adequate
IV-18
-------
The wastewater
treatment process
planned for site #1
is the least land
intensive.
to meet the needs of this facility. However, emergency
power generators should be installed at the treatment
plant and pump stations so that the treatment process
would not be interrupted during any temporary power
shortage or failure.
The only traffic directly generated by new wastewater
facilities would be trips to and from the treatment
facility by the plant operator(s) and septage disposal
trucks which would use the facility. This would not be
considered a significant impact.
6. Land Use
Location of a treatment plant at any of the three sites
considered may cause long-term land use impacts. A plant
at site #1 would mean that up to 2 ha (5 ac) of land at
this site could not be used for marine terminal facili-
ties or public recreational facilities. At this time
there are no formal plans to develop or use this site for
these or any other purposes. A plant at site #2 would
displace up to 4 ha (10 ac) of land which could be used
for moderate density (R2 zone) housing by the local
residents. Use of this site for wastewater facilities
would only be consistent with the following adjacent land
uses: an auxiliary power generating station and a
hardware supply store. There is no existing residential
development in the immediate vicinity of site #2. A
treatment plant at site #3 would displace up to 4 ha (10
ac) of land while a land application disposable system
would displace an additional 9.2 ha (23 ac). Because
this land is part of the National Park Service, it has no
potential future active land use. There may be a con-
flict with land use regulations imposed upon the National
Park Service (NPS) as to how this land can be utilized.
Use of spray irrigation effluent disposal on the Caneel
Bay Resort's lawns would be consistent with the present
land use because the resort currently uses effluent to
irrigate their lawns. Based on information received
during a meeting and subsequent conversations with the
resort's groundskeep^ers, the resort could easily accept
the projected 758 m~ (200,000 gal) per day of properly
treated municipal effluent without, having any constraints
on land use.
Long-term land use impacts can best be avoided through
good communication with those involved with existing or
planned land uses that may be affected by this project.
This communication should be continued throughout the
project's design phase.
IV-19
-------
An island-wide user
fee Is expected to be
charged to facility
users by the Public
Horks Department.
The Implementation of
new wastewater faci-
lities Is not expected
to Induce development
significantly.
Economy
The primary long-term economic impact that would probably
result from any of the feasible action alternatives is
the implementation of a standard wastewater treatment
system user fee to be paid by each unit using this
system. While no such fee is collected for sewer service
in Cruz Bay at present, the Virgin Islands Public Works
Department (PWD) is in the process of implementing a sys-
tem to bill for and collect this fee. The current sewer
user fee for the Virgin Islands is $44 per sanitary unit
per year and $33 for each additional unit per year. The
DCCA defines a sanitary unit as "a commode or urinal
similar device used for the purpose of receiving organic
wastes". A flat annual rate of $44 is charged for
commercial establishments. DPW may decide to restructure
these fees, however.
Payment of this fee will probably be negligible to some
users of the system, yet it may be seen as a burden to
others. Some residents have indicated that they would be
quite willing to pay such a fee if it guaranteed proper
operation and maintenance of the wastewater facilities.
Collection of these fees is necessary in order to fund
the ongoing operation and maintenance of wastewater
facilities. DPW is expected to implement a plan for as-
suring proper use of these fees as part of the new fee
collection program.
LONG-TERM SECONDARY IMPACTS
Secondary impacts are indirect consequences caused by the
implementation of an improved wastewater treatment
system. These impacts are typically associated with the
induced development which may occur due to the presence
of new wastewater facilities. Prediction and assessment
of secondary impacts is assisted by the results of the
Constraints Analysis (Appendix B) which was conducted for
this project. This analysis identified and mapped the
constraints to development in Cruz Bay and is thus useful
as a model of the patterns and extent to which future
development may occur.
It is unlikely that the implementation of wastewater
facilities in the study area will induce development
significantly because development is currently taking
place in the core area with little regard for the in-
adequacy of the present system. Therefore, any secondary
impacts are expected to be minimal. The implementation
of a new water supply is expected to have a greater
development-inducing effect, than the implementation of
wastewater facilities. The primary constraint to de-
velopment on St. John at present is the lack of an
adequate potable water supply.
IV-20
-------
Location of the
proposed collection
system will, most
likely, affect the
pattern of future
development.
Increased development
will involve more sur-
face cover causing
more rapid runoff dur-
ing heavy rainfall.
It is assumed that a new water supply will be implemented
shortly after 1990, the year that the recommended waste-
water facilities are expected to be operational. In all
likelihood, the development-indueing effects of the new
water supply will overshadow those of the wastewater
facilities. For the purpose of this study, the focus
will be on the potential secondary impacts caused by the
implementation of wastewater facilities.
Each of the feasible action alternatives would likely
involve the same secondary impacts of minimal induced
development, as each involves a centralized, subregional
treatment system. Development is likely to increase
within the study area over the next two decades,
regardless of the presence of a new wastewater treatment
facility. While the Iqcation of the proposed collection
system may induce growth to occur at a slightly greater
rate in the core area than in the extended area, any
overall induced increase is likely to be minimal.
Comparatively, the no action
constrain development in the
occur at a slower rate than
basic impacts are important
specific secondary impacts
alternative could slightly
long-term, causing growth to
it would otherwise. These
determinants in the more
on water resources,
ecosystems, air quality, noise, and land use.
1. Water Resources
Any slight increase in development resulting from the
implementation of wastewater facilities would cause an
increased demand for potable water in the study area.
While the existing water supply is insufficient, the
assumed future water supply would, no doubt, be suffi-
cient to meet this increased demand. Should the imple-
mentation of this new water supply be delayed, however,
water consumers in the study area should continue to use
prudent water conservation practices arid/or seek an
interim water supply supplement (such as barging more
fresh water from St. Thomas.)
Another possible secondary impact on water resources is
the decreased opportunity for rainwater to seep into the
soil due to an increase in total area of impervious sur-
faces in the study area. Increased development involves
the construction of structures and infrastructure on land
which was once available for rainfall to permeate through
the surface into the soil beneath. The increased amount
of impervious surfaces may cause more rapid runoff, drier
soils, and increased potential for erosion. It is very
unlikely that such impacts would be significant, however,
due to the high level of impermeability of existing soils
in the study area.
IV-21
-------
The natural environ-
ment will not be
unduly stressed by
the amount of Induced
development.
Any Induced growth
would occur mostly
as In filling within
already developed
areas.
The no-action alternative would involve no significant
secondary impacts on water resources.
Ecosystems
Development induced by the implementation of any of the
feasible alternatives may slightly decrease the total
area of habitat for various species of plants and animals
in the study area. This would have less affect on
various species of plants and animals because the core
study area is considerably more developed than the
extended study area. Although development is likely to
occur more rapidly in the extended study area than in the
core study area, this development would not be induced by
wastewater facilities, because the extended study area
would not be served by a centralized collection and
treatment system.
Air Quality and Noise
Both air quality and noise would be affected by increased
development, primarily due to the increased number of
motor vehicles, generators, and other machines. However,
it is not likely that any induced increase in development
would cause significant air quality or noise problems.
This is because a very small amount of induced growth, if
any, is anticipated and because air quality is very good
and noise levels very low in the study area. Similarly,
the no-action alternative would not involve secondary air
quality or noise impacts.
4. Land Use
Projections regarding future land use in the study area
are discussed in the Constraints Analysis (Appendix B)
and Sections B and C of the Affected Environment Chapter.
Although the extent of development is not likely to be
influenced significantly by the implementation of any of
the feasible overall alternatives, the patterns in which
future development occurs could be influenced. Develop-
ment would be more likely to occur along proposed collec-
tor sewer routes, for instance, than in remote areas.
Sewers have been proposed only for portions of the
detailed study area which exhibit significant wastewater
disposal problems and which cannot use on-site disposal
systems in a safe and cost-effective way. All induced
growth expected will occur as infilling within these
problem areas. The sewer service areas have been de-
IV-22
-------
signaled as developable by the existing zoning regula-
tions and they specifically exclude areas constrained by
significant habitat or other environmentally sensitive
features. All areas outside the proposed sewer service
areas will use on-site disposal systems or privately
funded collection and treatment facilities in accordance
with local and territorial regulations.
The no-action alternative would likely create some degree
of constraint on the long-term natural growth of develop-
ment in the detailed study area. Without new wastewater
facilities, the potential for future development would be
relatively limited and growth would occur at a decreasing
rate over the long-term. Additionally, the no-action
alternative might impact the patterns of future land use
by encouraging development to occur in more remote,
sparsely populated areas where individual on-site waste-
water treatment systems can function more effectively.
IV-22
-------
V. COORDINATION
-------
V. COORDINATION
The project team has sought to coordinate its efforts in
preparing this EIS with each agency, organization, and
individual that has a potential interest in this project.
The following groups have been contacted or consulted
during the course of the project. Extensive or notable
coordination with certain groups is discussed in foot-
notes.
Federal Governmenent
Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Farmers Home Administration
Forest Service
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Ocean Survey
Office of Ecology and Conservation
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service*
Geological Survey
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Executive Office of the President
Office of Economic Opportunity
*0ver two-thirds of St. John, and a small portion of the study
area, are covered by the Virgin Islands National Park, which
is administered by the National Park Service (NPS). Project
preparation included communication with NPS officials at the
local, regional, and national levels.
V-l
-------
Territorial Government
Attorney General's Office
Budget Director
Bureau of Corrections
Community Action Agency
Consumer Services Administration
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
Bureau of Libraries, Museums and Archaeological
Services
Division of Fish and Wildlife
Division of Natural Resources Management*
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Department of Education
Department of Health
Department of Housing and Community Renewal
Department of Labor
Department of Public Works**
Department of Social Welfare
Department of Tourism
Disaster Preparedness Office
*The Division of Natural Resource Management (NRM) is
responsible for water quality issues, including wastewater
discharge. A four-member NRM team conducted the benthic
study in conjunction with this project. Members were Marcia
Gilnack, Kurt VanGelder, Marc Pacifico, and Cliff Crook.
**The Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for the
planning, financing, operation, and maintenance of public
wastewater facilities in the Virgin Islands. It is expected
that DPW will be the project grantee. Therefore, the
project team has maintained close contact with DPW officials
throughout the course of the project.
V-2
-------
Employment Security Agency
Federal Programs Office
Fire Service
Office of the Governor of the Virgin Islands
Office of the Legislature of the Virgin Islands
Office of Property and Procurement
Public Services Commission
Urban Renewal Board
Virgin Islands Commission on Aging
Virgin Islands Commission on Youth
Virgin Islands Housing Authority
Virgin Islands Port Authority*
Virgin Islands Police Department
Virgin Islands Planning Office
Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority
Local Government
Honorable Noble Samuels, Administrator of St. John
Senator Cleone Creque Maynard, St. John
Representative to the Legislative of the Virgin
Islands
Tax Assessor's Office
Other Groups
Allen-Williams, Inc.
AT Kearney, Inc.
Cancel Bay Foundation
Caribbean Fisheries Management Council
*The Virgin Islands Port Authority (VIPA) is considering plans
to develop a marine terminal facility in Enighed Pond.
V-3
-------
Caribbean Research Institute
deJongh Associates
Forst Centrum Corporation
Island Resources Foundation
League of Women Voters
Rock Resorts
Tradewinds monthly newspaper
URS Company
Virgin Islands Conservation Society
Virgin Islands Daily News
Virgin Islands Taxi Commission
V-4
-------
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
The project team for this EIS consisted of staff members of CE Ma-
guire, Inc., under the technical direction of EPA Region II Environ-
mental Impacts Branch Personnel. The EPA personnel involved in this
project and their areas of responsibility are listed as follows:
Barbara J. Pastalove Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch (EIB)
William P. Lawler, P.E. Project Officer, EIB
Carol A. Stein Environmental Engineer, EIB
Laura A. Lombardo Environmental Engineer, EIB
Henry Smith Life Scientist, EIB
Antony J. DiLodovico Chief, Caribbean Construction Grants Section
Henry A. Mazzucca, P.E. Environmental Engineer, Caribbean Construc-
tion Grants Section
The staff members and subcontractors of CE Maguire, Inc. who prepared
this document and their areas of responsibility are listed as follows:
CEM Staff:
Robert H. Wardwell Project Administrator
Clinton L. Webb Project Manager, Public Participation,
Principal EIS Writer
Dean A. Slocum Planner, Principal EIS Writer and Report
Preparation Coordinator
Richard M. Berlandy, P.E.Principal Project Engineer
-------
Andrew P. Kuchta
Planner, EIS Writer, Needs Analysis,
Constraints Analysis
Jared T. Wibberley Principal Environmental Planner, EIS Editor
Jennifer Aley
Frances Lyss
Andrew DeBoer
Karen Cruanes
Michael Garafalo
Lorraine Kelly
Paulaine Dupervil
Philip Pallotti
James Mathews
Gerri Farina
Subcontractors:
Assistant Environmental Planner, Newsletter,
EIS Editor
Typing, Project Coordination
Report Graphics, CADD
Report Graphics
Report Graphics
Word Processing
Word Processing
Document Reproduction, Distribution
Document Reproduction
Document Reproduction, Distribution
Ocean Surveys, Inc. Current and Hydrographic Surveys
MAAR Associates, Inc. Stage IB Cultural Resource Survey
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
NEEDS ANALYSIS
-------
APPENDIX A
NEEDS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The first step to developing a plan for solving an area's wastewater
treatment problems is to determine the actual nature and extent of
these problems. For this purpose, the project team undertook a
detailed survey and analysis of wastewater treatment needs in the Cruz
Bay study area. A door to door survey, in combination with an assess-
ment of the potential for effective on-site wastewater treatment, was
conducted in order to determine what means are used to treat and
dispose of wastewater in the area and how effective these means are.
This report describes the methods and findings of the needs survey.
Methods
The four primary sources for identifying wastewater needs are:
1. Meetings with concerned and involved individuals and organiza-
tions
2. Existing data and records
3. New data
4. The "public"
Although^ each of these data sources was utilized in gathering informa-
tion, the analysis contained herein is based primarily on new data
gathered through a door-to-door survey.
Meetings held with The Virgin Islands Department of Public Works
(DPW), Virgin Islands Planning Office (VIPO), the Administrator of St.
John, The Tax Assessor, other interested individuals, and the public
produced a general indication of Cruz Bay's wastewater needs. The
decision to conduct a door-to-door survey of needs was based on the
following factors:
The lack of utilities records, street maps, updated property maps
and the doubtful accuracy of those that did exist,
the need to obtain background and "inside" information from St.
John residents, i.e. existing problems, past problems, etc,
the relatively small area of Cruz Bay and the surrounding areas,
and
The need to update and expand upon existing maps and information.
A-l
-------
The first step in developing the survey was to define the objectives
of the needs assessment. It was decided that the survey would show an
inventory of the wastewater treatment and disposal systems and their
deficiencies (if any existed) currently utilized by each occupied
structure in the Cruz Bay area.
The second step was to define the study area. The original study area
included land within the drainage basin(s) of the existing public
sewer system. The study area was then modified to include adjacent
areas just outside the original, or "core" study area. Representative
sampling would occur in the extended study area to identify neighbor-
hoods with sewage deficiencies. The rationale behind the extended
study area was to see if connections to a new public sewer system line
could be possible and later analyzed for cost-effectiveness.
The next step was to develop a draft questionnaire that was easy to
implement and understand, in agreement with an EPA suggested format,
and met the objective previously stated. The draft was reviewed by
EPA and comments were incorporated into the final questionnaire
(Attached).
The survey crew consisted of three (3) CE Maguire employees who were
aware of the nature and purpose of the survey and could consistently
and accurately interpret responses to the questionnaire.
Notices were placed in the local newspaper explaining the nature and
purpose of the survey and asking for the cooperation of the residents.
The survey was also publicized on local radio and television stations.
The project team chose to survey six areas in and around the Cruz Bay
area. They were (1) Cruz Bay, the approximate central business
district (CBD) area; (2) Enighed, the area bordering north and east
of Enighed Pond where the existing sewage treatment plant is located;
(3) Contant, the area south of Enighed Pond; (4) Bethany, the interior
area east of Enighed and Pastore; (5) Pastore, a pocket development
off Center Line Road and west of Bethany, and (6) other areas, which
encompass all adjacent areas not mentioned above, including some of
the Virgin Islands National Park Land Grant, Great Cruz Bay, Chocolate
Hole, Gift Hill, etc. Figure 1 shows the location of these areas.
A combination of three (3) maps "(A 1972 1:200 scale map prepared by
DPW, a 1985 update of this map by de Jongh/URS associates for DPW, and
the 1982 USGS topographic map), showing the location of structures and
streets, was used to organize the door-to-door survey. A field survey
was also conducted to update these maps so they could reflect existing
conditions.
Residences were surveyed on January 13 through 17, mainly between the
hours of 1 and 7 p.m. Non-residential structures, such as stores,
businesses, and public institutions were surveyed exclusively during
the workday hours of January 13-17. These structures were also
recorded on the maps and the "number of residents" question was sub-
stituted with "number of employees".
A-2
-------
PASTORE
? •»^SSK*t
CRUZ BAY
BETHANY
CONTANT
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay. St. John US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre. New Britain, CT
Title :
NEEDS SURVEY INDEX MAP
Source : OEM, 1986
Date :1/86
Scale : NTS
-------
In summary,
contained in
(Table 1).
responses were obtained from 235 of the 566 structures
the communities surveyed, for a 50 percent response rate
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES
NEEDS SURVEY OF JANUARY 13-17, 1986
ST. JOHN, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Cruz Bay
Enighed
Contant
Bethany
Pastore
Other3
Number
of
Structures
93
259
85
522
46
314
Number
Visited
331
2251
85
52
46
31
Percent
Visited
35
87
100
100
100
100
Number
of
Responses
26
108
43
29
15
14
Percent
Responses
79
48
51
56
33
45
TOTALS
566
472
82
235
50
Structures with known public sewer system connections were not
interviewed.
2
Much of the Bethany area lies outside the core study area and some
lies outside the study area. The number shown is less than the
actual total number of structures in Bethany.
3
The category "others" represents communities or areas surveyed
outside the core study area. These areas include Power Boyd's
Plantation, Great Cruz Bay, Chocolate Hole, Gift Hill, Altair, Roman
Hill, Balsbarg, and Susannaberg. The category also includes the few
structures within the core area that are within the Virgin Islands
National Park
boundaries.
4
The number of structures surveyed outside the core study area is
a representative sample of the total number of houses in "other".
Findings
The following analysis, presented on a community basis, is the result
of the analysis of the door-to-door survey results and the
observations of the survey team.
A-3
-------
1. CRUZ BAY
The Cruz Bay area consists of the approximate Central Business
District (CBD) area located immediately south and east of Cruz
Bay. This area serves as the focal point for local government
activities on St. John.
Development characteristics in the Cruz Bay CBD area is comprised
of the following uses indicated in Table 2.
TABLE 2
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS - CRUZ BAY
Type of Use Number of Structures Remarks
Year-round Residential 92 None
Seasonal Residential _1 None
TOTAL 93
Single-family 11 None
Two-family 2 None
Multiple Dwelling 6 None
Commercial 31 Cruz Bay includes
CBD area
Other 43 Cruz Bay area is
identified under
constraints analysis
TOTAL 93
Includes churches, offices, storage garages, administrative offices,
schools, fire station, police station, etc.
The methods of wastewater disposal for these structures is summarized
in Table 3, and Figure 2.
A-4
-------
TABLE 3
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS - CRUZ BAY
Disposal Method
Public Sewer System
Cesspool
Latrine
Septic Tank/
Leaching System
Direct Discharge
Unknown
TOTALS
Number of
Structures
Surveyed
62
0
0
25
0
_2
93
Percent of
Total
67
0
0
27
0
Remarks
Cruz Bay has the
largest number of
public sewer
hookups
None
None
Some businesses
share septic tanks
Some businesses do
not have water
facilities
None
100
As shown in Table 3, sixty-seven (67) percent of the structures in
this area are connected to the public sewer system. Most did not have
any problems except for occasional odors. However, since the central-
ized treatment plant serving these structures is not capable of
adequately treating wastewater flows in accordance with its discharge
permit, all of these structures are considered to be "in need". The
septic tank users reported, for the most part, that they hed no
problems. However, proprietors and residents on the street wher^
Fred's and Lime Tree Restaurants are located indicated that they had
severe problems with sewage treatment. The general consensus by those
surveyed in the Cruz Bay CBD area was that sewage definitely is a
problem, that there should be more sewer lines throughout the area,
and that many people would like to connect to a public sewer system.
The structures in the "other" category did not have water facilities.
2. Enighed
The community of Enighed has the largest concentration of people
and structures in the Cruz Bay area. Development in the Enighed
area is shown in Table 4.
A-5
-------
V.L NATIONAL PARK
ENIGHED (EAST)
PUBLIC SYSTEM
SEPTIC SYSTEM/CESSPOOL
DIRECT DISCHARGE
LATRINE
NO FACILITIES
SOLID SYMBOLS INDICATE
FAILED SYSTEM
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, CT
ENIGHED (WEST)
TH'-! WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS
-CRUZ BAY (CBD)-
Mc.= CE MAGUIRE.
O.I.: 2/86 JSC.I.:
-------
TABLE 4
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS - ENI6HED
Number of
Type of Use Structures Surveyed Remarks
Year-round Residential 242 None
Seasonal Residential 17 Mostly homes
on coastal
hi 11-sides
TOTAL 259
Single-family 188 High density
residential
Two-family 31 High density
residential
Multiple Dwelling 29 High density
residential
Commercial 11 Most commercial
structures are con-
nected with the
public sewer system
Other 0 None
TOTAL 259
As shown in Table 4, nearly all of Enighed's residents live year-round
in the area, compounding the reported and observed deficiencies.
Table 5 and Figures 3 and 4 show the wastewater treatment methods used
in Enighed.
A-6
-------
ENIQHED (WEST)
ENIQHED POND
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
A PUBLIC SYSTEM
O SEPTIC SYSTEM/CESSPOO
<- DIRECT DISCHARGE
O LATRINE
X NO FACILITIES
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc.. New Britain, CT
T"": WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS
-ENIQHED (WEST)-
s.»,c.: CE MAGUIRE, INC.
SOLID SYMBOLS INDICATE
FAILED SYSTEM
-------
ENIGHEO (EAST)
A PUBLIC SYSTEM
O SEPTIC SYSTEM/CESSPOOL
4- DIRECT DISCHARGE
O LATRINE
X NO FACILITIES
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN E1S
Cruz Bay. Sc. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region If
CE Magulio, Inc.. New Britain. CT
ENIGHED (WEST)
O SOLID SYMBOLS INDICATE
FAILED SYSTEM
-------
TABLE 5
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS - ENIGHED
Disposal Method
Public Sewer System
Cesspool
Latrine
Septic Tank/
Leaching System
Direct Discharge
Other
Unknown
TOTALS
Number of
Structures
Surveyed
30
2
3
199
17
Percent
of Total
11
1
1
78
Remarks
None
None
None
Green discolora-
tion of Enighed
Pond
From Moravian
Point to the sea.
Many small struc-
tures (homes) do
not have water
facilities
None
259
100
The most problematic area in EnighecT is known as "Pine Peace", located
east of Enighed Pond. It is a highly congested area with small
structures and a relatively large population. During periods of rain,
untreated sewage runs down the steep hill from Pine Peace, according
to local officials and residents that the survey team interviewed.
However, in the course of the survey, only one resident of Pine Peace
mentioned a problem after rainfalls. The other residents mentioned no
problems except for occasional odors.
Public sewer system connections in Enighed were confined primarily to
commercial buildings. Many small structures did not have water facil-
ities and only a few had sewage disposal in the forms of latrines and
direct discharges. The majority of the structures in Enighed utilized
septic systems with many used for the disposal of laundry water (gray-
water) into the systems. Graywater from the remaining structures is
used for watering private gardens whenever possible.
3. Contant
The community of Contant lies on the south side of Enighed Pond,
on Contant Point. It is primarily a residential zone, as shown
in Table 6.
A-7
-------
TABLE 6
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS - CONTANT
Number of
Type of Use Structures Surveyed Remarks
Year-round Residential 83 None
Seasonal Residential _2 None
TOTAL 85
Single-family 70 Condominium complex
being constructed on
the peak of Contant
Point
Two-family 9 None
Multiple dwelling 2 None
Commercial I Greena's Grocery
Other _3 Church buildings
TOTALS 85
Most of Contant1s residents occupy their homes year-round and 70 of
its 85 structures are single-family homes. At the peak of Contant
Point, there are fifteen (15) lots being developed for condominium
construction. One structure is presently being built with the other
14 pending. A developer indicated that these condos would use septic
systems. Present wastewater disposal methods are shown in Table 7 and
Figure 5.
A-8
-------
ENK3HEDPOND
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Bay. St. John. US Virgin Islands
PUBLIC SYSTEM
O SEPTIC SYSTEM/CESSPOOL
<- DIRECT DISCHARGE
O LATRINE
X NO FACILITIES
PILLSBURY SOUND
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc.. New Britain. CT
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS
-CONT ANT-
SOLID SYMBOLS INDICATE
FAILED SYSTEM
CE MAGUBE. INC.
-------
TABLE 7
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS - CONTANT
Disposal Method
Public Sewer System
Cesspool
Latrine
Septic Tank/
Leaching System
Direct Discharge
Other
Unknown
TOTALS
Number of
Structures Surveyed
0
0
1
81
2
1
Percent
of Total
0
0
1
95
3
1
Remarks
None
None
None
None
Discharge into
Enighed Pond
One structure
(home) had no
facilities
None
85
100
Approximately 95 percent of the structures in Contant have septic sys-
tems, 3 percent discharge directly, and one structure did not have any
water facilities.
The division of problems was clear in the Contant community. Homes at
or near the peak of Contant Point had no sewage problems and were
adamantly opposed to being connected to a public sewer line, if one
was to be built. The residents occupying the structures at the base
of Contant Point and those near the Contant-Enighed border reported
frequent problems and favored a public sewer line near their homes.
4. Bethany
The Bethany area of Cruz Bay is located entirely inland. The
surveyed area was primarily comprised of single-family homes, a
few two-family and multiple dwellings, and one commercial build-
ing (the Upper Deck Restaurant), as shown in Table 8.
A-9
-------
TABLE 8
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS - BETHANY
Type of Use
Year-round Residential
Seasonal Residential
TOTAL
Number of
Structures Surveyed
48
_4
52
Remarks
None
None
Single-family
Two-family
Multiple Dwelling
Commercial
Other
TOTALS
29
7
5
1
Including
Upper Deck Condo-
miniums
None
None
Upper Deck Restau-
rant
Microwave Tower
Station
52
Wastewater disposal methods for Bethany are shown in Table 9 and
Figure 6.
A-10
-------
TABLE 9
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS - BETHANY
Disposal Method
Public Sewer System
Cesspool
Latrine
Septic Tank/
Leaching System
Direct Discharge
Other
Unknown
TOTALS
Number of Percent
Structures Surveyed of total
0 0
2 4
0 0
48 92
0 0
2 4
_0 __0
52 100
Remarks
None
None
None
Very few/no
problems
None
Some structures
(homes) have no
facilities
More than 90 percent of the structures in Bethany have septic systems
and the remaining structures have cesspools or no facilities. The
area does not seem to possess any wastewater disposal problems and
most of the surveyed residents are of the opinion that extending the
sewer lines to Bethany would be a waste of time, effort and money.
Generally residents felt that sewage is not a problem in Bethany,
because of the large lot sizes. A few of the surveyed residents said
that they had separate graywater disposal systems.
5. Pastore
The Pastore community is a pocket development stemming from three
spurs off Center Line Road just west of the Bethany area. Most
are single-family structures, as shown in Table 10, with some
two-family and multiple dwellings and the one "other" structure
being the Jehovah's Witness Church on Center Line Road.
A-ll
-------
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Cruz Day. St. JoKn, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc., New Britain, CT
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS
-BETHANY-
s.u,c.: CE MAGUIRE. INC.
»»«•: 2/86 |sc.l.: 1^200' JFIguf.: 6
A PUBLIC SYSTEM
O SEPTIC SYSTEM/CESSPOOL
4- DIRECT DISCHARGE
O LATRINE
X NO FACILITIES
SOLID SYMBOLS INDICATE
FAILED SYSTEM
-------
TABLE 10
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS - PASTORE
Number of
Type of Use
Year-round
Seasonal Re
TOTAL
STngTe^famTly
Two-family
Commercial
Other
TOTALS
Structures Surveyed
esidential 43
idential _3
46
y 36
6
11 ing 3
0
1
Remarks
None
None
None
None
Three small struc-
tures (homes)
without water
facilities
None
Jehovas Witness
Church
46
Table 11 and Figure 7 identify the wastewater disposal methods in
Pastore.
TABLE 11
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS - PASTORE
Disposal Method
Public Sewer System
Cesspool
Latrine
Septic Tank/
Leaching System
Direct Discharge
Other
Unknown
TOTALS
Number of
Structures Surveyed
0
0
3
43
0
0
_0
46
Percent
of Total
0
0
7
Remarks
None
None
None
93 Occasional rain
fall problems
0 None
0
_0
100
None
None
A-12
-------
VJ. NATIONAL PARK
I
i
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
BETHANY
A PUBLIC SYSTEM
O SEPTIC SYSTEM/CESSPOOL
<- DIRECT DISCHARGE
O LATRINE
X NO FACILITIES
SOUD SYMBOLS INDICATE
FAILED SYSTEM
<£CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLAN EIS
truz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
CE Magulre, Inc.. New Britain, CT
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS
-PASTORE-
soo,c.: CE MAGUIRE, INC.
o.i.= 2/86 ISC.L: I'g200'
,.: 7
-------
Septic systems represent over 90 percent of the wastewater disposal
methods in Pastore. The residents surveyed mentioned that very infre-
quent odor problems occurred after rainfall, but in general, were
satisfied with their own systems. Three of the surveyed structures in
Pastore had latrines for their disposal system. These were located in
a secluded area in the eastern section of Pastore, near the Bethany
border.
6. Other Areas
Table 12 shows the development characteristics identified from a
representative sample of areas not mentioned above, but could
possibly be candidates for a public sewer system line.
Type of Use
Year-round Residential
Seasonal Residential
TOTAL
TABLE 12
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS - OTHER
Number of
Structures Surveyed
Remarks
20
11
31
None
Multiple homeowners
Single-family
Two-family
Multiple Dwelling
Commercial
Other
TOTALS
26
4
0
0
_1
31
Sparse density
except for Power
Boyd's section
None
None
None
None
These other areas were sparsely populated with the exception of the
Power Boyd's Plantation, area on located east of the Contant-Enighed
border near Great Cruz Bay. More than one-third of the homes surveyed
are seasonal homes. Other areas surveyed and observed included Great
Cruz Bay, Chocolate Hole, Gift Hill, Altair, Roman Hill, Balsberg,
Fish Bay and Susannaberg. Also included is the area within the Virgin
Islands National Park just north of Cruz Bay. Two major developments
A-13
-------
occurring in the outside areas include a 40-50 unit condominium
development in Fish Bay and the Virgin Grand Hotel near Great Cruz
Bay. There is also some development that is currently being finished
on Gift Hill (condominiums). Each of these developments will include
its own wastewater treatment system.
All the structures connected to the public sewer system in the "other"
category are in the National Park. The Superintendent of the Virgin
Island National Park informed the survey team that there were no plans
to extend the existing sewer lines further into the Park. Table 13
shows the disposal methods surveyed/observed in the other areas.
TABLE 13
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS - OTHER
Disposal Method
Public Sewer System
Cesspool
Latrine
Septic Tank/
Leaching System
Direct Discharge
Unknown
TOTALS
Number of
Structures Surveyed
13
Percent
of Total
42
0
1
17
0
_0
31
0
3
55
0
0
Remarks
Structures with-
in Virgin Islands
National Park
borders
None
None
Outside the core
study area
None
None
100
In general, most of the outside areas, with the exception of the
National Park, have problem-free septic systems and do not desire a
connection to the public system. An area that may benefit from a
public sewer line extension is the aforementioned Power Boyd's area.
All of the homes in this area use a common latrine. There are fre-
quent odor problems and the risk of resultant health problems exists.
A-14
-------
Summary
The summary of development characteristics is presented in Table 14.
Development in the Cruz Bay area is predominantly residential with
eighty-three (83) percent falling in the categories of single-family,
two-family and multiple dwellings. Approximately 93 percent of the
area is composed of year-round structural occupancy. Based on person-
al observation, seasonal occupancy occurs more frequently as one
travels further away from the Cruz Bay CBD area.
The most utilized method of wastewater disposal, as indicated in Table
15, is the septic system, comprising seventy-three percent. The
second most often used method is the public sewer system connection,
amounting to nineteen percent. Four percent of the structures did not
have any water facilities, and cesspool, latrine, and unknown re-
presented one percent each.
As previously discussed, the needs survey conducted in conjunction
with this report identified wastewater disposal problems of varying
degree in all of the areas surveyed.
A further compounding factor is the inadequate operation of the exist-
ing wastewater treatment plant and the number of additional applica-
tions from those who want connections to the public sewer system.
Based upon the findings of the needs survey and the increased poten-
tial for wastewater flows, the areas of Pine Peace in Enighed and
Power Boyd's outside the core study area are in the greatest need for
an improved method of wastewater treatment. The Cruz Bay CBD, nearly
all of Enighed and the western and low-lying sections of Contant are
also in need of improved or new wastewater disposal facilities.
A-15
-------
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Total
Community
CRUZ BAY
ENIGHED
CONTANT
BETHANY
PASTOR E
OTHER
TOTAL
PERCENTAGES
Number
of Structures
93
259
85
52
46
31
566
100
Year-round
Residential
92
242
83
48
43
20
528
93
Seasonal
Residential
1
17
2
4
3
11.
38
7
Single-
Family
11
188
70
38
36
26
369
65
Two-
Family
2
31
9
7
6
_4
59
10
Multiple
Dwelling
6
29
2
5
3
_0
45
8
Commercial
31
11
1
11
0
_0
44
8
Othei
43
0
3
1
1
_1
49
9
LIncludes churches, offices, storage garages, administration offices, schools,
fire station, police station, etc.
-------
Total
Number
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS
Public Sewer
Community
CRUZ BAY
ENIGHED
CONTANT
BETHANY
PASTORE
OTHER
TOTAL
PERCENTAGES
of Structures
93
259
85
52
46
31
566
100
Direct
System Cesspnnl 1 atrinr ^m-n,- T-,,,I n- i 1
j_ — JJ^UUI Latrine beptic Tank Discharqe Other1
62 ° 0 25 o 4
30 2 3 199 3 17
On i
° 1 81 2 1
02 0 48 o 2
°° 3 43 o o
13 n i
— — — 1 JZ _o o
105 4 o „,-
8 413 5 24
19 1 1-70
1 : 73 i 4
Unknown
2
5
0
0
0
_0
7
1
LStructures with no water facilities
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEMS IN CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, USVI
his survey is being conducted to obtain information that will help us to develop a
easible plan for solving Cruz Bay's wastewater treatment and disposal problems. For
his to be successful, we would like one member of each household to answer each
uestion on this questionnaire. Thank you for your cooperation.
What is your name and address or specific location on St. John?
How many people live in your house? (Write number in space provided.)
»
When is your house occupied? year round seasonally (state number of months
. What type of building do you live in? (Check one of the follow.)
a. single family d. commercial
b. two family e. other(please specify)
c. multiple dwelling
What type of wastewater system is used by your household?
d. septic tank/leaching system
a. public sewer system e. direct discharge to water or land
b. cesspool f. other (please explain)
c. latrine g. unknown
How well does this system work?
a. no problems at all
b. only occasional problems (please define)*
c. only problems during and/or after rainfall*
d. frequent problems (please define)*
e. doesn't work at all
*type of problem? slow draining of fixtures odors liquid on ground
other (explain)
In your opinion, which of the following is the best way to dispose of treated
wastewater?
a. discharge treated effluent to ocean via an outfall pipe
b. apply treated effluent to agricultural land
c. use treated effluent as raw water feed to water reuse plant
d. other (please explain)
;'• Please express any comments or suggestions which you feel may help us to develop a
wastewater management plan that will serve you best.
?- Would you like to serve on a Citizens' Advisory Committee for this project?
Yes No
Thank you again for your cooperation.
ftere will be advertised public meetings in the next few months to discuss the findings of
this survey and other progress on this project. You are encouraged to attend these
Meetings.
-------
APPENDIX B
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
-------
APPENDIX B
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
Environmental constraints are physical, legal, and other limitations
to the extent or pattern to which development may occur in an area.
The purpose of this report is to identify the environmental con-
straints present in Cruz Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, to
project the influence each constraint may realistically have on future
growth, and to analyze the collective influence of constraints on
growth. This information is used as a planning tool to determine the
amount of developable land within the Cruz Bay project area and to
plan appropriate capacity and layout of the proposed wastewater
facilities.
The environmental constraints addressed in this report present various
types of limitations to growth in Cruz Bay. These constraints may be
grouped into the following categories:
Physical characteristics, including excessively steep slopes,
flood hazard, and dense development, which make an area diffi-
cult, costly, imprudent, or dangerous to develop.
Legal characteristics, including National Park Service (NPS) or
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) regulations and local zoning
regulations, which present legal restrictions to development.
Natural characteristics, including soil conditions, aquifer
recharge areas, significant habitat, cultural resource sites, and
prime agricultural land, which should be protected from develop-
ment due to their environmental sensitivity or value.
Other characteristics, including infrastructure and services,
which serve as temporary constraints but may be altered to
accommodate more growth.
Each of these constraints will be discussed separately and presented
graphically in order to analyze the influence each has individually on
growth. The conclusion of this report will address the combined
influence of environmental constraints and the resultant prospect for
growth in Cruz Bay.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
1. STEEP SLOPES
In most areas of the continental United States, slopes of greater
than 15 percent are considered "steep slopes" for planning and
development constraint purposes. EPA has found in recent studies
B-l
-------
in the Caribbean that 30 or 40 percent slope is a more realistic
boundary for a constraint to development. This determination was
based on the scarcity of relatively flat to moderately sloping
land, pressure for development, and unique construction methods
practiced in the Caribbean Islands.
These factors are evidently more intense in the present study
area as it is not uncommon to find houses perched on 40 or 45
percent slopes along the coastal hillsides. Therefore, 50
percent slope has been determined as the realistic level beyond
which development is not likely to occur in the study area.
Slopes of 50 percent or greater cover a total of approximately
170 acres (ac), or 9 percent, of the study area.
Construction of buildings on excessively steep slopes presents
problems to construction and long-term structural stability.
Foremost among these problems are issues of drainage, soil
erosion, slope stability, and accessibility. Development on
slopes of 30-50 percent may be physically and economically risky
as well as environmentally threatening. However, based on the
history of development in the study area, it is not realistic Jto
draw the line of constraint at less than a 50 percent slope.
While greater than 30 percent slope may be considered a limit for
desirable development conditions (and, therefore, an impediment
to development), 50 percent slope or greater is considered to be
the definite limit of the absolute constraint to development.
Therefore, all land in the study area characterized by 50 percent
slope or greater is considered to be constrained from develop-
ment.
2. FLOOD PRONE AREAS
Flood prone areas are the areas which would be inundated by a
100-year flood , according to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. In the study area, approximately 180 ac of coastal
fringe and alluvial plain are considered flood prone. Typically,
the flood prone area is a coastal fringe between 0 and 5 feet
(ft) above mean sea level (msl), although in the lower reaches of
Fish Bay Gut, the flood hazard exists up to an elevation of
almost 40 ft. msl. This area at the head of Fish Bay, combined
with areas around Chocolate Hole, Great Cruz Bay, Enighed Pond,
Culebra Wastewater Facilities Plan EIS, 1985 (Culebra, Puerto Rico)
and Mangrove Lagoon/ Turpentine Run Wastewater Facilities Plan EIS,
1984 (St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands).
2
It is not the purpose of this report to recommend measures to
restrict development, but rather to establish the most realistic
model possible for the true development constraints.
A 100 year flood is a flood of the magnitude which is expected to
occur with a frequency of once every 100 years.
B-2
-------
and Cruz Bay constitutes the great majority of the study area's
flood prone land. Areas of development which would be par-
ticularly affected by a 100-year flood include:
The police station and shops surrounding the ferry dock in
downtown Cruz Bay;
Five homes on Moravian ("Moorehead") Point which would be
cut off from the rest of St. John;
The existing pump station and wastewater treatment plant on
the berm separating Enighed Pond from Turner Bay, and;
The Virgin Grand Hotel complex being constructed at the head
of Great Cruz Bay.
Flood prone areas are not suitable for development. This is
primarily because (1) the potential for flood presents a serious
economic and physical hazard to properties in flood prone areas,
(2) the location of structures in these areas serves to reduce
the normal capacity of a floodplain to contain stream-fed flood
waters, thereby causing an increase in the elevation of flooding,
and (3) saturation and flushing of flooded septic systems is a
public health hazard and may cause contamination to mangrove
swamps or other environmentally sensitive areas within the flood
prone area.
Much of the flood prone areas in the study area are protected
from development by the Virgin Islands' Coastal Zone Management
Program. Development does exist in these areas in Cruz Bay,
Great Cruz Bay, and Fish Bay, however. While flood prone areas
should be protected from development (for reasons stated above),
pressure for development and desirability of relatively flat,
coastal land on St. John makes it unrealistic to consider flood
prone areas an absolute constraint to development. Instead,
these areas apparently serve more as impediments to development,
causing developers to first look elsewhere for developable plots.
As unconstrained areas which are very suitable for development
are quickly dwindling in the study area, it may be expected that
development may encroach further on the flood prone areas in the
future.
3. DEVELOPED AREAS
Most of the development in the study area is located on the
western/southwestern shore and adjacent slopes, in the com-
munities of Cruz Bay, Enighed, Contant, Pine Peace and Power
Boyds Plantation. Other areas with scattered development include
Roman Hill, Monte, Fish Bay, Gift Hill, and Bethany.
B-3
-------
Two areas in particular have been developed to, or near to, the
point of saturation, based on current zoning. These areas, Cruz
Bay and Pine Peace/Contant, comprise approximately 39 ac, or 2.1
percent of the study area.
These areas are characterized by such dense development that it
would be very difficult to fit in more homes (especially given
existing zoning regulations). The dense development in these
areas is, therefore, considered a realistic constraint to further
development.
4. U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT LAND
Approximately two-thirds of St. John is part of the Virgin
Islands National Park. The study area includes approximately 113
ac (6 percent of the study area) of National Park land. This
overlapping into the National Park occurs along the northern
border of the study area. The U.S. National Park Service main-
tains and enforces strict regulations against development within
Park boundaries in order to preserve the natural environment of
the area. Therefore, the National Park Service's regulations
over the National Park land within the study area is considered a
realistic and definite constraint to development on this land.
Other lands in the study area which are subject to definite land
use regulations are those which are protected under the Virgin
Islands Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program. This program,
administered by the Department of Conservation and Cultural
Affairs, designates certain zones in which development is pro-
hibited or restricted.
A CZM permit is required for any development occurring in these
zones. The permit is granted on the condition that the proposed
development is consistent with the type of land use proposed for
that zone by the Virgin Islands' CZM Act of 1978. Residential
development is not considered consistent with "preservation" and
"conservation" zones, and only certain levels of development are
consistent with the "Protection, Residential Low Density" zones.
Therefore, the "preservation" and "conservation" zones are
considered areas in which direct, realistic constraints exist to
residential development and the "protection" zones are considered
areas in which development is regulated.
4
The Program has also designated two "areas of particular concern"
(APC's) within the study area. These areas include (1) the Cruz Bay/
Enighed Pond area and (2) the Great Cruz Bay/Chocolate Hole area, as
shown in Figure 5. The Virgin Islands CZM Act of 1978 requires that
the Program especially recognize APC's by making "provision for pro-
cedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of
preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational,
ecological, or esthetic values". (Section 306 (c)(a)).
B-4
-------
5. ZONING
Zoning designations in the study area consist of residential,
business, waterfront, and public zones. The residential (Rl, R2,
R3 and R4), business (B2), and waterfront (Wl) zones all allow
various degrees of residential development, as shown in Table 1.
The public (P) zone does not allow residential or commercial
development except under special, strictly regulated condi-
tions. Therefore, the approximately 130 ac of land zoned P
in the study area may be considered constrained from devel-
opment. Additional, but less direct, constraints to develop-
ment are presented by the maximum density regulations of the
residential, business and waterfront zones.
TABLE 1
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
Approx.
Acres in
Study Area* Zone
586 Rl
920 R2
40
4 B2
2 Wl
130 P
Description
Residential - low density
Max. Density Allowed
2 dwelling units (du)
per 1/2 acre
Residential - low density - 2 du/10,000 square
one- and two-family
R3,R4 Residential - medium
density
Business - secondary/
neighborhood
Waterfront - pleasure
Public
feet (ft2)
80 persons/acre
80 persons/acre
2 du/10,000 ft2
*Not including area of detailed zoning divisions surrounding Cruz Bay.
While these regulations present realistic and quantifiable
constraints to development at present, it is important to note
that zoning may be legally changed to accommodate a greater or
lesser amount of development. Given the history of zoning
variances in the Cruz Bay area, future zoning changes are likely
to reflect pressure to accommodate more development.
B-5
-------
6. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil characteristics may serve as a constraint to development by
presenting severe limitations to the success of on-site sewage
disposal or building foundations. However, given the
developable land, the pressure
construction methods practiced
limitations are not considered
development.
However, given the scarcity of
for development and the
in the study area, these
absolute constraints to
As shown in Table 2, the majority of the land in the study area
is characterized by soils with severe limitations for both
on-site sewage disposal and building foundations. A total of
approximately 1,660 ac, or 87.6 percent of the study area is
covered by such soils.
TABLE 2
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil Series
All Others
Cranmer (CrE,
CrF, CsF,
CrC, CsE2)
Jaucus (JuB)
Volcanic Rock
Tidal Flat (TF)
Isaac (ISE, IsDz)
San Anton (SaA)
Pozo Blanco (PbC)
Description
gravelly
clay loam,
clay, gravel'
ly clay
sand
rock
sand, silt,
mud
gravelly
clay loam,
clay, clay
loam
clay loam,
gravelly
clay loam
clay loam,
silty clay
loam, loam
Limitations*
for On-site
Sewage Disposal
severe
Limitations
for Building
Foundations
severe
% of
Approximate Total
Acreage in Study
Study Area Area
1,660 87.6
severe
moderate
120 6.3
moderate
moderate
severe
moderate
94 5.0
22 1.1
*Source: US Soil
August, 1970.
Conservation Service, Soil Survey of the US Virgin Island.
B-6
-------
Soil limitations serve as an impediment or indirect constraint to
development, but become an increasingly less realistic constraint
as development pressure increases and the amount of developable
land decreases.
7. AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS
The aquifer recharge areas in the study area are limited to the
land over three coastal/alluvial aquifers. The combined area of
these aquifer recharge areas is approximately 97 ac, or 5.1
percent of the study area.
The value of these aquifers for potable water supply is most
likely very low, as there are no known wells tapping them. The
storage of groundwater is likely to be contaminated by seawater
intrusion and recharge from poorly treated wastewater effluent.
Nonetheless, these aquifers are a resource that should be pro-
tected if possible, especially given the extremely limited fresh
water supply on St. John. Therefore, like soil limitations, the
aquifer recharge areas in the study area are considered impedi-
ments or indirect constraints to development.
8. SIGNIFICANT HABITAT
Significant habitat areas are environments or locations character-
ized by special physical conditions required for the existence of
significant vegetation or animal species, usually species which
are endangered, threatened, or of particular concern. The
majority of the significant habitat consists of mangrove fringe
and coastal pond ecosystems (wetlands) around Fish Bay, Hart Bay,
Chocolate Hole, Enighed Pond, and Lind Point. These areas are
important habitats for a variety of coastal birds, including the
endangered brown pelican (Pelicanus occidental is). The shrub
covered rocks of Steven Cay provide another important habitat for
coastal birds. Inland portions of Fish Bay Gut and Battery Gut
have been identified by local authorities as likely habitat for
three species of vegetation which are either on, or candidates
for, the federal endangered species list. The total area of
these significant habitat areas is approximately 138 ac, or 7.3
percent of the study area.
In addition to these defined, quantifiable significant habitat
areas, there are two general areas which are likely to contain
significant habitat for endangered or potentially endangered
species of vegetation. These areas are identified as the eastern
slopes of Gift Hill and Maria Bluff. While both of these areas
are potentially as important as the other significant habitat
areas, neither is well-defined nor readily quantifiable.
Ornithologist and endangered species specialist with the DCCA Divi-
sion of Fish and Wildlife.
B-7
-------
Significant habitat does not present a direct constraint to
development. However, due to the ecologicalvalue of these
areas, they should be protected from development. (In many
cases, these areas are already protected by zoning, National Park
Service, Coastal Zone Management, or other constraints.) There-
fore, significant habitat is considered as an indirect constraint
to development.
9. CULTURAL RESOURCES
"Cultural resources" may be defined for the purpose of this
report as areas of archaeological significance or sensitivity. A
preliminary survey of such areas in the core study area was con-
ducted in late 1985 as part of the Comprehensive Plan for the
Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay. A similar study of the extended study
area was conducted in early 1986. Cultural resource areas
consist mainly of historic and post-emancipation archaeological
sites. Cultural resource areas cover approximately 263 ac of the
study area, or 14 percent of this area. A similar cultural
resource survey has been conducted to identify cultural resources
in the remainder of the study area. Preliminary findings
indicate that this area is also rich in cultural resources.
Similar to significant habitat, cultural resources are not direct
constraints, but should be protected due to their cultural/his-
torical importance. However, due to the pressure for development
and the lack of developable land in the study area, it is unlike-
ly that the presence of cultural resources in an area is likely
to constrain or impede development from occurring there. Once
the valuable cultural resources in the study area have been
clearly defined, land use regulations should be enacted and
enforced in order to protect these resources. Without such
regulations, however, cultural resources are not considered a
realistic constraint to development in the study area.
10. PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
Land which is of particular agricultural value in a given area is
considered "prime agricultural land" or Class I as designated by
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) on a scale of I-VIII.
None of the soils in the study area are designated as Class I.
However, the San Anton soil is considered suitable for cultivat-
ing crops (SCS, 1970). There are areas covered by this soil in
the study area. However, these soils are already covered by
development or in use for other purposes. Active cultivation
does not occur in the study area. For these reasons, none of the
land in the study area is considered constrained due to prime
agricultural status.
11. INFRASTRUCTURE. SERVICES, AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS
Another category of features which must be considered as poten-
tial constraints to development includes the infrastructure,
services, and other unique conditions typical of a small island
B-8
-------
environment. The infrastructure in the study area, particularly
roads, existing sewer system, water supply, and power supply is
generally not adequate for projected growth.
Existing public roadways are generally narrow, often steep and
sharply winding, and commonly scarred by cracks and potholes.
Traffic jams are common in downtown Cruz Bay, particularly after
ferry arrivals. The roads in the National Park, in contrast, are
in very good condition and appear to have adequate capacity for
the traffic (mainly tourist) using them.
The existing public sewer system has been found to be an inade-
quate means of meeting the wastewater treatment needs of the
study area. (These needs are addressed in detail in the Needs
Analysis report prepared for this project.)
Similarly, the public water supply is inadequate for serving the
study area's water supply needs. Residents obtain water from
rooftop rainfall catchment/cistern systems as well as from the
public water supply (water pumped from mid-island wells and
barged from the desalination plant on St. Thomas.) The quality
of potable water is generally not good, and frequent water
shortages force residents to be very conservative in water use.
Power is brought to St. John from St. Thomas by means of an
underwater cable. This power supply is backed up by a recently
implemented auxiliary power generating station, located at the
head of Enighed Pond. While power failures are relatively
frequent in the St. Thomas power supply, the auxiliary power
supply has alleviated this problem for the study area, providing
a relatively reliable, constant, and adequate supply for the
area's energy needs.
Like the infrastructure, the services available in the study area
reflect the small island environment. Special services (i.e.,
taxis, hourly ferry service to and from St. Thomas) are oriented
toward the Island's tourist industry. Other services which more
directly affect residents of the study area, such as the communi-
ty health clinic and the fire and police departments, tend to be
characterized by less ample resources. The only public trans-
portation available is the ferries, scheduled sea plane service
to and from St. Thomas, and scheduled taxi/bus service to Coral
Bay and other locations on St. John. Telephone service is
available islandwide and is generally adequate.
Difficulty in obtaining certain supplies, establishing or main-
taining contact with the continental United States, and traveling
to and from St. John are likely to serve as combined inhibitors
to some potential growth from off-island. As the population and
demands on resources increase, the above-referenced limitations
or issues may become more influential constraints to this ser-
vice.
B-9
-------
The constraints considered in this section are non-quantifiable
and are not necessarily permanent. (Infrastructure, services,
and supplies may be improved to accommodate further growth.)
Given the present status of the infrastructure and services in
the study area, only the water supply presents realistic con-
straint to development. While many other parts of the infra-
structure and services do not adequately meet residents' needs,
the mos± significant constraint is the Island's limited water
supply. In addition, limitations to supplies, communication,
travel, and conveniences are likely to serve as realistic con-
straints to development from off-island, particularly from the
continental United States. The other conditions considered in
this section—roads, public sewer system, power supply and
services—are not considered to be realistic constraints to
development at this time.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this constraints analysis, as stated in the Introduc-
tion, is to (1) identify the environmental constraints present in the
study area, (2) consider the influence each constraint may realisti-
cally have on future growth, and (3) analyze the collective influence
of constraints on growth. The first two tasks have been accomplished
in the previous sections. It is the purpose of this conclusion to
address the third.
Table 3 summarizes the constraining characteristics evaluated in the
order of the greatest constraining influence to the least constrain-
ing.
The most constraining categories include land zoned "P" for public
use, National Park Service land, land designated for preservation or
conservation under the CZM program, land characterized by steep slopes
densely developed areas and the limited water supply. The combination
of these constraints (considering occasional overlap) covers
approximately 390 ac, or slightly over 20 percent of the total study
area. Based on the findings of this analysis, it is very unlikely
that development would occur within these areas.
The second most constraining categories include flood prone areas,
areas with severe soil limitations, aquifer recharge areas, areas of
significant habitat, and areas of archaeological sensitivity ("cul-
tural resources"). While these areas should be protected due to
environmental or cultural value, it is not realistic to predict that
development will be completely constrained or prohibited from them in
the absence of protective measures. Further, many of these environ-
mentally sensitive areas are overlapped by the constraints in the
first category. Portions of the flood prone areas, for instance, are
constrained by the "P" zone, National Park land, CZM land, and densely
developed areas.
Improvement of wastewater facilities alone would not be likely to
encourage a significant amount of further development.
B-10
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
MOST PERCENT
CONSTRAINING AREA OF
CATEGORIES (approximate acres) STUDY AREA
Steep Slopes 170 9
Developed Areas 40 2.1
Zoning "P" 130 6.9
NPS/CZM Land 155 8.2
Flood Prone Areas 180 9.5
Water Supply na na
SECOND MOST
CONSTRAINING CATEGORIES
Soil Limitations 1,660 87.6
Significant Habitat 140 7.4
Aquifer Recharge Areas 100 5.3
Cultural Resources 185 38*
LEAST CONSTRAINING CATEGORIES
Public Sewer System na na
Power Supply na na
Roadways, Other na na
Infrastructure
Services na na
Supplies, Conveniences na na
*Percent of core study area.
na = not applicable, non-quantifiable constraints
B-ll
-------
The third and least constraining categories include communication,
travel and conveniences available and other infrastructure and
services.
Consideration of the realistic influence of the various environmental
constraints that have been identified in this report is the first step
to projecting the patterns and extent of development which will occur
in the study area. This is a crucial step in designing appropriately
located and sized wastewater facilities to meet the projected needs of
the study area.
B-12
-------
APPENDIX C
DETAILED FACILITIES PLANNING INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX C
DETAILED FACILITIES PLANNING INFORMATION
This Appendix includes background information relative to wastewater
facilities planning and preliminary design for this project. This
information is presented in the following sections:
C.I Water quality data for the existing Cruz Bay wastewater treatment
plant and Enighed Pond ("Lagoon #2 and #3"), as presented in
Appendix E of deJongh/URS Associates, Comprehensive Plan for the
Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay, VI. 1985.
C.2 Preliminary wastewater facility cost estimates from Appendix F of
deJongh/URS Associates, Comprehensive Plan for the Sewage Needs
of Cruz Bay, V.I.. 1985.
C.3 Assessment of existing wastewater facilities in Cruz Bay from
Chapter III, Section B of deJongh/URS Associates, Comprehensive
Plan for the Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay. VI. 1985.
C.4 Discussion of on-site systems which could be used in the extend
study area.
C.5 Detailed cost estimates prepare by CE Maguire, Inc. for waste-
water facilities considered feasible in the Draft EIS.
-------
APPENDIX C.I
WATER QUALITY DATA
(Reproduced from deJongh/URS Associates, Comprehensive Plan
for the Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay, VI, 19850
-------
LABORATORY TEST REPORT
CLTFKT; The Jongh Associates
FACILITY: St. John. V.I.
W.O.i: 289-01-01
WWTP-Influent
PARAMETERS
Alkalinity
Fecal Coliform
Total Coliform
BODS
BOD-Soluble
COO
COD-Soluble
OiI I Grease
pH
Dissolved Oxygen
Color
Turbidity
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Sol ids
Total Volatile Sol Ids
Ammonia-N
Nitrate-N
Nitrite-N
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Copper
Total Chromium
Total Mercury
Total Zinc
Total Lead
UNITS
mg/L as CaC03
HPN/100ml
HPN/100ml
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
PtCoCU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
W9/L
ug/L
P9/L
"9/1-
Reported
Title:
•eqjMQ)
DATE SAMPLE COLLECTED/
6-25-85
10482
681
—
—
2,220
218
16,420
754
87. <(
7. 3*
< 0.1
200
125
150
3,291
1.863
5.243
61
0.78
0.12
118
13.3
„
__
__
6-26-85
10503
367
2,800
3,500
3,000
3A5
5.990
754
121
7-31
< 0.1
100
170
68
2.982
1 .721
*i.027
72
0.27
< 0.01
153
21.3
__
'.-
— —
~~_
Reported by:
Title:
6-27-85 6-28-85
10518
524
2 2,400,000
t 2,400,000
3,960
300
5,120
713
66.5
6.91
< 0.1
130
100
130
2,075
1.562
2,676
59
0.41
0.10
203
18.3
._
— —
__
"
^^-^
10536
314
16,000
I 24,000
2,130
330
3,310
599
27.3
7.02
< 0.1
100
20
190
2,514
2,112
2,092
48
0.24
0.09
121
9.5
410
< 20
0.25
1.074
125
'/,
EQL SAMPLE
6-29-85
10545
628
£ 24,000
£ 24,000
1,080
360
10,395
867
232
6.54
< 0.1
130
106
320
2,964
1.691
2.161
41
0.59
0.10
173
21.3
_—
__
,xSS^7S^~/-VW^
T3
O
Q.
C
O
fD
Q.
Q-
fD
O
CT3
GO
00
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALfTY LABORATORIES. INC. BOX 8773, SANTUACE. PUERTO RCO 009K) TFi R
-------
I ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
LA8ORATORIES. INC.
De Jongh Associates
St. John, V.I.
W.0.# 289-01-01
Station: Lagoon #2
July 18,1985
PARAMETERS
Fecal Coliform
Total Coliform
BODS
COD
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Color
Turbidi ty
Total Phosphorus
Ammonia-N
Nitrate-N
Nitrite-N
UNITS
MPN/IOOml
MPN/IOOml
mg/L
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
PtCoCU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
DATE SAMPLE COLLECTED/EQL SAMPLE #
6-25-85
10485
--
—
1.6
1,190*
8.18
8.6
15
3.2
< 0.01
1.5
< 0.01
< 0.01
6-26-85
10505
< 20
< 20
6.0
310*
8.27
7.6
< 5
0.5
< 0.01
1.8
< 0.01
< 0.01
Contained large amounts of chloride, that although reduced,
may interfere positively.
Reported by:Tsmael Mart
Title: -^J.abora^cK'y Manager
Released by: Jos6 G. Vila
Title: General Manager
Reported by: Elba L. Martfnez
Title: Microbiolgoist
-------
Oe Jongh Associates
St. John, V.I.
w.o.# 289-01-01
Station: Lagoon #3
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
LABORATORIES. INC.
July 18,1985
PARAMETERS
Fecal Coliform
Total Coliform
BOD5
COD
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Color
Turbidi ty
Total Phosphorus
Ammon ia-N
Nitrate-N
Nitrite-N
UNITS
MPN/IOOml
MPN/IOOml
mg/L
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
PtCoCU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
6-25-85
101*86
< 20
< 20
1.1
740*
7.10
5.6
10
4.5
< 0.01
1.5
0.11
0.02
DATE SAMPLES COLLECTED/EOJ. SAMPLE <
6-26-85
10506
20
50
3-3
530*
8.22
5.5
8
Q.k
0.02
1.8
< 0.01
0.02
^Contained large amounts of chloride, that although reduced,
may interfere positively.
Reported by:
Title: "
Reported by:
Title:
Elba L: Martfnez
Microbiologist
Released by: Jos6 G. Vila
TitleJ General Manager
-------
LABORATQY TEST REPORT
De Jongh Associates
#2 Estate Staabi
P.O. Box 6155
St. Thomas, V.I. 00801
Attn: Eng. Charles Zombro
ENVIftONUCNTAL OUAIIT
LAIORATOmCS. INC.
Date: July 18,1985
Page 1 of 1
EQLAB
~WO.#: 289-01-02
D.S.#: 2512
Date Sample Cjgj&c^Received:
Juiv q/aq
CLIENT
Facility: St
P.O.#:
Date Sample
Tample #: Source:
10627 thru 10631 See Remarks
.John
Collected: July 9/85
Description:
SAMPLE #
10627
10628
10629
10630
10631
PARAMETERS
Reported by:
Title:
Angel L. Gonzalez
Chemist
RESULTS UNIT
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
390
153
30
76.4
1,320
1,966
285
145
31.5
117
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
REMARKS
Influent Line Main Pump Sta
WWTP-Effluent
it it
WWTP-lnfluent Line
II II H
Influent-VM lage
Entghed Pond to Bay
Released by: Jos6 G. Vila
Title: General Manager
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY LABORATORIES, INC. BOX 8721SANTURCE. PUERTO RCO 00910, TELS. 725-5333.725-3706
-------
APPENDIX C.2
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
(Reproduced from deJongh/URS Associates, Comprehensive Plan
for the Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay, VI, 1985)
-------
APPENDIX C.2
(Reproduced from deJongh/URS, 1985)
TREATMENT PLANT COST ESTIMATES BASED ON EPA CURVES
TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
Influent Pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
Trickling Filter
Clarification
Effluent Pumping
Chlorination
Lab/Maintenance Building
Other Sludge Handling
Aerobic Digestion
Mobilization
Site Work
Excavation
Electrical
Controls & Instrumentation
Yard Piping
HVAC
TOTAL
Cont. 15*
Engineering
Legal & Administrative
TOTAL
Escalated
Value
$40,907
$11.672
$18,873
$305,121
$31,762
$40.907
$16,838
$46,985
$5,545
$31.754
$10,069
$35,784
$44,092
$40,552
$11.445
$27,716
$5,319
Additional
Cost
$8,129
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,129
$3,346
$6,224
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,549
$0
$0
Salvage
$3,463
$0
$959
$15,497
$1,613
$3,463
$1,425
$4,242
$282
$1.613
$0
$3,635
$4,479
$4,119
$775
$2,815
$270
$725,341
$108,801
$296,561
$21,760
$1,152.463
$30,377
$48,650
0 & M Costs
Labor:
1 Chief Operator
1 Full time assistant
$35,000 per year w/ fringes
$25,000 per year w/ fringes
Subtotal $60,000
Transportation of Solids to landfill
Power Requirements
Influent Pump 3 HP ea say 1 is continuous
Clarifier
Trickling Filter
Secondary Clarifier
$500 per year
3 hp
1
10
1
-------
Aerobic Digester 5
Effluent Pump 3
Total 23
Annual Power cost = kw * hours * .175 $/kwh $35,259
Total Annual Cost $95,759
-------
RBC PLANT
Influent Pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation
RBC
Clarification
Effluent Pumping
Chlorination
Lab/Maintenance Building
Other Sludge Handling
Aerobic Digestion
Mobilization
Site Work
Excavation
Electrical
Controls & Instrumentation
Yard Piping
HVAC
TOTAL
Cont. 15*
Engineering
Legal & Administrative
TOTAL
Escalated
Value
$40,907
$11,672
$18,873
$134,359
$31,762
$40,907
$16,838
$46,985
$5,545
$31,754
$10,069
$35,784
$44,092
$40,552
$11,445
$27,716
$5,319
$554,579
$83,187
$226,744
$16,637
$881,147
Additional
Cost
$8,129
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,129
$3,346
$6,224
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,549
$0
$0
$30,377
Salvage
$3,463
$0
$959
$4,549
$1,613
$3,463
$1,425
$4,242
$282
$1,613
$0
$3,635
$4,479
$4.119
$775
$2,815
$270
$37,702
0 & M Costs
Labor:
1 Chief Operator
1 Full time assistant
$35,000 per year w/ fringes
$25,000 per year w/ fringes
Subtotal $60,000
Transportation of Solids to landfill
Power Requirements
Influent Pump 3 HP ea say 1 is continuous
Clarifier
RBC
Secondary Clarifier
Aerobic Digestor
Effluent Pump
Total
Annual Power cost = kw * hours * .175 $/kwh
Total Annual Cost
Present Worth (Annual * 9.5501)
C.2'3
$500 per year
3 hp
1
10
1
5
3
23
$35,259
$95,759
$914,508
-------
OXIDATION DITCH
Influent Pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Aerated Lagoon
Clarification
Chlorination
Effluent Pumping
Lab/Maintenance Building
Other Sludge Handling
Gravity Thickening
Mobilization
Site Work
Excavation
Electrical
Controls & Instrumentation
Yard Piping
HVAC
TOTAL
Cont. 15*
Engineering
Legal & Administrative
TOTAL
Escalated
Value
$40,907
$11.672
$99,890
$31,762
$16,838
$40.907
$46,985
$5,545
$8,006
$10,069
$35,784
$44,092
$40,552
$11.445
$27,716
$5,319
$477.489
$71,623
$195,225
$14,325
$758,662
Additional
Cost
$8,129
$0
$13,232
$0
$3,346
$8,129
$6,224
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,549
$0
$0
$43,610
Salvage
$3,463
$0
$5,073
$1,613
$1,425
$3,463
$4,242
$282
$407
$0
$3,635
$4,479
$4,119
$775
$2,815
$270
$36,062
0 & M Costs
Labor:
1 Chief Operator
1 Full time laborer
$35,000 per year w/ fringes
$15,000 per year w/ fringes
Subtotal $50,000
Transportation of Solids to landfill
Power Requirements
Influent Pump 3 HP ea say 1 is continuous
Oxidation Ditch
Secondary Clarifier
Gravity Thickener
Effluent Pump
Total
$500 per year
3 hp
8
1
2
3
17
Annual Power cost = kw * hours * .175 $/kwh
Total Annual Cost
$26,061
$76,561
-------
COST ESTIMATE FOR ST. JOHN OUTFALL
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT
12" RCP outfall pipe 2,000 LF
Mobilization LS
Subtotal
Contingencies
Engineering
Legal I Administrative
TOTAL
UNIT COST TOTAL
$500 $1,000)000
$50,000
$1,050,000
15X $157,500
$428,925
$31,500
$1,667,?25
Salvage for out fa 11
$106,660
-------
COLLECTOR SEUERS
COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
3" PVC Gravity Sewer
2 - 6 feet
6 - 9 feet
4* FM
Manholes
Grinder Puips
Puip Stations
Paveient Replacement
Rock Excavation
Mobilization) etc.
Subtotal
Contingencies
Engineering
Legal & Administrative
TOTAL
0 I M
Gravity sewer
Grinder puips
UNIT
QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
23,650 LF $19 $449,350
7QQ LF $22 $15.400
600 LF $16 $9,600
65 EA $2,000 $170 , 000
75 EA $6,000 $450,000
2 EA $25,000 $50,000
2,772 SY $25 $69,306
5,817 CY $125 $727,083
L5 $20,000
$1,960,739
15X $294,111
$800,650
$58,822
$3,114,522
4.725378 MI $2,500 $11,813
75 $100 $7,500
ADDITIONAL
COST SALVAGE
0 45645.42
0 1564.347
0 975.1776
0 17268.77
0 0
9936.125 4232.372
0 7040.127
0 73857.85
0 2031.62
$9,936 $152,616
per year
per year
-------
ST JOHN, VI WWTP
CARROUSEL DESIGN CALCULATIONS
DESIGN BASIS:
FLOW 0.04
INFLUENT BOD 600
INFLUENT TSS 400
EFFLUENT BOD 30
EFFLUENT TSS 30
SRT 25
YIELD 0.7
MLSS 4000
02 COEFFICIENT 1-55
Alpha 0.93
Beta 0.97
Css 9.17
mgd
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
days
Ibs SS/lbs BOD removed
mg/1
Ibs Ox/lb BOD removed
mg/1
CALCULATIONS:
BOD Removal
Sludge Production
System Mass
Aeration Volume
Hydraulic Retention Time
196.82 Ibs/day
137.78 Ibs/day
3444.42 Ibs
0.103 million gal
61.95 hours
CARROUSEL BASIN CONFIGURATION:
Channel Width 10 feet
Channel Depth 6 feet
Aeration Zone Depth 6 feet
Total Channel Length 230.1 feet
Structure Length 57.5 feet
Structure Width 40.0 feet
CLARIFIER SIZING:
USE: 400 gpd/SF
2 Clarifiers
Required Area per Clarifier 100 SF
Clarifier Diameter 11.28379 feet
OXYGEN REQUIREMENTS:
Actual 02 Requirement
Standard 02 Requirement
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS:
Hp Required
12.71155 Ibs 02/hour
18.17845 Ibs 02/hour
5.193843 Hp
-------
DESIGN SIZING FOR RBC's FOR CRUZ BAY
Design Goal 30 mg/1
S - BOD target 15 mg/1
Influent:
Flow 40000 gpd
S - BOD 300 mg/1
BOD 600 mg/1
Design Factor S - BOD
Loading Rate 2 Ibs per 1000 SF
Flow in MGD 0.04
Waste Strength in S-BOD 300
Weight of Water in Ibs per gallon 8.34
Temperature Correction Factor 1
Septic Tank Factor 1
Loading Rate in Ibs S-BOD per 1000 SF 2
Calculated Minimum Area in KSF 50.04
CLARIFIER SIZING
Use 400 gpd/SF
2 Clarifiers (one Backup)
Required Area per Clarifier 100 SF
Clarifier Diameter 11.3 feet
SLUDGE PRODUCTION
Secondary Clarifier 342 mg/1
114.0502 Ibs/day
-------
OB/Oi/85
ST. JOHN UUfP
COLLECTOR DESIGN INFORMATION
1 SEUER
1 DIAMETER
LOCATION 1 (in)
Pastory 1 8
Froi Pastory to existing
sever near Texaco
Center line Road Extension
Pover Boyd
Pover Boyd to Pine Peace
Rd. east of Pine Peace
Pine Peace to existing
seven Road 1
Road 1 to Road 2
Road 2
Road 2 to Road 3
Road 3
Road 3 to existing sever
Estate Contant
south road in Contant
Estate Enighed
Circle Street
Circle Street Ext.
to Souths ide Road
South; ide Road
Kongens Gade
Enighed Creek Road
to Ejector Stn. 1
to Influent Puip Stn.
EC 1
EC 2
8
4" FN
a
4' FN
a
8
a
8
a
8
8
4' FM
8
6
a
a
8
e
6
a
8
a
8
TOTAL
LENGTH LENGTH OF CUT
(tt) 2-41 4-7' 7-12'
850 850
2750 2750
450 450
1850 1850
400 400
1300 1300
450 450
550 550
1300 1300
400 400
300 300
1500 1500
200 200
1350 1350
800 800
400 400
250 250
750 750
300 300
350 350
750 750
150 ISO
250 250
450 450
APPROX
TOTAL
EXCAV(cy)
378
1311
200
B22
178
578
287
244
578
178
133
447
87
400
354
247
111
333
133
154
333
47
111
200
APPROX
ROCK
EXCAV(cy)
18?
454
100
411
8?
28?
144
122
28?
8?
47
333
44
300
178
133
S4
147
47
78
147
33
54
100
SLOPE
1 OF
MANHOLES
3
11
i
7
1
5
2
2
5
1
1
4
0
5
3
2
1
3
1
1
3
0
1
1
1 OF
PUMPS
0
S
10
5
3
0
a
0
4
0
0
0
3
8
3
5
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
COMMENTS
20 hoies
IS hoies
10 hoies i PUIP station
24 hoies
3 Hoies i PUIP station
14 hows
15 hows
7 hows
24 hows
5 hows
7 hoies
S hoies
PUIP Station
22 hoies
11 hows
14 hoies
2 hows
20 hoies
4 hoies
15 hoies
4 hoies
2 hows
4 hoies
IS hoies
C,2 -
-------
06/04/85
ST. JOHN UUF°
COLLECTOR DESIGN INFOSrtATION
LOCATION
„,„«»»««««"«"""""
EC3
Hortli
South
EC 4
forth
ECXt
Eiit
Unt
ECU
EH 3
South of Biy Strut
Tobicco fioiii
BOD vim Point
Utltirn itction
Eilttrn net ion
Tobtcca lid to In Puip Stn
tlgnj Fnnk Biy
Alms Sull Pond
SEUER
DIAMETER
(in)
e
8
8
8
e
e
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
TOTAL
LENGTH LENGTH OF CUT
(ft) 2-4' 4-91 9-12'
150 150
350 350
150 150
250 250
400 400
300 300
300 300
350 350
750 750
700 700
700 700
450 450
400 tOO
800 100 700
APPROX
TOTAL
EXCAV(cy)
47
154
47
111
178
133
133
154
333
311
311
200
247
428
APPROX
ROCK
EXCAV(cy)
33
78
33
54
6?
47
47
78
147
154
154
100
133
450
SLOPE
1 OF
MANHOLES
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
3
1 OF
PUMPS
0
a
0
0
?
0
0
a
5
2
1
0
0
a
i
1
COMMENTS 1
1
2 taies 1
3 hues 1
1
3 hues I
3 hues 1
1
1 hues 1
2 hues 1
1 hue 1
4 hues 1
1
15 hues I
1
10 Hues 1
1
1
4 hut! 1
2 hues !
1
1
3 huts; excav 2.4 + 3 « 5.4 ft !
2 hoies; exciv .4 t 5.4 * 5.6 1
2.8 t 5.8 * 8.4 ft 1
1
1
1
1
I
I Totil
I 24,750 24.250
700
11341
5,817 I
85 I
75 I
-2-- 10
-------
APPENDIX C.3
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES
(Reproduced from deJongh/URS Associates, Comprehensive Plan
for the Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay, VI, 1985)
-------
APPENDIX C.3
B. Wastewater Facilities
1. Collection and Treatment System
The present Cruz Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility, a package
plant located about one-half mile south of the center of town,
was in use on St. Thomas for six years before being moved (in
1981) to its present location. The plant is situated on a strip of
land approximately 100 feet wide between Turner Bay (Caribbean
Sea) and the western end of Enighed Pond, a saltwater- inter-
changing backwater of Turner Bay. In addition to the plant, an
operator's office building and influent pump station are located
on the treatment plant property (Figure 2). The land around
the plant is owned by the Virgin Islands Port Authority.
Enighed Pond is also publicly-owned property.
The existing Wastewater collection system is over 1.6 miles in
length and includes both gravity sewers and force mains, as well
as two sewage ejector stations (Figure 2). Sewer and force main
sizes range from four to ten inches in diameter. The collection
system conveys domestic sewage only (no industrial wastewater
or direct stormwater connections). Table 1 shows a sewer line
inventory of the existing system.
It is noted that the National Park Service has plans to service
the Caneel Bay staff housing (to the north of Cruz Bay) by
extending the sewer line from North Shore Road to Lind Point.
Portions of this extension are presently under construction. It
involves the addition of approximately 1,160 If of 6"d PVC gravi-
ty sewer, 1,630 If of 8"
-------
Table 1 Existing Sewer Line Inventory
Location
Force Main Gravity Sewer
2-4" PVC 6" PVC 8" PVC 10" PVC Manholes
Ejector Stn.1
Gas Station
Infl. Pump Stn. 364
Tennis Courts
Ejector Stn. 2
Cemetery
Cruz Bay Dock
Ejector Stn. 1
Centerline and
Southside Rd.
to Eject. Stn. 2
Boat Ramp to
Cancel Hsng
Total 364
502
315 147
255 313
604
598
33
437 385 18
95 345
295
655
665
320
400
355
410
1,085
1,349 4,232 2,651
4
4
4
4
6
3
4
4
4
2
3
2
1
8
53
NOTE: All sewer length values given in LF
Ejector Station 1 has a 75 gallon per minute (gpm) pumping
capacity at 45 feet Total Dynamic Head (TDH); Ejector Station
2, 75 gpm at 15 feet TDH.
-------
At the treatment plant influent pump station, four submersible
single-speed pumps, three rated at 175 gpm at 40 feet TDH and
the fourth at 65 gpm at 40 feet TDH, are available to move the
raw, unscreened wastewater into the treatment plant. These
pumps operate according to level switches in the wet well, the
number of pumps in operation being proportional to the level of
water in the well. Only one pump was observed to be presently
operational.
The treatment plant itself is a rectangular, steel,
extended-aeration, parallel-train facility with 20,000 gpd capacity
("Aer-0-Flow" System, Clow Corp., Florence, Kentucky).
Influent raw sewage is pumped via a 6-inch line to the top of
the above-ground plant. After passing through a splitter box, it
is routed to one of two comminutor/bar screen units for re-
duction of large solids, prior to flow into the aeration basins.
Three 3-hp blowers in each aeration tank keep solids in suspen-
sion, aerating the mixed liquor through diffusers at the bottom
of the tank. The blowers may be operated continuously or at
timer-set intervals. The design detention time is 20.5 hours
(Figure 4).
Following aeration, the mixed liquor flows to two 2,900-gallon
final clarifiers. Most of the sludge settling out in the final
clarifier units is airlift-pumped to the aeration tanks for further
oxidation (return activated sludge), and a portion is wasted to
one of two 1,400-gallon aerobic digesters (waste activated
sludge).
At present there are no acceptable sludge-handling facilities in
the planning area. Sludge is therefore allowed to build up in the
digesters, aeration tanks, and final clarifiers. Sludge from the
right tank (Turner Bay side) is periodically drained to the left
tank (Enighed Pond side), leaving the left tank relatively full
much of the time. Three or four times per year, sludge is
pumped from the left tank and hauled to the St. John municipal
-35-
-------
INFLUENT
CO
O)
I
*-*^
SPLITTER
BOX
X^
DIGESTER
WAS
o
COM
BAR
R A O P
"Aa AERATION BASIN
MINUTOR *"~
SCREEN 4
DIGESTER
WAS
0
COM
BAR
RAS
AERATION BASIN
MfNUTOR 4—
SCREEN +_
SCUM
HAS
SCUM
RAS
WEIR TROUGH
CLARIFIER
WEIR TROUGH
CLARIFIER
TO SALT WATER POND
RAS: RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
WAS: WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Figure 4
deJONGH ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS A ENGINEERS
IN ASSOCIATION WITH URS COMPANY, INC.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
THE SEWAGE NEEDS OF CRUZ BAY,
ST. JOHN, U.S.V.I.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PROCESS, EXISTING PLANT
-------
landfill. This is done when the suspended solids in the effluent
are determined to be greater than 70 to 100 mg/l. Thus, at
present only one aeration tank is normally available for effective
treatment throughout much of the year.
Supernate in each clarifier flows over a weir and passes through
a chlorine contact chamber before final discharge from the plant.
Chlorine must be manually added in the form of sodium
hypochlorite (liquid or powdered chlorine), as no automatic
mechanical chlorination units are installed.
Subsequent discharge of the treated effluent is subterranean
(approximately 25 feet downstream of the plant), with upward
percolation and resultant overland flow into the west end of
Enighed Pond, communicating with Turner Bay.
Enighed Pond was formerly a freshwater pond, completely
closed-off to the sea. The present channel was opened in the
1950's, due to perennial odors which occurred as the stagnant
water in the pond evaporated during the dry season. The
flushing action from the sea has served to alleviate such prob-
lems; however, it has also made the pond a saltwater pond.
Through review of background information, onsite inspections,
and interviews with responsible individuals, it has been de-
termined that the following operational problems exist at the
Cruz Bay treatment plant:
a. Only one of the four pumps (175 gpm) at the influent
pump station is presently operational. Two are out of
service; the fourth was sent out for repairs more than
two years ago and has not been returned.
b. The one operational pump is frequently running for
longer periods than necessary, due to a sticking relay
-37-
-------
in the control system. This results in the pump
running dry, which could lead to pump burnout.
c. The influent pumps have an excessively high rated
flow of 175 gpm, and the on-off level switches are
apparently set too close to each other. Consequently,
the pump normally operates only 5 to 10 seconds per
pumping cycle, with approximately 5 minutes between
cycles. This short operational time contributes to
reducing the service life of the pump.
d. Aeration of the basins is not carried out continuously.
Instead, it is periodic, resulting in incomplete oxida-
tion of wastewater.
e. No mechanical equipment has ever been installed for
automatic chlorination of the effluent, making it neces-
sary to rely upon periodic manual addition.
f. Even though an emergency power generator has been
housed at the treatment facility for over two years, it
has not been wired into the system and thus has been
unavailable for use since its installation.
g. The comminutor/bar screen units are not functioning
properly.
h. No sludge dewatering facilities exist, leading to
retention of sludge within the plant for longer periods
than necessary, and consequent operational inefficien-
cy.
i. Effluent discharge occurs underground, reaching the
pond only after percolation to the ground surface and
subsequent overland flow.
-38-
-------
j. No holding tank or other type of facilities exists at the
treatment plant for the possible controlled handling of
trucked-in septic tank wastes. Therefore these wastes
are instead trucked to the St. John municipal landfill
and buried in an environmentally unsound manner.
k. Monitoring of wastewater quality and quantity is
performed very infrequently. Recordkeeping is there-
fore poor, and Daily Monitoring Report submission does
not occur. There is also no accurate means available
for proper process control. Operation of the plant
appears to rely more upon visual observation and
timing devices than upon measured control parameters
such as flow, loadings, F/M ratios, or upon effective
operator attention. The plant is clearly not fitted for
efficient operation.
I. Operator training courses are not provided, and the
plant operations and maintenance manual is not on file
at the treatment plant.
m. Safety hazards exist at the plant. Among these:
corroded walkways and absence of railings.
n. The facility is poorly maintained. Steel plates and
fittings, for example, are corroded, and would have
benefited from regular painting.
There are 40 authorized service connections to the Cruz Bay
collection system. Most of these are residences or other types of
dwelling units which discharge to the sewer system, such as
guest houses or condominiums. There are no industries in the
Cruz Bay planning area. The 40 connections serve 123 resi-
dences and 17 non-residences. Categories of non-residential
hookups include government buildings, banks, schools, church-
es, stores, restaurants, and a large public restroom.
-39-
-------
Based on the established average of 3 persons per unit, the
present system services approximately 420 persons. Given the
likelihood that some unpermitted connections exist, approximately
500 persons are served by the existing system. (This number
increases periodically throughout the year, due to wastewater
influx from the public restrooms and tourist-oriented facilities).
As has been noted above, the population of the planning area is
about 1,030 persons. Since an estimated 500 persons have sewer
service, approximately half the residents of Cruz Bay remain
unsewered. Virtually all unsewered units are residential.
Of those residences presently without sewer service, most have
onsite treatment (septic tanks). Majestic Construction Company,
St. John, estimates that they pump-out four septic tanks per
month, resulting in a total septage production of approximately
4,000 gallons per month. The decision not to extend sewers into
certain areas previously has been dictated largely by topogra-
phy, these areas being steep and hilly and thus presenting
construction difficulties. Due to the nature of the topography
and soils in these areas, even the septic systems have presented
difficulties, in terms of maintenance and operational efficiency.
After heavy rains, many are prone to overflow and flooding
around their leach fields. Department of Public Works staff
point out that, due to these difficulties, local residents with
onsite sewage treatment have expressed a great interest in
connecting to the central collection system.
Water usage on St. John is relatively low. Figures supplied by
the Caribbean Research Institute in a 1984 study of water usage
on St. Thomas, indicate that residents of St. Thomas whose
water needs are served only by rainfall, groundwater, and
trucked-in desalinated water (as is the case on St. John), use
around 30 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). There are indica-
tions that per capita usage is even lower on St. John. If per
capita consumption is taken as 25 gpd, St. John's 500 sewered
-40-
-------
residents would be expected to discharge about 12,500 gpd to
the treatment plant. These estimates have been supported by
field monitoring data, as will be demonstrated below.
The picture that emerges of existing methods of sewage collection
and treatment in Cruz Bay is one of an inadequate collection
system coupled with a physically decaying treatment plant - a
plant that lacks proper sludge-handling and treated effluent
disposal facilities, that was installed as only a temporary
stop-gap measure, and that is already working at greater than
half its capacity amid a growing population and service area.
The picture is further complicated by tourism, responsible for
heavy seasonal loadings upon the system that could easily push
the plant beyond its rated capacity, and by widespread failures
in the prevalent treatment methods for wastewater treated on
site and not sent to the plant.
2. Wastewater Characteristics
During this study, continuous flow monitoring was conducted at
the upstream end of the treatment plant influent pump station
using a Marsh McBirney Model 265 Velocity Modified Flow Meter
for a period of four weeks. Due to the low flows and velocities
encountered in the sewer line, the flow meter response and
resulting data were at times erratic, but meaningful results were
nonetheless obtained. In addition, since the influent pump
station is equipped with pump timers, the one operating pump
could be calibrated and monitored, allowing corroboration of flow
meter results. At the time of calibration, the flow entering the
wet well was accurately measured by recording the time required
for the wastewater volume in the wet well to increase by a
predetermined amount.
Based on the data available, the present average daily flow rate
at the plant is approximately 13,000 gallons per day. This figure
-------
is in close agreement with the flow rate calculated by population
and per capita usage. Average minimum and peak hourly flows
are 5,200 gpd and 33,100 gpd, respectively.
Wastewater samples were collected from 6/25/85 to 7/01/85.
Continuous samples were collected at a manhole just upstream of
the influent pump station for the entire seven-day period.
Continuous samples were also taken of the treatment plant efflu-
ent for two 24-hour periods on 6/25/85 and 6/28/85. These
samples were obtained using Instrumentation Specialties Company
(ISCO) samplers (Figure 5).
Crab samples were obtained on 6/25/85 and 6/26/85 for three
additional locations: in Enighed Pond near the treatment plant
discharge point (Station 6); in Turner Bay near the outlet of
Enighed Pond (Station 5); and at the northeast corner of
Enighed Pond (Station 8).
The samples were preserved and transported each day of the
program to Environmental Quality Laboratories, Inc., in
Santurce, Puerto Rico. There, each sample was analyzed in
accordance with "Standard Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewater" for a broad range of parameters. Complete analytical
results of this program are shown in Appendix E.
Some of the influent data are unusual, in that a number of
parameters are extremely high. The sample mean and standard
deviation of seven design parameters are shown in Table 2.
-------
INFLUENT
PUMP STATION
CO
TURNER
BAY
FLOW METERING and SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
COMPOSITE 8 GRAB
FLOW METERING 8 GRAB
GRAB
COMPOSITE a GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
TREATMENT
PLANT
SEE DETAIL OF
SHADED AREA
deJONGH ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS
IN ASSOCIATION WITH URS COMPANY, INC.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE SEWAGE NEEDS OF
CRUZ BAY. ST. JOHN. U.S.VJ.
Figure S
-------
Table 2 Sample Mean and Standard Deviation for
Selected Influent Parameters, Cruz Bay Wastewater
Facilities
Influent Standard
Parameter Mean Deviation*
BODS 1,939 1,311
BCD-Soluble 303 48
COD 6,651 5,147
COD-Soluble 689 129
Total Suspended Solids 2,293 922
Ammonia-N 60 12
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 133 58
* n = 7
All values given in mg/l
The Soluble BOD and COD values are typical of a domestic
sewage of the strength expected in an area with low water
consumption. BODS, COD, and TSS values, however, are ab-
normally high. Measured values of all three parameters are about
six times the values usually encountered in a strong domestic
wastewater. Moreover, Soluble BOD is normally about 40 percent
of the BODS—not 16 percent, as is the case here. Finally, the
sample standard deviations demonstrate a wide variation in data
points for solids.
A comparison of these results to results obtained in the
Mangrove Lagoon/Turpentine Run Wastewater Treatment Project
in nearby St. Thomas (Spring, 1985), is shown in Table 3.
-44-
-------
Table 3 Comparison of Mean Values for Selected Influent
Waste water, Cruz Bay, St. John, and Mangrove
Lagoon, St. Thomas
Influent Cruz Bay Mangrove
Parameter Average Average
BODS 1,939 532
BOD-Soluble 303 347
COD 6,651 1,408
COD-Soluble 689 708
TSS 2,293 296
All values given in mg/l
Again the soluble values are comparable, but wide differences
are evident in concentrations of suspended matter.
A possible reason for these unusual results is the periodic
pumping of septic tank cleanout into the collection system. Such
a shock loading of strong domestic wastewater would produce
high levels of solids for a limited period. The fact that influent
BODS values dropped off gradually from a high of 3,960 mg/l to
840 mg/l within four days tends to support this theory.
In order to further substantiate the above theory, a set of grab
samples was taken both at the treatment plant influent and at a
manhole considerably upstream within the collection system on
7/9/85 (Figure 5, Stations 3 and 7). The BODS and TSS values
at the plant influent were 1,320 and 1,966 mg/l. respectively; at
the upstream sample station within the collection system, they
were 285 and 145 mg/l. It is practical to assume, therefore,
that some type of high-BOD material (possibly septage) was
injected into the system at some point in between. A check of
local septic tank service companies elicited no confirmation of the
-------
suspected unallowable practice of clumping septic tank wastes
into the system. It has, however, been observed by community
members involved in the Facilities Planning Process that the
practice does in fact go on.
In addition to the above, influent grab samples were collected on
7/17/85 and 7/24/85, and were analyzed by the Department of
Conservation and Cultural Affairs (DCCA), Natural Resources
Management (NRM) Lab on St. Thomas. The first sample was
analyzed for TSS, and resulted in a value of 495 mg/l. The
second sample was analyzed for BOD. and yielded a value of 680
mg/l. These values compare more closely with typical values
than do the average Cruz Bay values which were previously
shown in Table 2.
Therefore, for the purposes of this Facilities Plan, the average
values for soluble BOD and COD will be used as reported for the
preliminary sizing of treatment units. With respect to the artifi-
cially high BODS, COD, and TSS, however, modified values of
600, 800 and 400 mg/l, respectively, will be used. These values
are conservative, based on historic data and on recent results
from the Mangrove Lagoon/Turpentine Run project. Further
in-depth sampling and analysis should be undertaken prior to or
during design to verify this data.
3. Infiltration/Inflow
The nature of the climate and physiography of the Cruz Bay
area make excessive Infiltration/Inflow (I/1) highly unlikely. The
dry climate, combined with generally steep slopes and permeable
soils above impermeable bedrock, virtually eliminate the possibil-
ity of infiltration caused by groundwater levels rising above the
elevations of sewer lines for any prolonged period. Inflow, too,
is essentially non-existent. Rainwater from roofs is collected
and stored in cisterns. Houses, constructed without basements,
have no sump pumps, eliminating another common source of
inflow. Storm sewers are plugged and virtually non-operative.
-46-
-------
The chance, therefore, of significant inflow from classic sources
such as downspouts, sump pumps, or catch basins is quite low.
VVastewater flow monitoring in the Project Planning Area indicates
an estimated per capita usage of 25 gallons per day, in confor-
mance with information from other than monitoring sources. A
single rainfall event, measuring only 0.12 inches, occurred over
the four-week monitoring period; it had no noticeable effect on
wastewater flows. Flow meter records frequently exhibited mini-
mum nighttime flows approaching zero.
According to EPA guidelines, I/I is considered nonexcessive, and
no further analyses are required if domestic wastewater flow plus
infiltration does not exceed 120 gpcd, and if total daily flow
during a storm does not exceed 275 gpcd. Since flow monitoring
results did not even approach this magnitude, it has been con-
cluded that excessive I/I is nonexistent in the Project Planning
Area.
4. Effluent Limitations
The existing treatment plant is authorized to discharge wastewa-
ter to Turner Bay by Territorial Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (TPDES) Permit No. V.I. 0039942. The present permit
became effective January 18, 1983; it will expire on January 17,
1988. Discharge limitations are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Discharge Limitations, Existing Permit
Parameter
Flow
BODS
TSS
30-day Avg
% Removal
85%
85%
Monthly
0.1
30
30
Average
mgd
mg/l
mg/l
7-day
Average
45 mg/l
45 mg/l
.1,7-
-------
In addition, discharge pH is to be between 6 and 9 standard
units.
These limitations require the equivalent of secondary treatment
prior to discharge. Any process considered must be able to
provide this level of treatment using Best Practicable Wastewater
Treatment Technology.
Turner Bay, the designated receiving water body, is defined as
Class B under "Water Quality Standards for the Coastal Waters
of the U.S Virgin Islands." As such, the best usage is for
propagation of desirable forms of marine life and primary contact
recreation. Excerpts from the criteria requirements are shown in
Table 5.
Table 5 Class B Ocean Waters, Selected Criteria
Characteristic Limit
Dissolved Oxygen Not less than 5.5 mg/l
pH Normal range not extended more than
0.1 pH unit. Never less than 7.0 or
greater than 8.3
Temperature Not to exceed 90 degrees F or, as a
result of waste discharge, to be greater
than 1.5 degrees F above natural
Bacteria Less than or equal to a geometric (log)
mean of 70 fecal coliforms per 100 ml.
Additional details on the standards may be found in the excerpt-
ed document.
-------
APPENDIX C.4
ON-SITE SYSTEMS
-------
APPENDIX C.4
ON-SITE SYSTEMS
On-site systems are alternative technologies for treating waste-
water on an individual basis. Wastewater discharged from homes
or businesses is treated on the property of each discharging
source, rather than piped to a regional or subregional facility
for treatment. The following four on-site treatment technologies
are considered feasible for use in the study area.
trench systems,
seepage pits,
mound systems, and
evapotranspiration beds.
The purpose of this section is to describe each of these techno-
logies in terms of how they function and under what conditions
they function most effectively.
Each of these technologies includes a septic tank as a means of
primary treatment. The purpose of the septic tank is to collect
and trap solids. These solids would then be periodically re-
moved, typically once every 35 years, and disposed of at a
septage lagoon or suitable wastewater treatment facility. Septic
tanks used in these systems should have at least a 1900 liters
(500 gallons) capacity to be effective.
a. Trench System
This technology disposes of wastewater by dispersing it in
trenches through perforated pipe. Wastewater is first piped
into a septic tank where solids settle to the bottom and
eventually decompose. The fluid effluent is then piped to
trenches into which it is dispersed through perforated
pipes. The effluent is absorbed into the soil layers
surrounding these trenches which leach or remove organic
material from the effluent before it enters ground or
surface water flow. This process is illustrated in Figure
C-l.
The Environmental Laws and Regulations of the Virgin Islands
Handbook (1979) requires the following standards for trench
systems:
Minimum number of lines per field 2
Maximum length of individual lines 100 feet
Minimum bottom width of trench 18 inches
Maximum depth of cover of tile lines 36 inches
Preferred depth of cover 18 inches
Maximum grade of tile lines 6 .... 6 in. per 100 feet
Preferred grade of tiles .... 2 in. to 4 in. per 100 feet
Minimum filter material under tile 6 inches
Minimum filter material over tile 2 inches
-I
-------
SINGLE
FAMILY
HOME
SEPTIC TANK
>—TRENCHES
SOURCE' CE HAGUIRE. INC.
DISTRIBUTION BOX-i
i-SEPTIC TANK
ABSORPTION FIELD
(TRENCH)
A
Ta j |7
SCUM "//
UQU.D-//
SLUDGED CRUSHED ROCK
SOURCE*
E.PX ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS
FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES AND
RURAL AREAS. JANUARY. 1980.
UNEXCAVATED
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY. ST. JOHN. US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION II
CE HAGUIRE. INC. • NEW BRITAIN. CT
TRENCH SYSTEM
since- AS NOTED
«AT». 3/86
NTS
-------
Source: DCCA, Environmental Laws and Regulations of the Virgin
Islands, 1979, T.19, ch. 53, see 1404-91.
In addition, trenches may not be used in filled ground.
Due to these and other characteristics of the trench system
technology, trench systems are most effective in areas where
soils are moderately permeable and deep (at least 2 m (6.6 ft)
over bedrock) and where the water table is no less than 2 m (6.6
ft) below ground level. For instance, properties located along
the shore (where the water table is close to the surface) and on
steep slopes (where soils are generally very shallow) would not
be suitable for the use of trench systems, whereas properties
located on alluvial plains or other flat areas underlain by deep,
well-drained soil could be suitable.
A typical septic tank and trench system could be expected to cost
$2,000 to construct.
b. Seepage Pits
The seepage pit system is similar to the trench system in
that it involves the discharge of effluent into layers of
soil between the ground surface and water table after
primary septic tank treatment. The seepage pit system is
distinctive, however, in that it involves the distribution
of effluent into one or a series of subsurface pits rather
than a long trench. The process is illustrated in Figure
C-2.
The following standards are required for seepage pits in the
Virgin Islands:
REQUIREMENTS FOR SEEPAGE PIT DESIGN
Effective absorption area requirement
CHARACTER OF SOIL in sq. ft. of wall area of pit exclusive
of curbing, per bedroom
Coarse sand or gravel 20
Fine sand 30
Sandy loam or sandy clay 50
Clay with considerable sand or gravel 80
Clay with small amount of gravel or sand 160
Heavy tight clay, hardpan, rock or
other impervious formations Unsuitable
Source: DCCA, Environmental Laws and Regulations of the Virgin
Islands, 1979, T 19, ch 53, see 1404-94.
-------
SINGLE
FAMILY
HOME
n~L^ SEPTIC TANK
SEEPAGE PITS
D
SOURCE' CE HAGUIRE. INC.
SEEPAGE PIT-
-SEPTIC TANK
GRAVEL OR
ROCK FILL-
SOURCE-
E.PJk.. 1980
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY. ST. JOHN, US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION II
CE MAGUIRE. INC. • NEW BRITAIN. CT
SEEPAGE PITS
50BKf AS MOTED
•AH- 3/86
suit- NTS
C-2
-------
This system would function most effectively in the same areas
described for the use of the trench system. Due to the greater
area necessary for the seepage pits, however, this system would
be more suitable for larger properties. In contrast, the trench
system might be more suitable for properties that only permit a
long, narrow on-site system layout due to property lines or
topography.
The cost of a septic tank and seepage pit system could be expect-
ed to be $2,300.
c. Mound System
The mound system involves primary septic tank treatment and
effluent discharge to an above-surface mound of well-drained
soil or sand. Leaching of the effluent occurs in this mound
rather than in the subsurface soil layers. Because of this,
effluent must be pumped into the mound rather than be
conveyed via gravity flow as is the case with the other
on-site technologies considered. The process is illustrated
in Figure C-3.
There are no specific requirements for mound systems in the
Virgin Islands.
Mound systems are best suited for well-drained areas with a
relatively high water table. Properties located in valleys
near stream beds or at low elevations near the waterbodies
might use these system effectively, for instance.
The septic tank and mound system is generally more expensive
than the leaching trench or seepage pit systems because it
requires a greater amount of earthwork and a pump or dosing
chamber. The expected cost of this on-site system is
$4,500.
d. Evapotranspiration Beds
The evapotranspiration bed technology disposes of wastewater
effluent through the combined natural processes of evapora-
tion and transpiration, rather than soil leaching. After
septic tank treatment, effluent is piped to a sand bed that
is surrounded by an impermeable lining. Effluent is evapora-
ted out of this pit into the atmosphere or transpired by
vegetation on the surface of the pit. The impermeable
lining prevents any of the effluent from flowing out of the
bed into surface or groundwater. The process is illustrated
in Figure C-4.
-------
SINGLE
FAMILY
HOME
SEPTIC TANK
MOUND
SYSTEM
SOURCE' CE MAGUIRE. INC.
PERFORATED PIPE
TOP SOIL-
-VEGETATION
-ABSORPTION FIELD
j ^^ \ -v*
i 4i-^ j ^
Jl>2^ ^
/-PLOWED SURFACE
4r / ORIGINAL GRADE
>U
y ^-SUIL HLL
HNLET PIPE FROM /
SEPTIC OR AEROBIC /
TANK & SIPHON OR /
PUMP. /
ROCKY OR TIGHT SOIL /
OR HIGH GROUND WATER-7
SOURCE'
E.P.A.. 1980
CRUZ BAY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN. US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION
CE MAGUIRE. INC. • NEW BRITAIN. CT
II
MOUND SYSTEM
SIIICE- AS NOTED
UH- 3/86 SCAU- NTS HIUIE'
C-3
-------
SINGLE
FAMILY
HOME
k:.
SEPTIC TANK
ET BEDS
SOURCE' CE MAGUIRE. INC.
PERFORATED PIPE
FILL SOIL
FROM SEPTIC \ / /
OR AEROBIC TANK-* / /
EXISTIN6 SOIL^^ /
WATERPROOF LINER — '
SOURCE'
EJ>>.. 1980
CRUZ BAY
WA5TEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EI5
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN. US VIRGIN ISLANDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. REGION II
CE MAGUIRE. INC. • NEW BRITAIN, CT
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION BEDS
SHICE- AS NOTED
PATE- 3/86 JCAIE- NTS nilllE- C-4
-------
The Virgin Islands Environmental Laws Handbook does not list
standards for evapotranspiration systems with its other
wastewater treatment system design standards, but the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discusses conditions
and standards under which this system functions best in its
On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Design
Manual (EPA. 1980).
Evapotranspiration beds are effective in environments where
the evapotranspiration rate equals or exceeds the rate of
rainfall, causing a water deficit as exists on St. John.
Because this technology does not involve subsurface dis-
charge of effluent, soil permeability, depth to water table,
and depth to bedrock are not significant factors to be
considered in its design.
This system requires more land than the others considered as
it focuses on maximizing surface (or near-surface) area to
permit evaporation rather than contact area with soil.
This system would be most suitable for areas where the water
table is high, there are soil limitations to on-site waste-
water treatment and the available land is expansive enough
to permit use of this system in an environmentally sound
manner. For instance, large properties near the shore or in
areas where soil is thin and the water table is high could
use evapotranspiration beds effectively.
The cost of the evapotranspiration bed system could be
expected to be $10,700.
C-4-
-------
APPENDIX C.5
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
-------
TABLE C.5-1
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
HASTEHATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
INTEREST
ANALYSIS
1986 ENR
LOCATION SIZE
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
e.
9.
10.
11.
12.
PIPELINES
CENTERLINE RD.
CIRCLE ST. AREA
CONTANT PT. AREA
ENIGHED CREEK RD.
ENIGHED POND AREA
FRANK BAY RD.
FRANK BAY TO
INFLUENT P.S.
KONGENS 6ADE
NOROVIAN POINT
EST. PASTORY
PINE PEACE AREA
PONER BOYDS
PLANTATION
B'
8"
2°
B'
8"
8"
8"
8"
8'
B'
8"
8'
B'
8"
B"
8"
B"
8"
8'
B'
8"
B"
B'
4'
B'
RATE*
PERIOD=
CONST. COST INDEX"
UNIT
QUANTITY TYPE COST
3,000
900
350
650
850
1,390
770
900
1,050
1,430
1,030
300
250
660
850
400
1,100
900
500
500
1,790
330
2,000
480
300
GRAV.
GRAV.
PRESS. SH
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
6RAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
GRAV.
FORCEMAIN
GRAV.
$80
$80
$25
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$80
$30
$80
6.625 PERCENT
20 YEARS
4220
ANNUAL
SALVAGE DM
EXTENSION VALUE COST
$240,000
$72,000
$8,750
$52,000
$68,000
$111,200
$61,600
$72,000
$84,000
$114,400
$82,400
$24,000
$20,000
$52,800
$68,000
$32,000
$88,000
$72,000
$40,000
$40,000
$143,200
$26,400
$160,000
$14,400
$24,000
13. SUBTOTAL SEWERS
22,680 LF
$1,771,150 $1,062,690 $10,739
PAGE 1
-------
LOCATION SIZE QUANTITY TYPE UNIT EXTENSION SALVA6E UN COST
6RINDER PUMPS
14. CENTERLINE RD. 24 $6,000 $144,000
IS. CQNTANT AREA 17 $6,000 $102,000
16. ENI6HED POND AREA 8 $6,000 $46,000
17. MORAVIAN POINT 1 $6,000 $6,000
IB. SUBTOTAL GRINDER PUHPS 50 EACH $300,000 $0 $5,000
PUHPIN6 STATIONS
19. POMER BOYDS 1 $150,000 $150,000
PLANTATION
20. SUBTOTAL PUHP STATIONS $150,000 $54,000 $4,000
21. SUBTOTAL $2,221,150 $1,116,690 $19,739
22. CONTINBENCIES (15X) $333,173
23. ENBIN., LEBAL fc $666,345
ADMIN. COST (302)
24. INTREST DURING CONST. $191,574
(2YRS*8-5/BX* 50Z)
25. TOTAL CAPITAL COST $3,412,242
26. PRESENT WORTH $3,412,242 $213,470 $185,105
27. NET PRESENT NORTH $3,383,877
PAGE 2
-------
TABLE C.5-2
QOST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
WP£F DESIGN CRITERIA
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
WASTEWATER QUANTITIES
Minimum 24 Hr.
Average
Peak Hr. on Maximun Day
GPD
(P.F.)
GPD
(P.F.)
GPD
(P.F.)
INITIAL
1990
33,330
0.33
101,000
1.00
565,600
5.60
DESIGN
2010
71,280
0.36
198,000*
1.00
990,000
5.00
PERCENTAGE
INCREASE
96%
Equivalent Population 2,978 3,847 29%
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Average Influent
BOD @0.20 Ib/c/d
TSS 00.22 Ib/c/d
Average Effluent
BOD 0 30 mg/1
TSS 0 30 mg/1
LB/D 596 770
LB/D 655 846
LB/D 25 50
LB/D 25 50
29%
29%
* This number reflects the water use projection of 192,000 gpd, plus an additional
6000 gpd to account for infiltration into the collection system.
-------
TABLE C.5-3
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
NASTEHATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
INTEREST RATE= B.62 PERCENT
ANALYSIS PERIOD? 20 YEARS
1985 ENR CONST. COST INDE1= 4220
JEM
dPHAL COST BREAKDOWN
'RELIHINARY TREATMENT
Ijr Screen
Irit Reioval
'Ion Metering
'RIHURY TREATMENT
'diary CUrifiers
•ine Screens
Septic Tanks
Subtotal
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Jhidation Ditches
Ws
Trickling Filters
Secondary CUrifiers
(crated Ponds
iand Filter Beds
losing Chaiber
11V Disinfection
Subtotal
SLUDGE HANDLING
Rotary Tnickener
Afrooic Digesters
Sludge Drying Beds
Sludge Hauling Vehicle
ySeptage Lagoons
'''Subtotal
MISCELLANEOUS
fencino
SitfNork
Pickup Trucks I Naint. Equip.
ALTERNATIVE 1
OXIDATION DITCH
PLANT
80,000
0
1, OH, 000
410,000
31,500
1,455,500
229,000
100,000
85,000
7,000
421,000
10,000
195,650
15,000
ALTERNATIVE 2
RBC
PLANT
BO, 000
128,000
128,000
426,000
410,000
31,500
867,500
229,000
256,000
100,000
85,000
7,000
677,000
10,000
175,250
15,000
ALTERNATIVE 3
TRICKLING FILTER
PLANT
80,000
204,000
204,000
1,692,000
410,000
31,500
2,133,500
229,000
256,000
100,000
85,000
7,000
677,000
10,000
309,450
15,000
ALTERNATIVE 4
RECIRC. SAND
FILTER PLANT
80,000
270,000
270,000
686,000
35,000
48,000
769,000
85,000
29,000
114,000
123,300
15,000
ALTERNATIVE 5 ALTERNATIVE 6
AERATED LAGOON 301h PRIMARY
PLANT PLANT
80,000 80,000
204,000
0 204,000
728,500
4,500 36,100
733,000 38,100
229, wO
256,000
100,000 100,000
85,000 85,000
7,000 7,000
192,000 677,000
io,c-;-;-
100,500 99,91:
15,000 15,000
PAGE I
£.5-4
-------
1TE1
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 4 ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATE I
Tools for Equipt. Repair
Operations Building
Electrical & Instr. Work
Subtotal
TOTAL CONST. COST
CONTINGENCIES USX)
EN6IN., LEGAL, 1
HDMiN. COST (301)
INT. QUR. CONST.
-2 iR3« 8-5/81* 50Z)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ANNUAL OiM COSTS
PRESENT WORTH OF
OfcM COSTS
SALVAGE VALUE BREAKDOWN DESIGN LIFE
YRS
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT 20
Bar Screen
Grit Renoval
Flow Metering
PRIMARY TREATMENT
Priiary Clarifiers 501820, 501850
Fine Screens 501*20, 501850
Septic Tanks 50
Subtotal
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Oxidation Ditches 40X820, 601850
RBC's 501820, 501850
Trickling Filters 401820, 601850
Secondary Clarifiers 501820, 501850
Aerated Ponds 301820, 701850
Sand Filter Beds 50
Dosing Chaiber 501820, 501850
UV Disinfection 20
Subtotal
30,000
99,000
254,345
603,995
2,560,495
384,074
768,149
220,843
3,933,560
97,000
909,648
0
0
365,000
123,000
0
488,000
30,000
99,000
227,825
557,075
2,309,575
346,436
692,873
199,201
3,548,085
110,000
1,031,560
0
38,400
38,400
127,800
123,000
0
250,800
30,000
99,000
402,285
865,735
3,960,235
594,035
1,188,071
341,570
6,033,911
108,000
1,012,804
0
61,200
61,200
609,120
123,000
0
732,120
15,000
99,000
140.290
412,590
1,645,590
246,839
493,677
141,932
2,528,038
47,000
440,757
0
162,000
162,000
411,600
10,500
0
422,100
15.000
99,000
130,650
360,150
1,365,150
204.773
409,545
117,744
2,097,212
42,000
393,868
0
0
321,000
0
321,000
41,2
*Does not assume cost per year to conduct an ocean monitoring program which would be
required if primary treatment could be utilized.
PAGE 2
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 ALTERNATIVE 5 ALTERNATIVE 6^
SLUDGE HANDLING
Rotary Thickener 60Z«20, 40Z850
Aerobic Digesters 40ZS20, 60Z350
Sludge Drying Beds 50
Sludge Hauling Vehicle 10
Septage Lagoons 50
Subtotal
K1SCELLANEOUS
Fencing 20
Sitenork 20
Pickup Trucks V Naint. Eq 10
Tools for Equipt. Repair 20
Operations Building 50
Electrical 1 Instr. Work 50Z«10, 50Z«20
Subtotal
TOTAL SALVAGE VALUE
SALVAGE VALUE PRESENT WORTH
FOTURE EXPENDITURES BREAKDOWN
SLUDGE HANDLING
Sludge Hauling Vehicle
MISCELLANEOUS
Pickup Trucks i faint. Equip.
Electrical V Instr. Work
FUTURE EXPEND. TOTAL
FUTURE EXPEND. PRESENT WORTH
10 year basis
55,000
60,000
0
4,200
119,200
0
0
0
0
59,000
0
59,000
666,200
127,353
85,000
15,000
127,173
227,173
99,325
55,000
92,200
60,000
0
4,200
211,400
0
0
0
0
59,000
0
59,000
559,600
106,975
85,000
15,000
113,913
213,913
93,527
55,000
92,200
60,000
0
4,200
211,400
0
0
0
0
59,000
0
59,000
1,063,720
203,344
85,000
15,000
201,143
301,143
131,666
0
17,400
17,400
0
0
0
0
59,000
0
59,000
660,500
126,263
85,000
15,000
80,145
180,145
78,763
60,000
0
4,200
64,200
0
0
0
0
59,000
0
59,000
444,200
84,915
85,000
15,000
65,325
165,325
72,284
55,000
92,200
60,000
0
4,200
211,400
0
0
0
0
59,000
0
59,000
331,600
63,390
85,000
15,000
64.942
164,942
72,116
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $4,815,181 «4,566,197 17,025,037 $2,921,295 12,478,449 $2,902,177*
*Estimated costs of a primary wastewater treatment facility are presented for
comparison purposes onfy. As discussed in the Alternatives Chapter, primary
treatment is not considered a feasible alternative.
PAGE 3
fl.-5-fr
-------
TABLE C.5-4
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
FACILITY LAND REQUIREMENTS
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
INTEREST RATE* 8.625 PERCENT
ANALYSIS PERIOD- 20 YEARS
LAND APPRECIATION RATE" 3 PERCENT
1985 ENR CONST. COST INDEX* 4220
PLANT AREA BUFFER AREA TOTAL AREA SITE PRESENT NORTH
REQ'D REQ'D* REQ'D AQUISITION SALVA6E OF NET
ALTERNATIVE ACRES ACRES ACRES COST** VALUE SALVA6E VALUE PRESENT NORTH
1 ALTERNATIVE 1 1.5 3.5 5 $475,000 $857,903 $163,999 $311,001
OXIDATION DITCH PLANT
2 ALTERNATIVE 2 1.25 3.25 4.5 $427,500 $772,113 $147,599 $279,901
RBC PLANT
3 ALTERNATIVE 3 1.45 3 4.8 $456,000 $823,587 $157,439 $298,561
TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
4 ALTERNATIVE 4 4.34 5 9.64 $915,800 $1,654,037 $316,191 $599,609
RECIRC. SAND FILTER PLANT
5 ALTERNATIVE 5 5.44 6 11.36 $1,079,200 $1,949,155 $372,607 $706,593
AERATED LA600N PLANT
6 LAND APPLICATION SITE 22.7 10 32.77 $3,113,150 $5,622,695 $1,074,852 $2,038,298
*BASED UPON 100' HIDE BUFFER ZONE SURROUNDIN6 SITE
"LAND VALUE USED' $95,000 /ACRE
-------
TftBLE C.5-5
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
HPCF INFLUENT PIPING
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
INTEREST RATE*
ANALYSIS PERIOD*
1986 ENR CONST, COST INDEX'
UNIT
ITEM LENGTH SIZE COST
CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING
INFLUENT PUMP STATION
INFLUENT FORCENAIN
Site 1 2,100 8 MO
Site 2 3,000 8 $40
Site 3 3,900 8 *40
TOTAL CONST. COST
CONTINGENCIES (15Z)
EN8IN., LEGAL, &
ADMIN. COST (30Z)
INTEREST DURING CONST.
(2YRS»B-5/BI*50Z)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
DESIGN
SALVAGE VALUE BREAKDOWN LIFE
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING 20
INFLUENT PUMP STATION
INFLUENT FORCEMAIN 50
Site 1 2,100 8 40
Site 2 3,000 8 40
Site 3 3,900 8 40
TOTAL SALVAGE VALUE
SALVAGE VALUE PRESENT NORTH
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ANNUAL DM COSTS
PRESENT NORTH OF D& M COSTS
8.625 PERCENT
20 YEARS
4220
SITE 1 SITE 2
60,000 60,000
84,000
120,000
144,000 180,000
21,600 27,000
43,200 54,000
12,420 15,525
$221,220 $276,525
0 0
50,400
72,000
50,400 72,000
$9,635 $13,764
10,900 30,000
$102,218 $281,335
SITE 3
60,000
156,000
216,000
32,400
64,800
18,630
$331,830
0
93,600
93,600
$17,893
23,300
$218,303
TOTAL PRESENT NORTH
$313,804
$544,096
$532,440
PAGE 1
-------
TABLE C.5-6
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
HPCF EFFLUENT PIPING- OUTFALL ALTERNATIVES
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
ITEH
CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
EFFLUENT FORCEHAIN
Site 1
EFFLUENT 6RAVITY SEHER
Site 2
Site 3
OUTFALL (OCEAN PORTION)
0-30 Ft. Deep
30-40 Ft. Deep
40-60 Ft. Deep
Over 60 Ft. Deep
Subtotal
TOTAL CONST. COST
CONTINGENCIES (151)
EN6IN., LE6AL, It
ADMIN, COST (302)
INTEREST DURIN6 CONST.
(2YRS*B-5/BZ*50X)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
SALVAGE VALUE BREAKDOWN
EFFLUENT PUHP STATION
EFFLUENT FORCEHAIN
Site i
EFFLUENT 6RAVITY SEHER
Site 2
Site 3
INTEREST RATE*
ANALYSIS PERIOD'
1986 ENR CONST. COST INDEX-
UNIT
LEN6TH SIZE COST
2,200 B $40
3,100 10 $85
4,000 10 IBS
1,000 10 $450
500 10 $500
1,400 10 $600
300 10 $700
3,200
DESIGN
LIFE
50X820,
50X850
50
2,200 B $40
50
3,100 10 $65
4,000 10 $85
8.625
20
4220
SITE 1
200,000
88,000
450,000
250,000
840,000
210,000
1,750,000
2,038,000
305,700
611,400
175,778
$3,130,878
60,000
52,800
PERCENT
YEARS
SITE 2
263,500
450,000
250,000
840,000
210,000
1,750,000
2,013,500
302,025
604,050
173,664
$3,093,239
158,100
SITE 3
340,000
450,000
250,000
840,000
210,000
1,750,000
2,090,000
313,500
627,000
180,263
$3,210,763
204,000
PAGE 1
-------
UNIT
ITEM LENBTH SIZE COST SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3
OUTFALL (OCEAN PORTION) 50
0-30 Ft. Deep 1,000 10 $450
30-40 Ft. Deep 500 10 $500
40-60 Ft. Deep 1,400 10 $600
Over 60 Ft. Deep 300 10 $700
Subtotal 3,200
TOTAL SALVAGE VALUE
SALVAGE VALUE PRESENT WORTH
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ANNUAL DM COSTS
PRESENT NORTH OF 0* H COSTS
270,000
150,000
504,000
126,000
1,050,000
1,162,800
$222,285
9,900
$92,840
270,000
150,000
504,000
126,000
1,050,000
1,208,100
$230,944
0
$0
270,000
150,000
504,000
126,000
1,050,000
1,254,000
$239,719
0
$0
TOTAL PRESENT NORTH $3,001,433 $2,862,295 $2,971,044
PAGE 2
-------
TABLE C.5-7
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
HPCF EFFLUENT PIPING- LAND APPLICATION ALTERNATIVES
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
INTEREST RATE* 8.625 PERCENT
ANALYSIS PERIOD- 20 YEARS
1986 ENR CONST. COST INDEX* 4220
UNIT
ITEM LENGTH SIZE COST SITE 1 . SITE 2
CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
EFFLUENT FORCEMAIN
Site 1 3,950 10 $45
Site 2 4,650 10 MS
EFFLUENT GRAVITY SEWER
Site 3 500 10 IBS
LAND APPLICATION EQUIPMENT $414,000
TOTAL CONST. COST
CONTINGENCIES I15X)
ENSIN., LEGAL, 6
ADMIN. COST (301)
INTEREST DURING CONST.
(2YRSt8-5/BZ*50Z)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
DESIGN
SALVAGE VALUE BREAKDOWN LIFE
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION 50X820,
501850
EFFLUENT FORCE MA IN 50
Site 1 3,950 10 $45
Site 2 4,650 10 $45
EFFLUENT GRAVITY 5EHER 50
Site 3 500 10 *B5
LAND APPLICATION EQUIPMENT $116,000
TOTAL SALVAGE VALUE
SALVAGE VALUE PRESENT NORTH
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ANNUAL 04H COSTS
PRESENT NORTH OF 01 H COSTS
200,000
177,750
414,000
791,750
118,763
237,525
68,288
11,216,326
60,000
106,650
116,000
282,650
$54,032
25,800
$241,948
180,000
209,250
414,000
803,250
120,488
240,975
69,280
$1,233,993
54,000
125,550
116,000
295,550
$56,498
15,900
$149,107
SITE 3
42,500
414,000
456,500
68,475
136,950
39,373
$701,298
25,500
116,000
141,500
$27,050
10,000
$93,778
TOTAL PRESENT NORTH
$1,404,241 $1,326,602
$768,027
PAGE 1
-------
TABLE C.5-B
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
HPCF EFFLUENT PIPING- CANEEL BAY
EFFLUENT FORCEHAIN ALTERNATIVES
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
INTEREST RATE' 8.625
ANALYSIS PERIOD^ 20
1986 ENR CONST. COST INDEX' 4220
UNIT
ITEH LENGTH SIZE COST
CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN
EFFLUENT PUNP STATION
EFFLUENT FORCEHAIN
Site 1 8,750 10 $45
Site 2 9,450 10 $45
Site 3 6,300 10 $45
TOTAL CONST. COST
CONTINGENCIES (151)
EN8IN,, LE6AL, It
ADHIN. COST (301)
INTEREST DURIN6 CONST.
(2YRStB-5/Bl*501)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
DESI6N
SALVA6E VALUE BREAKDOWN LIFE
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION 50X820,
501850
EFFLUENT FORCEHAIN 50
Site 1 8,750 10 $45
Site 2 9,450 10 $45
Site 3 6,300 10 $45
TOTAL SALVA6E VALUE
SALVA6E VALUE PRESENT NORTH
OPERATION AND HAINTENANCE COSTS
ANNUAL DM COSTS
PRESENT NORTH OF 01 H COSTS
SITE 1
200,000
393,750
593,750
89,063
178,125
51,211
$912,148
60,000
236,250
296,250
$56,632
37,800
$354,482
SITE 2
200,000
425,250
625,250
93,788
187,575
53,928
$960,540
60,000
255,150
315,150
$60,245
27,900
$261,641
SITE 3
200,000
283,500
483,500
72,525
145,050
41,702
$742,777
60,000
170,100
230,100
$43,987
28,500
$267,268
TOTAL PRESENT NORTH
$1,209,998 $1,161,936
$966,058
PAGE 1
-------
n
V
0>
TABLE C.5-9
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE PRESENT BORTH SUHHARY
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
OXIDATION
DITCH
Preswt North 4,815,200
RBC
PLANT
Present Morth 4,564,200
TRICKLING
FILTER
Preient North 7,025,000
REC1RC. SAND
FILTER
Present North 2,921,300
AERATED
LAGOON
Present Horth 2,478,500
301h PRIMARY *
PLANT
Present Horth 2,902,177
SITE 1- «/ OUTFALL
Collection Systei PH
Influent Scwr P*
Outfill n
Subtotal
SITE 1- «/ LAND APP.
Collection SystH P*
Influent S*wr PB
Lind Application PI
Und Appl. Site PI
Subtotjl
SITE 1- «/ EFF. FH
Collection Systei PI
Influent Sewr P«
Cineel Forceinn PV
Subtotal
3,383,9«
313,800
3,001,400
6,499,100
3,383,900
313,800
1,404,200
2,OM,300
7,140,200
3,383,900
313,800
1,210,000
4,907,700
NOT NOT
11,514,300 11,245,300 13,724,100 APPLICABLE APPLICABLE 9,601,277
NOT NOT NOT
11,955,400 11,706,400 14,165,200 APPLICABLE APPLICABLE APPLICABLE
NOT NOT NOT
',722,900 9,473,900 11,932,700 APPLICABLE APPLICABLE APPLICABLE
*Estimated costs for 301(h) Primary Plant Alternative assume the same length of ocean outfall (3,200 L.F.)
as for the other (secondary treatment) alternatives. However, implementation of this alternative could
require a longer ocean outfall, which would add approximately $700 per additional foot of outfall length.
Primary plant costs are presented here for comparison purposes only, because the deadline for applying for
marine discharge waivers expired in December 1982.
PAGE 1
-------
TABLE C.5-? - Continued
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE PRESENT WORTH SUHHARY
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
Oil DAT ION
DITCH
Present North 4,815,200
RBC
PLANT
Present North 4,544,200
TRICKLIN6
FILTER
Present North 7,025,000
RECIRC. SAND
FILTER
Present North 2,921,300
AERATED
LAGOON
Present North 2,476,500
301h PRIMARY w
PLANT
Present North 2,902,177
SITE 2- N/ OUTFALL
Collection Systei PN
Influent Sener PN
Outfall PN
Subtotal
~ NPCF Site PN
*_/ Total PN
1 SITE 2- N/ LAND APP.
_J^ Collection Systei PN
Influent Se.er PN
Land Application PN
Land Appl. Site PN
Subtotal
NPCF Site PN
Total PN
SUE 2- N/ EFF. Fit
Collection Systei PN
Influent Se.er PN
Cancel Forcfiain PN
Subtotal
NPCF Site PN
lotal PN
3,383,900
544,100
2,862,300
6,790,300
3,383,900
544,100
1,326,600
2,038,300
7,292,900
3,383,900
544,100
1,161,900
5,089,900
311,000 279,900 298,600 599,600 706,600 298,600
11,916,500 11,636,400 14,113,900 10,311,200 9,975,400 9,991,077
311,000 279,900 298,600 599,600 706,600 NOT
12,419,100 12,139,000 14,616,500 10,813,800 10,478,000 APPLICABLE
311,000 279,900 298,600 599,600 706,600 NOT
10,216,100 9,936,000 12,413,500 8,610,800 8,275,000 APPLICABLE
*Estimated costs for 301(h) Primary Plant Alternative assume the same length of ocean outfall (3,200 L.F.)
as for the other (secondary treatment) alternatives. However, implementation of this alternative could
require a longer ocean outfall, which would add approximately 5700 per additional foot of outfall length.
Primary plant costs are presented here for comparison purposes only, because the deadline for applying for
marine discharge waivers expired in December 1982.
PA6E 2
-------
TABLE C.5-9 - Continued
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE PRESENT NORTH SUHHARY
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
01 IDAT I ON
DITCH
Present North 4,815,200
RBC
PLANT
Present North 1,564,200
TRICKLING
FILTER
Present North 7,025,000
RECIRC. SAND
FILTER
Present Horth 2,921,300
AERATED
LA600N
Present North 2,476,500
30th PR1NARY *
PLANT
Present North 2,902,177
SITE 3- N/ OUTFALL
Collection Systei PN
Influent Sewr PN
Outfill PN
Subtotal
NPCF Site PN
Totil PN
SITE 3- N/ LAND APP.
Collection Systei PN
Influent Sener PN
Lind Applicitim PN
Lind Appl. Site PN
Subtotil
NPCF Site PN
Totil PN
SITE 3- N/ EFF. Ffl
Collection Systei PN
Influent Se.er PN
Cineel Forceflin PN
Subtotal
NPCF Site PN
Totil PN
3,383,900
532,400
2,971,000
4,887,300
3,383,900
532,400
748,000
2,038,300
4,722,400
3,383,900
532,400
944,000
4,882,300
311,000 279,900 298,400 599,400 704,400 298,400
12,013,500 11,733,400 14,210,900 10,408,200 10,072,400 10,086,077
311,000 279,900 296,400 599,400 704,400 NOT
11,846,600 11,548,700 14,044,200 10,243,500 9,907,700 APPLICABLE
311,000 279,900 298,400 599,400 704,400 NOT
10,008,500 9,728,400 12,205,900 8,403,200 6,047,400 APPLICABLE
^Estimated costs for 301(h) Primary Plant Alternative assume the same length of ocean outfall (3,200 L.F.)
as for the other (secondary treatment) alternatives. However, implementation of this alternative could
require a longer ocean outfall, which would add approximately $700 per additional foot of outfall length.
Primary plant costs are presented here for comparison purposes only, because the deadline for applying for
marine discharge waivers expired in December 1982.
PflBE 3
-------
pi
in
TflBLE C.5-10
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST SUHHARY
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
SITE 1- K/ OUTFALL
Collection Systei
Influent Sewr
Outfall
Subtotal
SITE 1- «/ LAND APP.
Collection Systei
Influent Se»er
Land Application
Land Appl. Site
Subtotal
SITE 1- «/ EFF. FH
Collection Systee
Influent Saner
Cancel Forceiain
Subtotal
3,412,200
221,200
3,130,900
4,764,300
3,412,200
221,200
1,214,300
3,113,200
7,962,900
3,412,200
221,200
912,100
4,545,500
OHDflTlON RBC TRICKLINB REC1RC. SAND
DITCH PLANT FILTER FILTER
Capital Cost 3,933,600 Capital Cost 3,548,100 Capital Cost 6,083,900 Capital Cost 2,528,000
NOT
10,697,900 10,312,400 12,848,200 APPLICABLE
NOT
11,896,500 11,511,000 14,046,800 APPLICABLE
NOT
8,479,100 8,093,600 10,629,400 APPLICABLE
AERATED 301h PRIHARY
LAGOON PLANT
Capital Cost 2,097,200 Capital Cost 2,124,469
NOT
APPLICABLE 8,888,769
NOT NOT
APPLICABLE APPLICABLE
NOT NOT
flpPLICABLE APPLICABLE
PABE
-------
o
u^
i
TABLE C.5-10 - Continued
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST SUHhARY
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
SITE 2- N/ OUTFALL
Collection Systei
Influent Sener
Outfall
Subtotal
KPCF Site
Total Capital Cost
SITE 2- «/ LAND APP.
Collection Systei
Influent Sener
Land Application
Land Appl. Site
Subtotal
HFCF Site
Total Capital Cost
SITE 2- •'/ EFF. FH
Collection svsten
influent Sener
Cancel Forceiain
Subtotal
KrCF Site
Tc-ta! Casitai Cost
3,412,200
276,500
3,093,200
4,781,900
3,412,200
276,500
1,234,000
3,113,200
6,035,900
3,412,200
276,500
960,500
4,649,200
OUOATIOH RBC TRICKLING REC1RC. SAND AERATED 301h PRIMARY
DITCH PLANT FILTER FILTER LAGOON PLANT
Capital Cost 3,933,600 Capital Cost 3,548,100 Capital Cost 6,OB3,90C Capital Cost 2,528,000 Capital Cost 2,097,200 Capital Cost 2,124,469
475,000 427,500 456,000 915,800 1,079,200 456,000
11,190,500 10,757,500 13,321,800 10,225,700 ?,95B,300 9,362,369
475,000 427,500 456,000 915,800, 1,079,200 NOT
12,444,500 12,011,500 14,575,800 11,479,700 11,212,300 APPLICABLE
475,000 427,500 456,000 915,800 1,079,200 NOT
9,057,800 8,624,800 11,189,100 8,093,000 7,825,600 APPLICABLE
-------
TABLE C.5-10 - Continued
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST SUMIARY
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
o\
SITE 3- K/ OUTFALL
Collection Systei
Influent Se»er
Outfall
Subtotal
KPCF Site
Total Capital Cost
SITE 3- »/ LAND APP.
Collection Systei
Influent Sener
Land Application
Land flppl. Site
Subtotal
KPCF Site
Total Capital Cost
SITE 3- K/ EFF. Fh
Collection Systei
Influent Sewer
Caneel Forceiain
Subtotal
KPCF Site
Total Capital Cost
3,412,200
331,800
3,210,800
6,954,600
3,412,200
331,800
701,300
3,113,200
7,558,500
3,412,200
331,800
742,800
4,486,800
OXIDATION RBC TRICKLIN6 RECIRC. SAND AERATED 301h PRINARY
DITCH PLANT FILTER FILTER LAGOON PLANT
Capital Cost 3,933,600 Capital Cost 3,548,100 Capital Cost 6,083,900 Capital Cost 2,528^000 Capital Cost 2,097,200 Capital Cost 2,124,469
475,000 427,500 456,000 915,800 1,079,200 456,000
11,363,400 10,930,400 13,494,700 10,398,600 10,131,200 9,535,269
475,000 427,500 456,000 915,800 1,079,200 NOT
11,967,100 11,534,100 14,098,400 11,002,300 10,734,900 APPLICABLE
475,000 427,500 456,000 915,800 1,079,200 NOT
6,895,400 8.462,400 11,026,700 7,930,600 7,663,200 APPLICABLE
PA6E 3
-------
Ui
TABLE C.5-11
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE 0 I N COST SUHMARY
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
SITE 1- K/ OUTFALL
Collection 5yste«
Influent Sener
Outfall
Subtotal
SITE 1- H/ LAND APP.
Collection Systei
Influent Se«er
Land Application
Land App!. Site
Subtotal
SITE !- i,' iff. F«
Collection Systei
Influent Sexer
Caneei Forceiain
Subtotal
185,100
10,900
9,900
205,900
185,100
10,900
25,800
0
221,800
185,100
16,900
57.800
233.800
OXIDATION RBC TRICKLING RECIRC. SAND
HITCH PLANT FILTER FILTER
0 I M Cost 97,000 0 i « Cost 110,000 0 1 H Cost 106,000 0 I N Cost 47,000
NOT
302,900 315,900 313,900 APPLICABLE
NOT
318,800 331,800 329,800 APPLICABLE
NOT
330,800 3*3,800 341,800 APPLICABLE
AERATED 301h PRIMARY PLANT
LA6DQN
0 1 N Cost 42,000 0 I « Cost 82,000
NOT
APPLICABLE 287,900
NOT NOT
APPLICABLE APPLICABLE
NOT NOT
APPLICABLE APPLICABLE
-------
OXIDATION RBC
BITCH PUNT
0 I H Cost 97,000 0 I H Cost 110,000
TABLE C.5-11 - Continued
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE Din COST SLJNhARY
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
TRICKLINB
FILTER
OIK Cost 108,000
RECIRC. SflND AERATED 301h PRIHARY PLANT
FILTER LAGOON
0 & II Cost 47,000 0 I H Cost 42,000 0 I H Cost B2,000
p>
•
in
\
(V)
^
SITE 2- VI OUTFALL
Collection Systei
Influent Seier
Outfall
Subtotal
Total 0 t H Cost
SITE 2- H/ LAND APP.
Collection Systei
Influent Sener
Land Application
Land Appl. Site
Subtotal
Total 0 1 H Cost
SITE 2- «/ EFF. FH
Collection Systei
Influent Sener
Caneel Porcelain
Subtotal
Total 0 I N Cost
185,100
30,000
0
215,100
185,100
30,000
15,900
0
231,000
185,100
30,000
27,900
243,000
312,100 325,100 323,100 262,100
328,000 341,000 339,000 278,000
346,000 353,000 351,000 290,000
257,100 297,100
NOT
273,000 APPLICABLE
NOT
285,000 APPLICABLE
PA6E 2
-------
TABLE C.5-11 - Continued
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE 0 I h COST SUHMARY
CRUZ BAY FACILITIES PLAN EIS
OHIDATION RBC
DITCH PLANT
D t N Cost 97,000 0 t II Cost 110,000
FILTER
0 It « Cost 108,000
RECIRC. SAND AERATED 301h PRIMARY PLANT
FILTER LASOON
0 I N Cost 47,000 0 t H Cost 42,000 0 I H Cost 62,000
SITE 3- «/ OUTFALL
Collection Systei
Influent Sener
Outfall
Subtotal
Total 0 I H Cost
SITE 3- K/ LAND APP.
Collection Syste»
Influent Se»er
Land Application
Land Appl. Site
Subtotal
Total OIK Cost
SITE 3- N/ EFF. FM
Collection Systei
Influent Sener
Caneel Forceiain
Subtotal
Total 0 i H Cost
165,100
23,300
o
208,400
185,100
23,300
10,000
0
218,400
185,100
23,300
26,500
236,900
305,400 318,400 316,400 255,400
315,400 328,400 326,400 265,400
333,900 346,900 344,900 263,900
250,400 290,400
NOT
260,400 APPLICABLE
NOT
276,900 APPL1CA8LE
PA6E 3
-------
APPENDIX C.6
Section 301(h) Background Information
-------
APPENDIX C.6
Section 301(h) Background Information
The Clean Water Act of 1977 included provisions under Section 301(h)
which allow publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to apply for a
modified National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit to discharge effluent receiving less-than-secondary treatment
to marine waters. Section (301) (h) provides that the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the concurrence of
the State, may issue an NPDES permit to a POTW which modifies the
Federal secondary treatment requirements for POTW discharges into
certain ocean or estuarine waters if the POTW adequately demonstrates
that the modification would not impair the integrity of the marine
receiving waters and biota. Regulations implementing section 301(h)
were first issued by EPA in June, 1979 (44 FR 34784, 40 CFR Part 125,
Subpart G).
Section 301(h) was subsequently amended by the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981 (P.L. 97-117) and now
specifies that: The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State,
may issue a permit under Section 402 which modifies the requirements
of subsection (b) (1) (B) of this section with respect to the dis-
charge of any pollutant from a publicly owned treatment works into
marine waters, if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that:
1) there is an applicable water quality standard specific to the
pollutant for which the modification is requested, which has been
identified under Section 304(a) (6) of this Act;
2) such modified requirements will not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of that water quality which assures protection of
public water supplies and the protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife,
and allows recreational activities, in and on the water;
3) the applicant has established a system for monitoring the impact
of such discharge on a representative sample of aquatic biota to
the extent practicable;
4) such modified requirements will not result in any additional
requirements on any other point or nonpoint source;
5) all applicable pretreatment requirements for sources introducing
waste into such treatment works will be enforced;
6) to the extent practicable, the applicant has established a
schedule of activities designed to eliminate the entrance of
toxic pollutants from non-industrial sources into such treatment
works;
C6-1
-------
7) there will be no new or substantially increased discharges from
the point source of the pollutant to which the modification
applies above that volume of discharge specified in the permit;
For the purposes of this subsection the phrase "the discharge of any
pollutant into marine waters" refers to a discharge into deep waters
of the territorial sea or the waters of the contiguous zone, or into
saline estuarine waters where there is strong tidal movement and other
hydrological and geological characteristics which the Administrator
determines necessary to allow compliance with paragraph (2) of this
subsection and section 101(a) (2) of the Act. A municipality which
applies secondary treatment shall be eligible to receive a permit
pursuant to this subsection which modifies the requirements of sub-
section (b) (1) (B) of this section with respect to the discharge of
any pollutant from any treatment works owned by such municipality into
marine waters. No permit issued under this subsection shall authorize
the discharge of sewage sludge into marine waters. The 1981 Amend-
ments to the Clean Water Act (P.L. 97-117) provided for submission of
301(h) applications for marine discharge waivers for one year from the
date of the Amendments (i.e., until December 29, 1982). Thus, the law
precludes submission of new waiver applications.
C6-2
-------
APPENDIX D.
BENTHIC SURVEY
-------
TURNER B#=nY BE NTH T C
THE: R-ROF-OSEUD"
PREPARED BY
Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
Division of Natural Resources Management
Ambient Monitoring Staff
Marcia Bilnack
Kurt VanGelder
Marc Pacifico
Clifford Crook
May 1986
-------
TURNER BAY BENTHIC SURVEY
FOR THE PROPOSED OUTFALL ROUTE
INTRODUCTION
Biologists from the Department of Conservation, Division of Natural
Resources Management (NRM) conducted a benthic survey of Turner Day, St. John
during the weeks of Jan. 13-17 and Feb. 24-28, 1986. This project was done as
an intensive survey for the Ambient Monitoring Program to document existing
conditions in Turner Bay ineonjunction with the EIS being prepared by C.E.
Maguire, Inc. for the proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan.
The nearshore waters of Turner Bay, on the west coast of St. John,
support important marine resources. The major ecological zones in this area
have been mapped using aerial photographs and underwater (U/W) surveying. Each
zone is described in detail in the following sections.
SEAGRASS AREA
Figure 1 shows the extent of seagrass in Turner Bay (Zone B). There is a
dense patch of seagrass in the shallow central part of Turner Bay, becoming
more patchy eastward. Sand channels (non-colored areas) separate this zone
from the coral areas on either side. It appears from previous maps that the
extent of seagrass in this area has decreased over the years, which is
consistant with seagrass loss observed throughout the Caribbean. This is
probably due to the increase load of silt and waste from Eighed Pond and land
runoff.
To characterize the seagrass community in Turner Bay, and to establish a
Iong-term monitoring site, Station 2 was marked in 6 meters of water (Fig. 1).
Underwater observations and measurements of this community were made within a
25 m. radius of the permanent marker. Twenty seven 10x20 cm. random quadrats
-1-
-------
were examined around Station 2 for macroalgae, invertebrates and seagrass
density. (For more details of methods used, see Rogers 1982). A summary of
these observations is given in Table 1. The seagrass community in Turner Bay
is a mixed association of two major Caribbean seagrass species, Thalassia
testudunum Kon i g, and Syringodium filiforme Kutzing, and a multispecific
assemblage of algae. Algal coverage was generally less than 10%, composed
largely of calcified greens (Table 1). The seagrass blades were long, had few
epiphytes and had densities typical of other Caribbean seagrass beds (Table
1).
The benthic community at Station 2 appears to be a healthy Caribbean
seagrass bed. Seagrass beds are areas of limited distribution with significant
economic and ecological importance. Care should be taken to protect this
diminishing valuable resource.
-2-
-------
'6 X^K^* 4T^1
C "/" \^~ --— • 1S' c • r1
a
ZONES :
r"7! (A) ALGAL PLAIN
(B) SEAGRASS
(C) SUBTIDAL
BEDROCK
(D) DEEPER REEF
(E) CORAL
TERRACE
O CURRENT
METER LOCATION
fi UNDERWATER
SURVEY STATION
TKI»:
TURNER BAY AREA
BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
Sourc*: OCCA-NRM
I
D«t«: 4/86
— 63" -/^ -49 A-20' -
-------
Table 1
Benthic Biota at Station 2, Seagrass Bed
Seagrass
2
type mean number/m +S.D.
(n=27)
Thalass ia plants 894 + 208
Thalassia blades 2041 + 530
Syr ingodlum blades 1187 + 497
Algae observed in order of decreasing abundance
Lithothamnium sp. (ca. 5-10%)
Ha IImeda spp.
Pen ic iI lus cap Itatus
Dictyosphaeria cavcrnosa
Udotea sp.
Amphiroa sp.
Anadyomena stellata
Valonia ventriculosa
Avrainvillea nigricans
Dasya pedi ceI Iata
CaIi thamni on sp.
Cerami um n i tens
Invertebrates observed in order of decreasing abundance
(Sc I eractinia) Manlcina areolata (less than 1% ave. cover)
Cladocora arbuscula
(Foraminifera) Gypsina sp.
Unidentified sponges
-4-
-------
ALGAL PLAIN AREA
As is typical in the deeper coastal waters of the V.I., the outer
portions of Turner Bay have an extensive algal plain (Fig. 1, Zone A). These
areas are largely covered by carbonate nodules which are formed by coralline
algae and encrusting foraminifera. The nodules and an ocassional large sponge
provide some limited habitat complexity in what is otherwise a very flat and
relatively featureless area. Despite low habitat complexity, algal plains
harbor a diverse and productive algal corrrnunity which support many small
invertebrates and fish. Some believe these areas play a significant role as
habitat for postlarval settlement of commercial species of fishes (Olsen,
Boulon, McCra i n 1981).
In order to characterize this area, NRM divers made observations in
several locations. Divers swam a transect 16 m. in depth from Contant Point to
Zone B. In addition, observations were recorded and U/VV photographs were taken
in the areas surrounding each of the three current meters (Fig. 1. 2, 3).
Table 2 lists the algal species identified at each of these areas. Additional
details are presented in the following paragraphs.
In addition to the predominant algal community observed during the
transect swim, several (17) large queen conch and milk conch (S t r omb us s p p.)
were observed. Other invertebrates observed in smaller numbers were penshells
(P i nna carnea), lobsters, crabs, shrimps, anemonies, sponges, and
hydrozoans.
The benthic communities in the vicinity of current meter #2 (18 m.) and
#3 (21 m.) were similar. The dominant benthic community found in this high
current area was a diverse population of large algae (Table 2). Many
gorgonians (e.g. Gorgon i a spp., Briareum sp.) and sponges (including the
large barrel sponge Xes tospong i a muta) were observed. Other
-5-
-------
macroinvertebrates observed in lesser abundance were squid (Sepioteuthis
sepioidea), queen conch and the trumpet triton (Charonia variegata).
Several species of stony corals (ScIeractinia) were observed, although the
percent live cover of these was estimated as less than 1 i"o. The following
species were observed: Stephanocoenia michelinii, Agaricia spp.,
S ideras t rea s iderea, Porites porites, Manicina areolata, Mont as traea
cavernosa, Dichocoenia stokesi, Miilepora alcicornis. Small fish were
common in these areas. The following is a list of fish observed during our
dives (for the generic names see Table 4) : blue tang, squirre 1 fish, bicolor
damselfish, rock beauty, yellow head wrasse, surgeonfish, reef butterfly,
french angelfish, stripped parrotfish, and red hind. The sediments in these
areas are coarse with large calcareous nodules. In places, there was only S
cm. of sediment overlaying the bedrock.
Current meter ,f1 (10 m. depth) was located on the fringe of a reef and so
has a great abundance of large gorgonians and sponges. Several species of
scleractinian corals and fish were also observed, A more detailed description
of these reefs is given in the Coral Reef Area section.
-6-
-------
Table 2
Algae Observed in Zone A, Algal Plaii
Chloorophyta (Green algae)
Ncorneri s annulata
Valoni a ventr icosa
VaI on lops is pachynema
Chamaedoris penicuium
PictyosphaerI a cavernosa
Anadyomene stellata
CauIerpa proli fera
C. mexicana
C. sertular iodes
C. cupressoides
C. racemosa V. macrophysa
Avrainvillea nigricans
Udotea sp.
Penc iI I us cap!tatus
P. dumetosus
Ha Iimeda spp.
Codium spp.
Phaeophyta (Brown algae)
Dictyota spp.
Lobophora variegata
Sargassum spp.
Rhodophyta (Red algae)
L i agora sp.
GaIaxaura sp.
Asparagopsis taxiformis
Halymen i a sp.
Grate Ioupi a sp.
Grac i I ar i a cy I i ndr ica
Eucheuma sp.
Hypnea sp.
Chrysymenia enteromorpha
Champia parvula
Wr angel i a argus
CaI Ii thmn ion sp.
Ceramium nitens
Hypoglossum tenuifolium
Martensia pavonia
Dasya ped i ceIlata
Dictyurus occidental is
Pi gen i a s imp I ex
Wrightiella tumanowicz
Chondr i a sp.
Acanthorphora spicifera
-7-
-------
-, •
Figure 2
Typical view of the Algal Plain habitat at current meter #3.
Figure 3
View of algae in the Algal Plain
-8-
-------
CORAL REEF AREAS
There are several reef areas in the vicinity of Turner Bay, St. John
(Fig. 1). Much of the biota in the very shallow areas (Zone D) are dominated
by only a few species with little or no stony corals. A more diverse benthic
community and a higher coverage of coral occur in the deeper areas (Zone C) .
In an attempt to describe the different reef morphologies, divers took U/W
photographs (Fig. 4-8) and observations in these areas. In addition, a
permanent coral monitoring station was established at Station 1 (Fig.1).
Corals and fish found in reef areas are given in Tables 3 and 4.
Moravian Point
The submarine extension of Moravian Point is marked by a shallow area
composed of bedrock and large boulders (Zone C). The biota in this area (ca.
depth of 3 m. to surface) is limited due to high currents, wave exposure and
high light intensities. Dominating the benthic community here are the
encrusting hydrozoan Millepora alcicornis and the zoanthid Palythoa (Fig.
4).
Moving down the slope to the SE, Millepora becomes less dominant. A
zone of mixed corals begins to occur (Zone D) with large scleratinian corals
dominating. Deeper down the slope (ca. 10 m.) the soft corals (gorgonians and
sea fans) become more abundant (Fig. 7). The coral area ends as the slope
flattens out to a sandy zone (ca. 18 m.) which separates it from the seagrass
area (Zone B).
To establish a monitoring site and to more accurately quantify the
benthic components in Zone D, linear transects were marked at Station 1 (Fig.
1). These transects were examined for percentage of live and dead coral, the
relative abundance of each coral species, and the bottom topographical
complexity, according to the method given in Rogers et al., 1983. Of the
-9-
-------
thirty linear meters examined, 54.596 was dead coral, 11.0% was live coral and
14.8% was other invertebrates (sponges, Erythropod i um, and other
gorgonians). The r ema ining 19.7% was covered by sand. The spatial compI ex i ty
was calculated to be 1.4. The coral species found in this area and their
relative abundances are given in Table C.
Stevens Cay
Figure 1 shows the ecological zones surrounding Stevens Cay. In shallow
areas bordering the Cay and the rocks to the southeast, there is a subtidal
bedrock comnunity similar to that described in the shallow submarine extension
of Moravian Point. Occasional small colonies of Montastraea, Porites, and
S ideras trea were observed. Seaward of this zone (Zone E) there was a sandy
coral terrace with large coral buttresses. The following corals dominated
this zone: Acropora palmata, A. cervicornis, Dendrogyra cylindrus, and
Montastraea annularis. Separating Zone C from Zone E on the eastern margin
of the Cay was a smaII ledge fringed with large colonies of Porites porites,
P. furcata, and Ha I imeda. A diverse assemblage of gorgonians and stony
corals occurred in the deeper areas around the Cay, similar to that described
for Zone D in the previous section.
The benthic communities occurring on the submarine extension of Moravian
Point and on Stevens Cay appear to be typically diverse healthy reef
corrmun i t i es. Corals can be damaged by an increase in sedimentation and water
turbidity which could occur from both the operation and the construction of
the wastewater outfall. An ocean outfall should be installed and operated in
such a manner as not to affect this community.
-10-
-------
Table 3
Corals at Station 1 and Vicinity
Corals found in Coral Transects
percentage of live coral
For i tes pori tes
Montastraea cavernosa
Agar i c ia agar ic i tes
S iderastrea s iderea
Mi I Iepora spp.
Montastraea annularis
Por i tes astreoldes
Stephanocoenla michelinli
Pi pI or i a cIi vosa
Madracis decactls
Porites furcata
He I ioser i s cucuI Iata
Man i c i na areolata
19.
19.
10.0
10.0
7.9
7.0
7.0
6.7
6.2
2.3
1.2
1.2
0.9
Additional
transects.
corals found in coral area during the study but not recorded in the
Acropora cervicornls
A. palmata
Colpophyllia natans
Dendrogyra cylindrus
Dichocoenia stokes!
Diploria I abyrinthiformes
D. str i gosa
EusmiIi a fas t i g i ata
Favia fragum
IsophyII astrea rigida
IsophyI Ii a si nuosa
Meandrina meandrites
MycetophyI I I a ferox
S ideras tr ea radians
Tubastrea aurea
-11-
-------
TABLE 4
Fish Observed In Turner Bay Area
St. John
DASYATI DAE
Dasyatls amerIcana HI Idebrand & Schroeder
(Southern Stringray)
CONGRIDAE
NystactIchthys hali s Bohlke
(Garden Eel)
MURAENIDAE
Gymnothorax moringa (Cuvier)
(Spotted Morey)
SYNODONTIDAE
Lizardfishes
HOLOCENTRIDAE
Holocentrus ascenslonls (Osbeck)
(Squirrelfish)
Myrlprlstls jacobus Cu v i e r
(Blackbar Soldierflsh)
AULOSTOMIDAE
Aulostomus maculatus Valenciennes
(Trumpetfish)
SPHYRAENIDAE
Sphyraena barracuda (Walbaum)
(Great Barracuda)
SERRANIDAE
Cephalopho I is fulva (Linnaeus)
(Coney)
Epinephelus adscensionls (Osbeck)
(Rock Hind)
E. gut tatus (Linnaeus)
(Red Hind)
E. strlatus (Bloch)
(Nas sau Grouper)
Hypoplectrus nigricans (Poey)
(Black Hamlet)
Serranus t i gr i nus (Bloch)
(HarIequ in Bas s)
Petrometopon cruentatum (Lacepede)
(Graysby)
Mycteroperca tlgrls (Cuvier and Valenciennes)
(Tiger Grouper)
GRAMMIDAE
Gramma I ore to Poey
(Fa i ry Bas sIet)
PRIACANTTHIDAE
Priacanthus cruentatus (Linnaeus)
(Glas seye Snapper)
CARANGIDAE
Caranx ruber (Bloch)
(Bar Jack)
-12-
-------
LUTJANIDAE
Lutjanus apodus (Wai bain)
(Schoolmas ter)
L. griseus (Linnaeus)
(Gray Snapper)
POMADASYIDAE
Haemulon aurolineatum Cuvier
(Tomtate)
H. chrysargyreum Gunther
(Sma IImouth Grunt)
H. macrostomum Gunther
(Span!sh Grunt)
M. album Cuvier and Valenciennes
(Margate)
H. fIavoli neatum (Desmartst)
(French Grunt)
H. p I urn i e r i (Lacepede)
(White Grunt)
H. sciurus (Shaw)
(Bluestr i ped Grunt)
SPAR IDAE
Calamus bajonado (Bloch and Schneider)
(J o I thead Porgy)
SCIAENIDAE
Equetus punctatus Bloch & Schneider
(Spotted Drum)
MULL I DAE
Mu I Ioidichthys martinicus (Cuvier)
(Yellow Goatfish)
Pseudupeneus maculatus (Bloch)
(Spotted Goatfi sh)
KYPHOSIDAE
Kyphosus sectatrlx (Linnaeus)
(Bermuda Chub)
EPHIPPIDAE
Chaetodipterus faber (Broussonet)
(Atlant ic Spadefish)
POTMCANTH I DAE
Ho I acanthus c iIi ar i s (Linnaeus)
(Queen Angelf i sh)
H. tricolor (Bloch)
(Rock Beauty)
Pomacanthus arcuatus (Linnaeus)
(Gray Angelf i sh)
P. paru (Bloch)
(French AngeIf i sh)
CHAETOOONTI DAE
Chaetodon capistratus Linnaeus
(Foureye ButterfIyfish)
C. striatus Linnaeus
(Banded Butterfly)
POMACENTRIDAE
Abudefduf saxat iIi s (Linnaeus)
(Sergeant Ma j or)
-13-
-------
Chromis cyanea (Poey)
(Blue Chronis)
C. multlllneata (Guichenot)
(Brown Chromis)
Eupomacentrus leucostlctus (Muller & Troschel)
(Beaugregory)
E. fuscus (Cuvier and Valenciennes)
(Dusky Damsel fish)
E. partltus (Poey)
(Bi color Damsel fish)
E. planlfrons (Cuvier)
(Threespot Dams elfish)
E. varIabiI Is (castelnau)
(Cocoa Damsel fish)
E. mlcrospathodon chrysurus (Cu v i e r)
(YellowtaiI Damselfish)
CIRRHITHIDAE
Amblycirrhitus plnos (Mowbray)
(Redspotted Hawkfish)
LABRIDAE
Bodlanus rufus (Linnaeus)
(Spanish Hogfish)
Clepticus parrai (Bloch <& Schneider)
(Creole Wrasse)
Hallchoeres garnoti (Valenciennes)
(Yellowhead Wrasse)
H. rad i atus (Linnaeus)
(Puddingwife)
Hem!pteronotus novacula (Linnaeus)
(Pearly Razorfi sh)
Thalassoma blfasciatum (Bloch)
(Bluehead Wrasse)
SCAR IDAE
Scarus iserti (Bloch)
(Striped Parro t f i s h)
S. taeniopterus Desmarest
(Princess Parrot f i s h)
S. vetula Bloch & Schneider
(Queen Parrot)
S p a r i s oma aurofrenatum (Valenciennes)
(Redband Parrot)
S. rubripinne (Valenciennes)
(YellowtaiI Parrotfish)
S. v i r ide (Bonaterre)
(Stop!ight Parrot)
BLENNII DAE
Ophlobiennius atlanticus (Valenciennes)
(Red lip BIenny)
GOBI I DAE
Corphopterus gIaucofraenum GiI I
(Bridled Goby)
C. personatus (Jordan & Thompson)
(Masked Goby)
-14-
-------
ACANTHURIDAE
Acanthurus bahlanus Castelnau
(Ocean Surgeon)
A. chirurgus (Bloch)
(Doctorfish)
A. coeruleus (Bloch & Schneider)
(Blue Tang)
BALISTIDAE
Bal I stes vetula Linnaeus
(Queen TrIggerfIsh)
Cantherhlnes pullus (Ranzani)
(Orangespotted Filefish)
OSTRACIIDAE
Lactophrys blcaudalls (Linnaeus)
(Spotted Trunkfish)
L. trlquetar (Linnaeuus)
(Smooth Trunkfish)
TETRAODONTI DAE
Canthigaster rostrata (Bloch)
(Sharpnose Puffer)
Total number of species 73
-15-
-------
Figure 4
Millepora and Palythoa dominate Zone C in the shallow areas
of Morovian Point.
Figure 5
of the mixed coral community in the deeper
A colony of Dendrogyra and several species
of gorgonians are seen here.
Typical view
reef area.
-16-
-------
Figure 6
The mixed coral zone is a diverse community of several
species of gorgorians and stony corals.
-17-
-------
Figure 7
Gorgonians dominate the deeper reef areas around Morovian
Point.
Figure 8
Corals become less abundant as the reef slopes down to the
sand channel.
-18-
-------
PROPOSED PIPELINE ROUTE
When selecting an ocean outfall location, one of the major considerations
should be the potential impact to the environment and the organisms which
inhabit it. Two types of impacts must be considered: the short-term pipeline
installation impacts (blasting, trenching, burying the pipe) and the chronic
effects of the wastewater effluent. To minimize the environmental impacts of
an ocean outfall, priority must be given to the preservation of the critical
habitats in the area (seagrass beds and coral reefs). This is especially
important in Turner Bay where coral reefs and seagrass beds are common.
One possible location for the pipeline, that would minimize the
destruction of seagrass and coral reef during installation, is in the sand
channel just north of Zone B. Biologists surveyed the length of this sand
channel which separates Zone B from Zone D, starting at Enighed Pond. They
found that its width varies from 4-14 m. and it is fairly well defined to a
depth of 18 m. They also found that this sand channel supports relatively
little benth i c biota.
The shoreline area around the pond inlet is fringed with a narrow section
of boulders and bedrock which support small amounts of coral and algae.
Numerous colonies of dead coral were noted in this area. The coral in this
area was probably damaged when subjected to the turbid discharge of Enighed
Pond (opened to the sea in 1950).
The shallow part of the sand channel (<9m.) has a few Iarge Montastraea
annular i s heads which appear to be in poor health (partially overgrown with
algae). Other biota that were found in small abundance include, drifting
algae (Lobophora, Pictyota, Chaetomorpha), stony corals (Dendrogyra,
Por i tes astreo i des) and an encrusting hydrozoan (Mi I Iepora). Following
the sand channel seaward, there is a patch of the pioneering seagrass
-19-
-------
HaloduIe wr i ght i i at ca. 10 m.. At a slightly deeper depth, other seagrass
(Thai ass I a, Syr i ngod i um) algae (Udotea, P e n i c iI I u s, Halimeda,
Wr angeli a, Dasya, encrusting blue-greens) and invertebrates (Oreaster,
Strombus) were observed. Moving seaward, this area quickly thins to sand.
From depths of 12 to 18 m. the channel has relatively little benthic
biota. Several patches of garden eels were observed in these sandy areas.
Stringrays and lizard fish were occasionally observed feeding. Although
rare, scattered clumps of reef invertebrates were also observed (tube sponges,
For i tes furcata, Millepora, Madrac i s decac t i s, gorgonians).
At 17 m. the number of gorgonians, algae and sponges became more
abundant, making the channel less distinct. This flat plain was dominated by
gorgonians and algae (Sargassum, CauIerpa racemosa, VaI on i a) with small
amounts of stony coral (Montastraea cavernosa, Acropora cervicornis,
S ideras trea s i derea) .
In addition to the direct destruction of the benthic biota by trenching
and burying, adjacent biota could be indirectly stressed by an increase in
sedimentation rates and water turbidity. Sediments containing a high
percentage of fines would stay in suspension longest and could stress
corrmun i t i es some distance from the site. Sediment samples analyzed by NRM
staff showed a relatively small fine fraction (<3 % mud) in the sand channel
and a slightly higher fine fraction in the seagrass area (<6 % mud) at a depth
of ca. 7 m. of depth. Divers noted that sediments along the entire channel
had only a very small fine fraction.
The impact from the wastewater effluent on critical habitats is also an
important consideration. The outfall should extend far enough so that
nearshore reefs and beaches are not affected. If the pipeline was installed
along the above described route to a depth of 18 or more meters, it is
-20-
-------
doubtful that marine biota would be affected. Since the distance from the
reef is so great and the current so strong, it is unlikely that domestic
sewage (no industrial wastewater) would adversely impact the reefs. Current
studies measuring dilution should confirm this.
-21-
-------
References
Olsen, D.A., Boulon, R. and G.R. McCrain. 1981. An analysis of the St. Thomas
fishery with special reference to the benthic communities on the shelf
south of St. Thomas, USVI. A report submitted to the Dept. of Fish and
Wi Id I ife, USVI.
Rogers, C.S. 1982. The marine environment of Brewers Bay, Perseverence Bay,
Flat Cay and Saba Island, St. Thomas, USVI, with emphasis on coral reefs
and seagrass beds. A report submitted to DCCA/NRM.
Rogers, C.S., Gilnack, M., and C.H. Fitz. 1983. Monitoring of coral reefs with
linear transects: A study of storm damage. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
66:285-300.
-22-
-------
APPENDIX Ds (cont.)
WATER QUALITY IN THE VICINITY OF TURNER BAY, ST. JOHN, USVI
The United States Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural
Affairs Division of Natural Resources Management, DCCA/NRM, maintains a water
quality monitoring station in Turner Bay (SJ 55) approximately 50 feet off of
the drainage canal from Enighed Pond. Water quality data for this station
including temperature (T), salinity (S), dissolved oxygen (D.O.), pH (because
of the consistency of data and lack of significant pH altering inputs, this
parameter is no longer measured routinely by DCCA/NRM), turbidity (T), total
suspended solids (TSS), nitrate (NOs), nitrite (NOz), total phosphorous (P)
and fecal coliforms (FC) from 1973 to the present is included on the attached
data summary sheets.
The most recent routine sampling was performed on 1/23/86 and 3/18/86 at
SJ 55 and at a location approximately 500 meters southwest of SJ 55 (SJ 55a).
The data for SJ 55a is summarized below.
T(C) S(%0) D.0.(mg/l) T(NTU) TSS(mg/l) NQa NQz P (mg/1) F.C. (f/lOOml)
!/23 25.0 35.0 6.5 0.24 0.4 0.1 0.01 0.01 0
3/18 27.5 34.0 6.5 0.34 0.9 0.1 0.01 0.01 0
Temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen profiles were also performed
at this location. With the exception of some slight surface warming, the
values were uniform from surface to bottom which is typical of the well mixed
condition of nearshore waters in the USVI.
Inspite of the input from intermittently contaminated Enighed Pond, water
quality in the vicinity of Turner Bay fully supports its designated use as
class "B" water (see attached USVI Water Quality Standards). The vast assimi-
lation capabilities of the clear, nutrient poor, well flushed waters of the
-------
Caribbean, as exemplified by SJ 55 and SJ 55a, are why well designed ocean
outfalls are such advantageous methods of wastewater disposal in the region.
Based on the water quality data collected to date and wastewater dilution
information gained during the 301h waiver application study for St. Thomas and
St.Croix, DCCA/NRM is of the opinion that the proposed Cruz Bay Region Waste-
water Facility discharge(200,000 gpd of secondarily treated wastewater) will
not cause violations of any USVIWQS and that the probable impact on the water
quality in the vicinity of the proposed outfall will be negligible.
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY DATA
ST. JOHN
STATION No. 55
TURNER BAY - 50' off drain to Enighed Pond ,
YEAR
DATE
•
Temp.
°C.
Salinity
ODt
Diss .Oxy.
mg/1
pH
Turbidity
FTU
Secchi
meters
Fecal .Col
oer 100ml
Sea
State
Wind
kts.
Clouds
%
YEAR
DATE
I
Temp.
Salinity
not
Diss .Oxy.i
m.»/l .!
pH
Turbidity
FTU
Secchi
meters
Fecal Col]
ner 100ml)
Sea
State
Wind
kts.
Clouds
°/
Water Depth 3^/4% meters
.1/3
27.0
36.4
6.7
8.2
0.5
fi'T
\
mod
bi>£
10/2
1/16
25.7
35.6
1/29
26.7
34.7
6.3
8.2
1.2
B
)/v\
neg
mod
hi
) 20
•25/50
2/28
24.8
35.7
1973
5/9
28.5
36.1
6.7
8.2
014
B
neg
calm
E/NE
,10
<20
1975
3/14
25.1
36.1
6.95] 6.65 [ 6.8
8.4
1.9
B
neg
calm
E
20
10/20
8.2
0.3
B
neg
rough
KSiU/Sil
20
<20
8.0
0.4
B
neg
rough
E
25
30
6/27
29.0
.
6.7
8.15
0.4
B
neg
calm
<10
-------
SL:>?:\RY OF WATER qu \LITY DATA
ST> JOHN- STATION NO. 55
LATITUDE: IR° iq 42.6
'-."EAR
TURNER BAY - 50! OFF
WATER DEPTH 3% 1 4%
19761
., , ~~ '!
~;'-'; ,.2/27 4/1 15/21 2/24
Tg.T.0.
! not
Qiss.GxY-
rr.3/1 "
pH
JTurbidity
'i FTU
Secchi
inetsrs
iFecnl Col
per "l 00ml
Ssa
Sc^ce
Wind
kts. •
C i O'Jtd S ,
% 1
YEAR
DATE
ieqn.
i C .
23.8 24.9 12 6.1 26.3
i
36.6 36.7 i36. 4 36.24
6.55 7.15 :6.5 6.7
8.2 8.2 8.3 8.45
0.5 0.3 b.35 6.3
B B ! B B
i
Neg Neg INeg Neg
Mod Flat |calm
LONGITUDE
: 064 47 49
.8
DRAIN TO ENIGHED POND
METERS
i
i
:3/30
126.0
136.17
6 .50
is. 30
|.29
B/4
Neg
i
E/ENElN/NW i E j
10/20* 5/15 1 5/10 i
40/20 20/30 | <10
| i
15/20
-
1
15/20
'26.8
-)35.98
:7.io
18.30
.30
B/3.
|Neg
4/6
10/20
Partlyj 75%
IW
5/16 7/28
27.2
28.0
i
35.85 36.63
6.75 1
7.90 8.27
.38 . 32
B/3. 5 B/.4..
Neg
4/6
4/6
E.SE ESt
. ^5/20[ 15/20
Full
white
5/20
i
8/17
26.7
35.82
I
9/8
24.8
34.8
l
6.65
8.25
.25
B/4.2
Neg
3/5
ESt
5/10
50/80
8.30
.24
B/3
Neg
S.E
5/7
J
10/3 1
28.5
34.9 j
6.25
8.20
.35
B/3.0
Neg
"
S.E j
1/1 '
T? 17 '
80/95
• [
1 »
:••<>••• '. i
1P77 1 1978
i i
il/Sfl"1! 12/29 ';
27.1 26.9 !
2/24
f
26.1
Salinity i • j ,
_. nnt . ! 35.2! 35.0 =' 35.6
Diss.Cxy.
pH ;
i'-irbiditv
6.45 J7.80 ,
8-20 Is. 15
0.65' .52
r^^s n/3 ;B/4.5
^r":oo°\: Neg '' Neg
'•'^ ! S.E i S.E 1
^-CO ! S/ft lI73 :
Virr: j E | E
-JiTs. !< 21/2816/10
r/> ; i
SO/80J20/50
6.55
8.28
1.2
B/4.0
Neg.
3-5'
17-21
20-50%
1
\
1
4/5
26.5
35.8
6.40
8.20
,
.92
B/3. 5
94
3-5'
N.E.
21-30
80-95% ;
1
i !
5/16
28.7
36.0
6.30 .
1
8.20 i
.63
,
B/4.5
6/20
29.0
36.0
6.25
8.20
1.0
B/4.0
4 Neg.
3-5'
17-21
20-50%
7/18 '•
28.8
35.5
6.20 ',
8.30
.34 '
B/3. 5
Neq.
1-3' 3-6'
SE 7-K
20-50%
S.E. i
.15-20 i
20-40$ i
8/21
28.2
35.8
6.20
8.25 i
.42
B/2.7 ;
Neg.
1-3'
9/18
29.7
34.9
5.90 !
6.20 !
.27
i
"
~
B/2.6 !
Neg.
1-31 ! i
ESE :
8-10 SE 6-10
80-1005
20-50% ;.
-------
Si:>:M\RY 01? WATF:?. QiJ \LITY DATA
JOHN- STATION NO. 55
LATITUDE: 18° 19 42.6 LONGITUDE: 064 47 49.8
.-.
U . -,-. '
i •
TURNER BAY - 50' off drain to eniqhed pond
WATER DEPTH 31/2-4 1/2 meters
L979 .['.'; ! ' I •
i I I ;
1-10 2-22 J3-19 i 5-17 ie-19 i 8-22
^geJb&s^^
9-26
.28.8,..,
i
f — ..-rrvr^-jVii'-^L .w^s!;..^;Ll.:rf^iri. .
^Pg^i^^j^iy^w'^
piss.CxY-l • .:• i i i =
i -.2/1 T-45 1 6,40 >6.35 j6.10 -6.50 ;6.45
! PH 1
Slurb id it v<
: FTU :
ISecchi j
'neto^s !
|Fecnl Col|
; Sc^te "1
jWirvl |
i kts . J
iClouds. j
|
YZ'R j
:-T- " »
^rtiiV <
-•eg.t?.>i4sJr?J
.--'—.-i- /-'i!
Diss.Cxv.:}
r.-./l ...:
3.20 ! 8.20 |8.25 8.20 8.10 1 8.15
i. - -; ' i !
).28 0.44 J0.39 j 0.49 JO. 70 !o.46
6.80 |
8.10
j.i__j_'_'-_L; 1
'•i^0™£:
! i
0.38 . !
5/2.5 B/2.4 JB/3.5 B/4.4 jB/4.0 JB/2.7 |B/3-5
i J 1 '
Jeg. Neg. |Neg. j Neg. jNeg: . 1 |Neg.
5-7' J3-5'— | 103' 3-5' 1-3' -
i 1 i i
ENEf &|NE, 6- j SE, 8 ]SEm 8 ] ESE, 7-
1 C TT-t-n'R TnrtH * mrVh *Tf-H« . " T£"t~fi
' i i 1
' - f
' 50% ' 40% 60t 40% ' 40-50%
' ! »
' ' 1
1-3'
SE,8-
•9 Kts
•j
i
i
\
;
k
30-40% i
! j
^iSF-
!
i
1
: : i ' . .
'fill 1
..-:-4- 'I I - •:
••.'•:'• -:'~-! . '•.:: '•"• ;;; ' .", f - ! f
.j • - - . -• - • ---..-.'. >. -__ . . •„ , „.-
•'-'. -.--"I /;-.-- 1; •.'.•7..'- , .' ^ .
— "'• : -.
•..{.•»
i • • ! | .
. . * - v . •
";. '•-•- "^-^ -- • 1' ''-,**|" . j i".'"" 1 j
•'•'•'•^•^•&tf 'M^'^-gy^pVi -.r;» J^Jrrrgr'^.? > ''r' '"„ "-"f. — | -. - - - - '• - -'-•"' '' '•-' — ' " - - • - - " "T ~~"~-.i' ' .- *"• --..". -.-•-
-J '•' ' ,7- "••..'- -| | . - • ' . f * i
""?Trj" 'i
P;;::;^: 1
• '• ' )
i r-
1
i i
;%:;.:- -.V-.j.--,,\^[: -'.;:
. . . ........
i
- .._.,,-, -...;---•. -; ;
j
.... ...
; i
i. i i : i
i ! i i • •
t
i
\rff^-l H ;- ':- • :i -••!-'"'-•".• " j---: •.:..... :'~: :.. .:... ,
'r'^;rfj"! | " ;
•;i--'i . . : ;J - • ' i j j
- --_•>-•-'£> * .'j ; ! ^ ;
•: i - ' ;
i
; i
f
t
i ! i
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY-DATA
LATITUDE: 18° 19 42.6
LONGITUDE: 064 47 49.8
St. John
STATION #
Turner Bay - 50' off Drain to Enighed Pond
WATER DEPTH:
meters. STANDARD DEPTH:
:3.5/4.!f
.eters.
YEAR
DATE
ECCHI/BOTTO?'
DEPTH, meters
TEMPERATURE
°C
DISSOLVED C>2
mg/1
SALINITY
ppt
SUSP. SOLIDS
mg/1
TURBIDITY
90°-NTU
PH
FECAL COLI
per (00 ml
SEA STATE
feet
WIND
knots
CLOUD COVER
%
YEAR
DATE
ECCHI/BOTTOi^
DEPTH, meter;
TEMPERATURE
°C
DISSOLVED O.
mcr/1
SALINITY
PPt
SUSP. SOLIDS
mg/1
TURBIDITY
90°-NTU
DH
FECAL COLI
per 100 ml
SEA STATE
feet
WIND
knots
CLOUD COVEF
%
1979
10/11
B/3.2
30.0
6.45
35.4
0.32
8.05
NeG
1-3
bli
6-7
40
1980
9/30
B
29.1
6.8
34.4
0.98
7.95
2
<1
ESE
6-10
20-50
L.6-H
11/9
B/3.5
28.8
6.4
-
0.3
8.10
NEG
-
-
-
12/12
B/2.5
27.8
6.4
35.5
0.77
8. 15
1
3-5
iiSji
8-12
20
1980
1/21
B/3.C
26.4
6.75
35.7
0.8S
8.20
NEG
1-3
HiiMHi
7-9
10
2/4
B/3.5
27.3
6.95
35.7
0.65
8.25
NEG
3-4
t^bti
10-12
40
3/3
B/3.5
26.5
6.85
35.9
0.76
8.20
NEG
3-5
bJi
10-12
40
4/23
B
26.5
6.60
36.5
0.53
7.90
NEG
1-3
JiJNii
6-10
100
5/7
B
27.8
6.45
36.5
0.41
8.0C
NEG
1'
bt;
6-10
5-20
7/23
B
28.8
7.05
35.8
0.3
8.25
NEG
1-3
10-17
5-20
8/18
B
28.3
7.80
35.9
0.52
8.10
NEg
1-3
b£i
10-17
5-20
^>M-
-------
MARINE WATER QUALITY DATA
Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
Division of Natural Resources Management
Station No:
Location:
"ear:
ay
"emperature
;eg. C
'alinity
pt.
"issolved
xygen mg/1
..H
urbidity
'.t.u.
'ecchi
epth m.
.'ater
.'epth m.
. Coliform
>er 100 ml.
'ear: £f
•ay
emperature
leg. C
'alinity
ipt.
Issolved
xvgen mc:/l
H
urbidity
.t.u.
•;-cchi
•'nth m .
Liter
-..•nth m.
. Colifcrm
•r 100 inl.
Jan.
Jan.
'Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Apr.
Apr.
May
May
zi
2fr.[
1*7-1
M
I.Z
6
^1
Jun.
Jun.
t<<
-2-t't
?S.v
LK
&3S
/. 3
^
1
Jul.
1
Jul.
n
2&<7.
?S.i
C^S
k&
0-^
6
H
Aug.
Aug.
^
zii
m
LV
f'?
/>/
6
f
Sep.
Sep.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Eec,
— •
Dec.
-------
MARINE WATER QUALITY DATA
Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
Division of Natural Resource? Management
Station No:
Location:
j -
^ « '
ear: %Z
lay
."temperature
leg. C
'alinity
ipt.
ftssolved
)xygen mg/1
)H
.\ipbidity
\t.u.
Jecchi
Jepth ra.
,'ater
)epth m.
<\ Coliform
Jer 100 ml.
'ear:
*>y
'enperature
leg. C
Salinity
•^pt.
Issolved
ixygen mg/1
fl
lirbidity
'.t.u.
'ecchi
fepth m.
ater
epth m.
'• Coliform
er 100 ml.
Jan.
Jan.
'Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Apr..
Apr.
May
May
Jun.
i -- -
Jun.
x/i'i'i
Jul.
Jul.
Aug.
Aug.
Sep.
t
^ 1 -
Sep.
Oct.
Ltv- T
fctt~f~ tf~
Oct.
Nov.
»A*i 1
o
Nov.
Dec.
16
21.6
1J-*
£-
-------
MARINE WATER QUALITY DA^
Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
Division of Natural Resources Management
Station No.
Location:
JAN FEE MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Year
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA
Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
Division of Natural Resources Management
Station No. ^•^'Location:
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
lear ^
Jay
Temperature
ieg. C
salinity
3Ot.
Dissolved
Oxygen mg/1
Turbidity
1. t.U.
jecchi
}eoth m
•". Coliform
:er 100 ml
Suspended
Solids na/1
iitrate
10/1
.'itrite
~a/l
'hosphcrus
"otel ir.c/1
I/?*.
-T.SA
1,^.0
^
-
L <-!
f
O.ly
tto.\
\d.o.tf
\to.o(
• , ••'.'
-;
• -••
i <
I/,*
?O
WO
t,.s
w\
i-H
^
-Z.T
Ko.l
Rlxol
f^.ol
tf
-
L
;itS!
"
= 6«<
-Trt^K
fin*. -
•HAiJ
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
car
:ay
Qrr.perature
.ea. C
aLinity
•Dt.
issolved
xvcen r.q/1
uroidity
•..t.u.
..'ccni
eoth m
. Colnorra
or 100 ml
uspenced
olids nq/1
itrate
.a/1
atrite
a/1
hosphorus
otel mc/1
-------
T.12 § 181-82
CONSERVATION
Ch. 7
Ch. 7
WATER POLLUTION CONTHOL
T.12 § 186-1
X
subchnpter. Any such notice may be combined with other notices
required of the applicant under this subchapter or other appropriate
Jaws.
§ 184-83. Hearing procedures
(a) At a public hearing held with regard to a permit application
and tentative determination, any person shall be afforded the oppor-
tunity to present oral or written statements, arguments or data,
Provided, however, that the Department shall have the discretion to
fix reasonable time limits on the presentation of oral statements and
when time and scheduling- considerations necessitate, may require
the submission of statements in writing.
(b) The hearing shall be conducted by a hearing officer [who]
shall cause a record of the hearing to be made, which shall include
any public comments or statements received, and shall render a
report to the Commissioner setting forth the appearances and
relevant facts and arguments presented at the hearing. The hearing
officer is empowered to :
(1) Provide for the taking of written and oral statements,
testimony under oath, and documentary evidence; and
(2) Regulate the course of the hearing, fix the time for the
filing of written statements and data, provide for the scheduling and
preservation of oral statements, testimony under oath and documen-
tary evidence, and set the time and place for continued hearings.
(c)' Any materials, including records and documents, in the pos-
session of the Department of which it desires to avail itself, may be
offered by the Department and made part of the record. Such
materials may be relied upon by the Commissioner in making a final
decision or other disposition.
(d) Cross-examination of witnesses shall be permitted and the
strict procedural rules of evidence may be modified at the discretion
of the hearing officer. The determination of the hearing officer shall
be founded upon the record of the hearing and upon competent
relevant material evidence which is substantial in view of the entire
record.
DIVISION 10. CONFLICTS OF INTEEEST
SECTIONS
184-91. Conflicts of interest
§ 184-91. Conflicts of interest
Pursuant to 12 V.I.C. § 196, the Commissioner or his designee
responsible for issuance of TPDES permits, is prohibited from
176
receiving, or from having received during the previous two years, a
significant portion of his income directly or indirectly from permit
holders or applicants for a permit. For the purposes of this section
(a) "significant portion of his income" shall mean 10 percent of
gross personal income for a calendar year, except that it shall mean
50 percent of gross personal income for a calendar year if the
recipient is over 60 years of age and is receiving such portion
pursuant to retirement, pension, or similar arrangement; (b) "in-
come" includes retirement benefits,'consultant fees, and stock divi-
dends, and (c) income is not received "directly or indirectly from
permit holders or applicants for i permit" where it is derived from
mutual-fund payments, or from other diversified investments over
which the recipient does not know the identity of the primary
sources of income.
Subchapter 186. Water Quality Standards for Coastal Waters
of the Virgin Islands
SECTIONS
186-1. General water quality criteria
186-2. Class A
186-3. Class B
186-4. Class C
186-5. Thermal policy
186-6. Mixing zones
186-7. Antidegradation
186-8. Analytical procedures
186-9. Applicability of standards
186-10. Natural waters
186-11. Legal limits
186-12. Reissuance of this chapter
§ 186-1. General water quality criteria
All surface waters shall meet generally accepted aesthetic qualifi-
cations and shall be capable of supporting diversified aquatic life.
These waters shall be free of substances attributable to municipal,
industrial, or other discharges or wastes as follows:
(a) Materials that will settle to form objectionable deposits.
(b) Floating; debris, oil, scum, and other matter.
(c) Substances producing1 objectionable color, odor, taste or
turbidity.
(d) Materials, including radionuclides, in concentrations or com-
binations which are toxic or which produce undesirable physiological
responses in human, fish and other animal life, and plants.
177
-------
T.12 § 186-1
CONSERVATION
Ch. 7
(e) Substances and conditions or combinations thereof in concen-
trations which produce undesirable aquatic life.
Source. Sections 186-1 to 186-11: Rules and Regulations
Relative to Water Quality Standards for Coastal Waters of
the Virgin Islands were revised and issued by Commissioner
of Health, dated July 20, 1973, and approved by Governor.
Filed with Lieutenant Governor July 26, 1973; File No. 760.
Authority. 12 V.I.C. § 186(a).
Prior regulations—1968. Similar regulations of the Com-
missioner of Health, dated Oct. 4, 1968, and approved by the
Governor were filed with Government Secretary Jan. 16,
1969; File No. 570.
§ 186-2. Class A
(a) Best usage of waters: Preservation of natural phenomena
requiring special conditions, such as the Natural Barrier Reef at
Buck Island, St. Croix and the Under Water Trail at Trunk Bay, St.
John.
(b) Quality criteria: Existing natural conditions shall not be
changed.
§ 186-3. ClassB
(a) Best usage of waters: For propagation of desirable species of
marine life and for primary contact recreation (swimming, water
skiing, etc.).
(b) Quality criteria:
(1) Dissolved oxygen: Not less than 5.5 mg/1 from other than
natural conditions.
(2) pH: Normal range of pH must not be extended at any
location by more than ± 0.1 pH unit. At no time shall the pH be
less than 7.0 or greater than 8.3.
(3) Temperature: Not to exceed 90° F. at any time, nor as a
result of waste discharge to be greater than 1.5° F. above natural.
Thermal policy section 186-5 shall also apply.
(4) Bacteria: Shall not exceed a geometric (log) mean of 70
fecal coliforms per 100 ml. by MF or MPN count.
(5) Dissolved gas: Total dissolved gas pressures shall not
exceed 110 percent of existing atmospheric pressure.
(6) Phosphorus: Phosphorus as total P shall not exceed 50
ug/1 in any coastal waters.
(7) Suspended, colloidal, or settleable solids: None from waste
water sources which will cause disposition or be deleterious for the
designated uses.
178
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL T.12 § 186-5
Ch. 7
(8) Oil and floating substances: No residue attributable to
waste water nor visible oil film nor globules of grease.
(9) Radioactivity:
(A) Gross beta: 1000 picocuries per liter, in the absence of
Sr 90 and alpha emitters.
(B) Radium-226: 3 picocuries per liter.
(C) Strontium-90:10 picocuries per liter.
(10) Taste and odor producing substances: None in amounts
that will interfere with the use for primary contact recreation,
potable water supply or will render any undesirable taste or odor to
edible aquatic life.
(11) Color and turbidity: A Secchi disc shall be visible at a
minimum depth of one meter,
§ 186-4. Class C
(a) Best usage of waters: For the propagation of desirable
species of marine life and secondary contact recreation (boating,
fishing, wading, etc.).
(b) Quality criteria:
(1) Dissolved oxygen: Not less than 5.0 mg/1 from other than
natural conditions.
(2) pH: Normal range of pH must not be extended at any
location by more than ± 0.1 pH unit. At no time shall the pH be
less than 6.7 or greater than 8.5.
(3) Bacteria: Shall not exceed a geometric (log) mean of 1,000
fecal colif orms per 100 ml. by MF or MPN count.
(4) Taste and odor producing substances: None in amounts
that will interfere with the use for potable water supply or will
render any undesirable taste or odor to edible aquatic life.
(5) Other provisions for Class B waters shall apply.
§ 186-5. Thermal policy
(a) Fish and other aquatic life shall be protected from thermal
blocks by providing for a minimum 75 percent stream or estuarine
cross-section and/or volumetric passageway, including a minimum
of one half of the surface as measured from water edge to water
edge at any stage of tide.
(b) In non-passageway the surface water temperature shall not
exceed 93° F.
179
-------
T.12 § 18G-5
CONSERVATION
Ch.7
Ch. 7
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL T.12 § 186-7
X
(c) No heat may be added except in designated mixing zones
which would cause temperatures to exceed 90° F., or which would
cause the monthly mean of the maximum daily temperature at any
site, prior to the addition of any heat, to be exceeded by more than
1.5° F.
(d) No discharge or combination of discharges shall be injurious
to fish or shellfish or the culture or propagation of a balanced
indigenous population thereof.
(e) Rate of temperature change outside the mixing zone shall not
be more than 1° F. per hour nor to exceed 5° F. in any 24-hour
period except when natural phenomena cause these limits to be
exceeded.
(f) Unless specific conditions, such as spawning ground, migra-
tory routes, or other sections of conditions from these regulations
are applicable, the mixing zone should be defined by a sphere with a
specified point as the center (not necessarily the outfall but limited
to one point for each installation) and a radius equal to the square
root of the volume of discharge (A) expressed as millions of gallons
per day, times 200 feet; and in no case exceed % mile. The formula
is:
—v/~A~~ 200 = radius of mixing zon'e-
—Amended Sept. 1,1978.
Amendments—1978. Section 186.6(b) and (f) was amended
by the Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
Aug. Si, 1978, approved Sept. 1, 1978 by the Governor of
the Virgin Islands. Filed with Lieutenant Governor Sept. 1,
1978; File No. 1053. Amendment became effective without
prior publication by certification dated Sept. 1, 1978.
§ 186-6. Mixing zones
The need, location, size and depth of the mixing zones in surface
waters and estuaries shall be established according to the following
mixing zone criteria and boundaries.
(a) Mixing zone criteria:
(1) Mixing zones shall be provided solely for mixing. Mixing
must be accomplished as quickly as possible through the use of
devices which insure that the waste is mixed with the allocated
dilution water in the smallest practicable area.
(2) For the protection of aquatic life resources, the mixing
zones, must not be used for, or be considered as, a substitute for
waste treatment facilities.
180
(3) At the boundary of the mixing zone the water should
comply with all the water quality standards set forth for its
classification. If, after complete mixing with the available dilution
water, these requirements are not met, the effluent must be ade-
quately pretreated until the standards are met.
(4) No conditions shall be permitted to exist within the mixing
zone, (A) that are rapidly lethal (i.e. exceed the 96-hour median
tolerance limit) to locally important and desirable indigenous
aquatic life, (B) that prohibit planktonic organisms from being
carried through the mixing zone. These organisms will be exposed to
its conditions only for the period qf time required to drift through
the mixing zone and will survive without undue damage or stress
while they are passing through.
(5) Maximum vertical dispersion of waste water discharge
flow shall be provided for in the mixing zone.
(6) Mixing zones shall not .intersect spawning or nursery
areas, migratory routes, water intake nor mouths of rivers.
(7) Suspended solids in waste waters being discharged shall
not settle in measurable amounts in the mixing zones.
(b) Mixing zone boundaries:
(1) The mixing zone must be located in such manner as to
allow at all times, passageways for the movement on drift of the
biota (pelagic or invertebrate organisms). The width of the mixing
zone and the volume of flow in it shall depend on and will be
determined by the nature of the water current and/or the estuary.
The area, depth, and volume of the flow must be sufficient to provide
a usable and desirable passageway for fish and other aquatic
organisms.
(2) The passageway must contain at least 75 percent of the
cross sectional area and/or volume of flow of the estuary, and
should extend to at least 50% of the width.
(3) A mixing zone shall not overlap with an adjacent mixing
zone.
§ 186-7. Antidegradation
Waters whose existing quality is better than the established
standards as of the date on which such standards become effective
will be maintained at their existing high quality. These and other
waters of the Virgin Islands will not be lowered in quality unless
and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the Territory's
water pollution control agency and the Environmental Protection
181
-------
T.12 § 186-7
CONSERVATION
Ch.7
X
<
Agency that such change is justifiable as a result of necessary
economic or social development and will not interfere with or
become injurious to any assigned uses made of, or presently possible
in such waters. Any industrial, public or private project or develop-
ment which would constitute a new source of pollution or an
increased source of pollution to high quality waters will be required,
as part of the initial project design, to provide the highest and best
practicable degree of waste treatment available under existing
technology, and since these are also Federal standards, V~ sse waste
treatment requirements will be developed cooperatively.
§ 186-8. Analytical procedures
The analytical procedures used as methods of analysis to deter-
mine the chemical, bacteriological, biological, and radiological qual-
ity of waters sampled shall be in accordance with the latest edition
of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste
Water" or other methods approved by the Virgin Islands Depart-
ment of Conservation and Cultural Affairs and the Environmental
Protection Agency.—Amended Sept. 1,1978.
§ 186-9. Applicability of standards
The proceeding criteria will be applicable to all Virgin Islands
Coastal Waters at all places and at all times.
§ 186.-10. Natural waters
Natural waters may, on occasion, have characteristics outside of
the limits prescribed by these criteria. The criteria contained herein
do not relate to violation of standards resulting from natural forces.
§ 186-11. Legal limits
(a) Class "A" (natural phenomena).
(1) Within 0.5 miles of the boundaries of Buck Island's Natu-
ral Barrier Reef, St. Croix.
(2) Trunk Bay, St. John.
(b) Class "B" (marine life and primary contact recreation).
(1) All other coastal waters not classified Class "A" or Class
"C".
(c) Class "C" (marine life and secondary contact recreation).
(1) St.Thomas:
(A) St. Thomas Harbor beginning at Rupert Rock and
extending to Haulover Cut.
182
Ch. 7 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL T.12 § 186-12
(B) Crown Bay enclosed by a line from Hassel Island at
Haulover Cut to Regis Point at West Gregeri Channel.
(C) KrumBay.
(2) St. Croix:
(A) Christiansted Harbor from Fort Louise Augusta fo
Golden Rock.
(B) Frederiksted Harbor from La Grange to Fisher Street.
(C) Hess Oil Virgin Islands Harbor.
(D) Martin-Marietta Alumina Harbor.
§ 186-12. Reissuance of this chapter
Title 12, chapter 7, sections 186-1 through 186-11, Virgin Islands
Rules and Regulations, as previously issued by the Commissioner of
Health, are hereby reissued by the Commissioner of Conservation
and Cultural Affairs.
Source. Section 186-12. Regulations to reissue this chapter
issued by the Department of Conservation and Cultural
Affairs Aug. 81, 1978, approved Sept 1, 1978, by the
Governor of the Virgin Islands. Filed with Lieutenant Gov-
ernor Sept. 1,1978; File No. 1053.
Effective date. The regulation, File No. 1053, contained a
certificate dated Sept. 1, 1978, which provided such regulation
shall take effect without the usual prior publications.
183
-------
APPENDIX E.
CURRENT SURVEY
-------
FINAL REPORT
ST. JOHN CIRCULATION STUDY
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, USVI
TO: C. E. Magui re , Inc .
1 Court Street
New Britain, CT 06051
FROM: Ocean Surveys, Inc.
91 Sheffield Street
Old Saybrook, CT 06475
22 July 1986
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
2.0 EQUIPMENT AND FIELD PROCEDURES
2.7
Horizontal Control
Navigati on
Tide Level Monitoring. . . .
In Situ Current Monitoring .
Drogue Tracking
Hydrographic Sounding Survey
Dye Tracer Study
2.7.1
2.7.2
Operational Theory
Field Procedures
3.0 DATA PROCESSING AND PRESENTATION
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Vessel Position and Survey Trackline
Reconstruction
3.3 Tide Level Data
3.4 In Situ Current Data
3.5 Drogue Tracking
3.6 Hydrogrpahic Sounding Data
3.7 Dye Concentration Data
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
7
7
4.0 DISCUSSION OF DATA
4.1
4.2
Tide Level Data
Current Speed and
Direction Data
4.2.1 Historical Data
4.2.2 In Situ Current
4.2.3 Drogue Data . .
Speed and Direction
4.3
4.4
Hydrographic
Dye Dilution
Sounding Data
Data . . . .
5.0 CONCLUSIONS '.
9
10
10
10
11
12
14
14
14
14
15
16
17
17
18
APPENDICES
E.I - Current Speed and Direction Data,
E.2 - Current Speed and Direction Data,
February Studies
June Studies
-------
FINAL REPORT
ST. JOHN CIRCULATION STUDY
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, USVI
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
During the period 23-27 February 1986 Ocean Surveys, Inc.
(OSI) conducted a reconaissance level hydrographlc sounding
survey and Eulerlan and Lagrangian current studies in the
vicinity of Turner Bay on the southwest coast of St. John in
the U.S. Virgin Islands. OSI returned to the site on 30 May
1986 to conduct a dye dilution Investigation and to collect
seasonal current data. These studies were comissioned by
C. E. Maguire for the purpose of evaluating the area
southeast of Moravian Point as a potential wastewater outfall
site (Figure 1).
The hydrographic sounding work covered an area of
approximately 0.51 square kilometer (0.20 square mile) of
seafloor extending approximately 914m (3000 ft) offshore in a
fan-shaped pattern from a point on the eastern shore of
Turner Bay. The current studies consisted of the deployment
of in situ current meters at four stations and the tracking
of free-drifting drogues released at various depths along the
proposed outfall alignment. The dye tracer study entailed
injecting fluorescent dye into the water at a controlled rate
and mapping the resulting dye plume concentrations. The dye
investigation provides Information concerning the potential
trajectory, aerial distribution and dilution of an offshore
wastewater discharge.
The Eulerian and Lagrangian current data collected during
this program reveal that currents flood to the
north-northwest and ebb to the south-southeast, at the Turner
-------
--T^-J-^a
SURVEY AREA
57
HORZONTAL CONTROL STATIONS
DIVE STATIONS
89 O CURRENT METER LOCATION
SURVEY DATE
23-27 FEB-1986
OLD SAYBROOK. CONNECTICUT
-------
Bay site with a strong net drift to the north. These results
are in contrast with published general current data for
Pillsbury Sound which indicate that currents should be
expected to flood to the south and ebb to the north.
Drogues released along the proposed outfall alignment
generally displayed shore-parallel trajectories. During the
February drogue studies a number of drogues released at
potential outfall diffuser locations became grounded on
Steven Cay to the north and Bovocoap Point to the south. No
drogues approached shore during the June drogue studies when
released from Stations T-3 and T-4. Moderate
east-southeasterly winds probably caused the surface drogues
to be transported away from shore.
Dye dilution studies revealed lictle lateral dispersion prior
to the dye plume reaching Two Brothers daymark. Eddy
2
diffusion coefficients were between .038 and .111 m /sec (.41
2
and 1.19 ft /sec) and dilution ratios were on the order of
198 to 888 at distances comparable to the distance from T-3
to Steven Cay.
The data was processed by OS1 and are included herein as
tabulations and graphical presentations of current and drogue
speed and direction for each deployment. Also presented are
a 1:2400 (1" = 2 0 0 ' ) plan view drawing depicting soundings
collected along survey vessel tracklines and 1:15,000
(1"=1250') plan view drawings of drogue trajectories and dye
concentrations.
- 2 -
-------
2.0 EQUIPMENT AND FIELD PROCEDURES
2.1 Horizontal Control
After consulting with C. E. Magulre's onsite personnel, OSI's
field crew established navigation and horizontal control
stations at positions which provided suitable site coverage,
were easily recoverable by boat and were recognizable on NOAA
1:15,000 nautical chart number 25647, "PILLSBURY SOUND".
These control stations were plotted on the NOAA chart and
their latitude and longitude were picked from the plotted
positions. The latitude and longitude coordinates were then
converted to the Puerto Rican Coordinate System, Virgin
Islands Extension for use during final plotting of the
hydrographic and drogue data (Table 1). The estimated
accuracy of this horizontal control procedure is ^15.2m (^50
ft).
2.2 Navigation
The primary means of establishing vessel position during all
drogue tracking activities was a Motorola "Mini Ranger"
electronic positioning system [^3m (^9.9 ft) accuracy]. The
Mini Ranger System (MRS) used on this project consists of
four components: three transponders, which are deployed at
shoreline locations, and an MRS interrogator unit which is
installed aboard the survey vessel. Range measurements to
the transponders are obtained by determining the elapsed time
between the transmitted microwave interrogation produced by
the MRS transmitter and the reply received by the MRS from
each transponder. The onboard MRS Interrogator unit
alternately displays and updates the range measurements at a
one-second rate.
- 3 -
-------
TABLE 1
HORIZONTAL CONTROL STATIONS
Station
Designation
Latitude
Longitude
North*
East*
Established By
(ft) (ft)
Lind
]
Point Beach :
Contant
Steven
Current
Steven
Cay 2 ]
Rock
Cay ]
L8°21' 18"
L8°19' 39"
L8°19' 20"
L8°19' 59"
18°19' 00.9"
L8°19' 50.4"
64°
64°
64°
64°
64°
64°
47'
47'
47'
48'
50'
48'
57"
47"
42"
30"
05.8"
26.7"
185,
181,
180,
183,
178,
183,
970
978
120
992
013.96
085.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
,066
,067
,068
,063
,054
,063
,681
,670
,182
,530
,378.93
,893.64
OS I
OS I
OSI
OS I
NOS
NOS
*
Coordinates are 1n the Puerto Rican Coordinate System, Virgin Islands Extension
-------
During hydrographlc sounding survey activities vessel
positions were provided employing the combination of a Path
transit and one range of the MRS. Operationally, the survey
vessel was controlled by the transit operator who turned
predetermined angles from a known backsight to establish
boresights. Using a hand-held VHP radio, he directed the
vessel along each survey transect line. Distance along each
line was measured using the MRS.
The MRS was calibrated on site prior to the initiation of
field work by measuring the length of a known baseline.
Calibration was verified each day before the commencement of
survey activities by measuring the distance to a known point.
A specification sheet for the Motorola Mini Ranger is
provided in Appendix 1.
2.3 Tide Level Monitoring
Water level was monitored continuously during the project
using a Stevens Type F water level recorder installed at the
National Park Service pier. The relationship between OSI's
temporary benchmark (TBM) and the mean low water datum was
determined by taking simultaneous water measurements at OSI's
TBM and at National Ocean Survey benchmark "NO. 2, 1972"
located at the head of the public dock adjacent to National
Park Service property 1n Cruz Bay.
2.4 In Situ Current Monitoring
Continuous measurements of current speed and direction were
obtained by installing Endeco Type 105 in situ recording
current meters on taut line moorings at four locations along
the proposed outfall alignment specified by C. E. Maguire.
- 4 -
-------
One current meter was deployed at the nearshore and furthest
offshore stations (T-l and T-4, Figure 2) and two current
meters were deployed at stations T-2 and T-3 (Figure 2).
Table 2 provides Information concerning current meter and
water depths relative to mean low water (MLW) at each
station.
The design of the Endeco Type 105 current meter incorporates
two features which are well suited for shallow coastal
deployments: a ducted impellor, which cancels the
considerable effects of wave-Induced orbital velocities, and
a flexible tether attachment, which decouples the instrument
from mooring line motion. Specification sheets for the
Endeco Type 105 current meter are presented in Appendix I.
2.5 Drogue Tracking
Drogue tracking studies were conducted along the proposed
outfall alignment at various stages of the tide 1n order to
acquire Lagrangian current data. The drogues were designed
and built by OSI and consisted of flagged surface floats
connected by varying lengths of tension line to large
subsurface nylon sails (Figure 3). The surface floats were
designed to minimize the influence of the wind, while the 3.0
2
square meters (32 ft ) of sail area maximizes the influence
of the currents at the deployment depth.
Drogue deployments during the February study consisted of the
simultaneous release of 4-5 drogues at various depths at a
single location or along the outer portion of the proposed
outfall alignment. During the second Lagrangian current
study drogues were released In a similar fashion but the
drogue sail depth was kept constant at 1 meter (3 ft). The
position of the free-drifting drogues were noted at nominal
30-minute intervals using the MRS electronic positioning
- 5 -
-------
STATIONS
T-l 8 T-4
STATIONS
T-2 8 T-3
SUBSURFACE BUOYS
ENDECO TYPE 105
CURRENT METERS
V
ACOUSTIC PINGERS-,
FIGURE NO.
2
SCALE
N/A
OATI
9-APRIL-1986
BY
J.A.DOYLE
OLD SAYBftOOK. CONNECTICUT
-------
,1 FT. X I FT. SURFACE FLOAT
WITH COLOR-CODED FLAG
WIRE LINE ADJUSTED
TO REQUIRED SURVEY
LENGTH '
TENSION LINE (TO MAINTAIN
PERPENDICULAR ORIENTATION
OF PANELS)
FLOTATION MEMBERS
2 FT. X 8 FT. NYLON PANELS
BALLAST
OSI DROGUE DESIGN
FIGURE NO.
SCALE
N.T.S.
DATE
20-SEP-84
BY
VAK
OLD SAYBROOK. CONNECTICUT
-------
TABLE 2
IN SITU CURRENT MONITORING STATION
Water Depth Meter Depth
Station MLH Meter Below MLH
TfT5 OnT~ TTD OnT
Tl 35 10.7 TOP 10 3.1
T2 61 18.6 TOP 11 3.4
BOTTOM 41 12.5
T3 71 21.6 TOP 11 3.4
BOTTOM 41 12.5
T4 85 25.9 TOP 10 3.1
-------
system. This was accomplished by conning the vessel to each
drogue in turn. When the Mini Ranger antenna was directly
beside the drogue float, a position "fix" was noted. These
range readings were recorded into field survey logs, and the
approximate location of each drogue was plotted onboard.
This last step (preliminary plotting) was performed to
monitor the movement of the drogues for relocation purposes,
and to verify positioning data.
2.6 Hydrographic Sounding Survey
Thirteen sounding lines were run at the Turner Bay project
site employing a combination of a Path transit and one range
of the MRS. A continuous record of water depths along each
sounding transect was obtained employing a Raytheon Model
DE-719B survey grade echo sounder. The DE-719B incorporates
adjustments for both tide and transducer draft, plus a
calibration for local water mass sound speed.
Sound speed calibration was accomplished by performing a "bar
check" at the beginning and end of the survey day. The bar
check procedure consisted of lowering an acoustic target on a
graduated sounding line, then adjusting the DE-719B speed of
sound control such that the target reflection was printed
precisely at its known depth. A specification sheet for the
Raytheon DE-719B is included in Appendix I.
During hydrographic survey operations the echo sounder
records were marked and the contemporaneous distance
measurement from the shore responder was entered into the
field logs at range intervals of nominally 50m (164 ft).
This procedure permits post-survey correlation of vessel
position with depth data.
- 6 -
-------
.,-j
I3«=lU«lU:
*:
SCALED I"-200'
CHECH MUmiC KM.E KPOK
-W3
LEGEND
MOTES
I. SOMD1N6S ME III FEET MUD AK KfEftENCEft TO K»
LOU MICH IN.UI . INC MCI HAL PQINt |HBIC*ICS 'Ht
POS1TIM Of T« SDM01HC.
I. CMIOUi IHIEMVM. IS 10 FEET.
IMC IHFMMAUCW MtS£«I£D M THIS CMA*t WMrtStlili
T(« iESlXIS OF * SURVEI PEttFO*)CD II OCEAN SUWVE1S.
IHC. M 34 FEMOMT 1>H UO CM »LT K CMStOEHED
OCEAN BURVEYB, INC. |
OLD UTMKXMt, CONNECTICUT
HYDROGRAPHIC CHART
PROPOSED OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
ST. JOHN. UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
EM>£U
t*-n» n
r,
•-VM-M
FIGURE NO, 4
-------
2.7 Dye Tracer Study
2.7.1 Operational Theory
Dye dilution studies are based on the principle that the
downstream dilution of a conservative substance such as
Rhodamlne WT dye Is directly proportional to the mixing
characteristics of the receiving water body.
Once downstream concentrations are corrected for temperature,
instrument calibration and background fluorescence, 1t 1s
possible to quantify the mixing characteristics of the
receiving water body by computing dilution ratios and eddy
diffusion coefficients.
2.7.2 Field Procedures
OSI Injected 15 pounds of Rhodamlne WT dye during the St.
John studies. Rhodamine WT 1s a fluorescent, biodegradable
tracer that 1s extremely soluable in water and detectable 1n
very small concentrations (less than 0.05 parts per billion).
The dye was supplied as a 20 percent solution by Crompton and
Knowles Corporation, Gibraltar, Pennsylvania. The specific
gravity of the individual lot of Rhodamine WT which OSI used
at St. John was 1.126 at 66°F.
The dye injection system, consisting of a 12 volt DC Fluid
Metering, Inc. laboratory pump, was installed in a small boat
moored at Station T-3. A 20 percent solution of Rhodaralne WT
dye was Injected at the surface for approximately 6 hours at
a nominal rate of 2.5 pounds per hour. Dye concentrations 1n
the study area were measured with a calibrated Turner Designs
Model 10 fluorometer mounted on board the survey vessel.
Water was pumped continuously throught the instrument from an
Intake positioned 18 inches below the water surface.
- 7 -
-------
The fluorometer provides a relative measure of the quantity
of light emitted from a fluorescent solution. In principle,
a lamp within the fluorometer emits light which is filtered
and allowed to strike the sample as it flows continuously
past the light source. Any dye present in the solution will
fluoresce. The emitted spectrum is passed through a
secondary filter to a sensor, and the relative quantity of
light received is indicated on the fluorometer readout.
The fluorescence of dye varies with sample temperature;
therefore, the water temperature in the sampling line was
monitored with a Yellow Springs Instrument Company Series 700
thermistor to enable data processors to correct recorded dye
concentrations for solution temperature. Both dye
concentration and temperature were continuously recorded on a
Soltec VC 6723-S two-pen strip chart recorder packaged with
the fluorometer in a custom, splash-proof field case.
Surficial downstream dye concentrations and water temperature
were monitored along 14-17 survey transects during each of
three mapping sessions. These transects were oriented
nominally perpendicular to the trajectory of the dye plume.
Dye concentrations were also taken within 1 meter (3.3 ft) of
the dye discharge point to determine initial dilution and
upstream of the dye injection station to measure background
fluorescence levels.
The fluorometer used at St. John (S/N 172) was calibrated
prior to shipment to St. John. This pre-survey calibration
was conducted using standard solutions prepared with dye
drawn from the lot used for this study and with glassware
which meets or exceeds National Bureau of Standards
requirements.
- 8 -
-------
Specification sheets for Rhodamine WT dye, Fluid Metering,
Inc. laboratory pumps and the Turner Designs Model 10
Fluorometer are provided in Appendix I.
3.0 DATA PROCESSING AND PRESENTATION
3.1 Introduction
Prior to data processing the field team reviewed all log
sheets and prepared a detailed summary of daily activities
and relevant site conditions. Data acquired in the field
were processed by OSI at its Connecticut data processing
facility on a Digital Equipment Corporation POP 11/44
computer. All the hydrographic and oceanographic data are
presented in engineering units and, where applicable, reflect
post-calibration corrections.
3.2 Vessel Position and Survey Trackline Reconstruction
Drogue positions and hydrographic survey tracklines were
reconstructed from transit angles and/or MRS range
measurements logged at each position "fix". These values,
together with the Puerto Rican grid coordinates of the
horizontal control stations, were input into the computer
system where calculations were made for the X and Y
coordinates of each recorded position. During calculation of
vessel and/or drogue position geometric consideration for
transponder elevations, interrogator antenna height, X and Y
corrections for sensor layback and offset (relative to the
MRS antenna) and range calibration data were also input to
yield the most precise computations possible.
- 9 -
-------
3.3 Tide Level Data
Continuous tide level chart recordings made during the
program were digitized, referenced to the mean low water
datum and listed at 15-minute Intervals.
3.4 In S1tu Current Data
Endeco Type 105 current meters record current run and a
compass reading onto 16mm film as a fraction of a calibrated
full scale value. At OSI's computer facility, the films are
projected onto a translucent plate, and digitized using a
Talos Model 6221 tablet digitizer Interfaced with the DEC
computer.
The current data are presented by station as 30-m1nute
tabulations of average current speed and direction. The data
are also presented statistically, as frequency distributions
and graphically as progressive vector, current rose and time
series plots. These are attached 1n Appendix II and III.
OSI calibrates all Its Endeco meters at an In-house test
facility and computer processes the film records. The
post-calibration accuracy of reported current data is within
the _+3X/j^6 accuracies specified by the manufacturer; that
1s, the specified accuracies reflect measurement as well as
data processing (digitizing) accuracies. Equipment
accuracies are based on tests made by the manufacturer or by
independent test facilities.
3.5 Drogue Tracking Data
Recorded drogue fix times were combined with MRS range
information to reconstruct drogue tracks and to compute
average drogue speed and direction between fixes. This
- 10 -
-------
information is presented as tabulations of time interval,
drogue speed and drogue direction, and as plan view drawings
at a scale of 1:15,000 (1"=1250') in Appendix II and III.
The accuracy of Lagrangian data acquired in tracking free
drifting drogues is limited by the accuracies inherent in
vessel positioning, ground control and the timing of position
fixes. Reasonable estimates of the accuracies associated
with the reported drogue data are 5 percent for relative
speed and 2 to 4 degrees for relative direction, depending in
part on the distance travelled by the drogues between
position fixes.
3.6 Hydrographic Data
Processing and presentation of the hydrographic data was
accomplished in three steps:
0 Transit and MRS range data were converted into X-Y
positions referenced to the Puerto Rican coordinate
system. This information was then used to reconstruct
survey vessel tracklines.
0 Continuous analog echo sounder records were digitized
using a Summagraphics tablet digitizer. The digital
depth data were then adjusted for the draft of the
survey vessel and water surface elevation (referenced to
MLW employing NOAA predicted tides).
0 After the X-Y data were combined with the sounding data,
the MLW water depths were computer plotted onto a plan
view basemap at a scale of 1:2,400 (1"=200'); Drawing
86ES010-A.
- 11 -
-------
3.7 Dye Concentration Data
Survey vessel trackllnes were reconstructed by computer
plotting the "Mini Ranger" range-range data which were logged
during the study. Dye concentration data which were recorded
on strip charts were corrected for a 3.0 second dye
measurement response time (pumping time), digitized,
corrected as discussed below, then plotted along vessel
tracklines.
Fluorometer data were reduced in three steps as follows:
0 Step 1: Correct water temperature data according to
results of pre-survey thermistor system calibrations.
0 Step 2 : Correct fluorometer outputs for temperature
according to the equation:
CONCTRUE - CONCREC x e0-015(TR-TS>
where, CONCTR(JE = dye concentration corrected for sample
temperature
CONCDcr = recorded fluorometer output
K h L
TR = corrected sample temperature (from Step
1)
TS = standard (reference) temperature; in
this case, T = 68°F
° steP 3: Using pre-survey calibration data for the Turner
Designs Model 10 fluorometer (S/N 172) and the specific
gravity of the dye lot used in St. John, the "equivalent"
dye concentrations were calculated in parts per billion
(ppb) by weight.
- 12 -
-------
Eddy diffusion coefficients were calculated using the
approach taken by Brooks (1959), whereby the eddy
diffsuion coefficient is related to the variance of the
concentration profile perpendicular to the current. By
assuming a normal dye concentration distribution
perpendicular to the current, by employing Brook's
definition of field width (C =24), and by using current
speed data collected at T-3 TOP, it was possible to
calculate the eddy diffusion coefficient (E) using:
2 2
*E . V - V
where, Wg-W. 1S the difference in plume widths at two
stations
and tR~tA ^s t^1e time required for the current to
transport a particle of dye from Station A to
Station B.
Dilution ratios are calculated employing the formula
Dilution = (C /C
where CT = Initial concentration = 320 ppb and
Cn = Downstream concentration
Brooks, N. H. (1959): "Diffusion of Sewage Effluent in an
Ocean Current," in Waste Disposal in the Marine Environment,
edited by E. A. Pearson, pp. 246-267, Pergamon Press, New
York.
- 13 -
-------
4.0 DISCUSSION OF DATA
4.1 Tide Level Data
The mean tide range observed in Cruz Bay during the June
study was 24.2 cm (0.79 ft) with a maximum tide range of 49.4
cm (1.62 ft). Mean low water was 2.4 cm (.08 ft) below the
datum of mean low water and the mean tide level was 9.68 cm
(.32 ft).
Small scale perturbations superimposed on the analog tide
records were recorded on OSI's in situ gauge. These
perturbations had periods ranging from 7-30 minutes and are
often observed in tide records from the Carribean.
Recorded times of high and low tides compared very favorably
with predicted times, but were variable relative to predicted
tide height (+_.12m = jf.4 ft). Low slack tide observed onsite
precedes low tide by approximately 1.5-2 hours, while high
slack corresponds closely with the time of high tide.
4.2 Current Speed and Direction Data
4.2.1 Historical Data
A 13 cm/s (.25 KT) ocean current varying from northwestward
to westward prevails among the Virgin Islands throughout the
year. Tidal currents typically flood to the southeast and
ebb to the northwest, with a net drift to the southeast
during the summer months (mid June to mid August) and a
northwest net drift during September, November, March and
April*.
*U.S. NAVAL OCEAN06RAPHIC OFFICE: SAILING DIRECTIONS FOR THE
WEST INDIES, VOLUME II, H.O. PUBLICATION 22, U.S. GOVT.
PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1963.
- 14 -
-------
A phenomenon of particular Interest is the "St. John's Tide"
which reportedly occurs near the beginning of the summer
months (mid June). During this period tidal currents set
continually to the southeastward with "unusual force".
Within Pillsbury Sound tidal currents reportedly flood
southward and ebb northward at rates of approximately
102 cm/s (2 Kts). Tidal current speeds as great as 204 cm/s
(4 Kts) have been reported near Dog Island, and Leeward,
Middle and Windward Passages.
4.2.2 In Situ Current Speed and Direction
Table 3 summarizes the in situ current speed and direction
data and shows that there was a strong northerly net drift at
all stations during both deployment periods, with a range of
5.4 to 39.4 percent of the current recordings exhibiting a
southerly component and 57.4 to 71.7 percent having a
northerly component.
The current data collected during these studies indicate that
the tidal currents predominantely flood to the north-
northwest and ebb to the south-southwest. This information
is supported by the drogue data and is in direct contrast
with the more general historical tidal current information
for Pillsbury Sound presented in Section 4.1.1. The
north-northwest - south-southeastern tidal flow pattern is
most strongly developed at the furthest offshore Stations T-3
and T-4) and less pronounced, with a slightly greater
onshore-offshore (northeast-southwest) component, toward the
nearshore Station T-l.
- 15 -
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF IN SITU CURRENT DATA
DEPLOYMENT #1
% Occurrence of
Station
Designation
T-l
T-2
T-3
Meter
Position
TOP
TOP
BOTTOM
TOP
BOTTOM
Current Directions
Southerly Northerly
28.2
23.3
23.9
37.6
39.4
59.9
65.6
65.0
60.7
57.4
% Exceedence
(speed categories in cm/s)
20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
35.6
63.2
61.8
81.0
79.2
0.0
14.4
2.3
56.8
52.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
20.9
15.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
1.7
Station
Designation
T-2
T-3
T-4
Meter
Position
TOP
BOTTOM
TOP
BOTTOM
TOP
DEPLOYMENT #2
% Occurrence of
Current Directions
Southerly
22.9
5.4
34.4
35.7
34.6
Northerly
61.1
71.7
58.1
61.0
60.1
% Exceedence
(speed categories in.cm/s)
20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
42.5
37.9
75.5
68.0
69.4
4.6
0.0
47.5
31.1
33.0
0.0
0.0
16.0
2.5
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
-------
The time series plots of current speed and direction show
that all stations demonstrated tidal current reversals, but
that southerly ebb tidal currents were brief (0-3.5 hrs) and
weak during high to higher-low ebb tides.
Current speed data presented in Table 3 for Stations T-2 and
T-3 show that the currents recorded within this region of
Turner Bay were substantially stronger at both depths during
the February deployment. Table 3 also shows that the surface
currents at Station T-3 substantially exceeded those recorded
at Station T-4.
4.2.3 Drogue Data
Figures 19-22 and 33-37 graphically display the drogue
trajectories and the accompanying tabulations present the
corresponding drogue velocity data. The time series insets
on Figures 19-22 for tide are from the NOAA predicted tide
tables and the time series plots of current speed and
direction are from Station T-3 top. Time series insets on
Figures 33-37 for tide are from tide level data collected
from a gauge located at the National Park Service Facility in
Cruz Bay.
The Lagrangian current data collected during the four days of
drogue releases support the conclusion that tidal currents
flood north-northwestward and ebb south-southeastward in this
region of Pillsbury Sound. Figures 33 and 36 demonstrate the
brievity of the southerly ebb tidal currents, while Figures
20, 21 and 36 display the nature of the ebb-to-flood tidal
reversal within Turner Bay.
Drogue movements display predominantely shore-parallel
trajectories with onshore movempnts occurring on Steven Cay
and Bovocoap Point during the February studies. Total travel
- 16 -
-------
time from the proposed outfall alignment to the two grounding
locations was approximately 65 minutes to Steven Cay and 4
hours to Bovocoap Point (Figures 21 and 22).
Discussions with an experienced local boat captain indicate
that sea and meteorological conditions which existed onsite
during the second set of studies were more typical of the
Carribean than those encountered in February. During the
first study winds were light and did not appear to influence
drogue trajectories. During the latter study, winds reported
onsite by OSI's field crew were typically east-southeast at
14-20 KPH (8-11 knots). These wind conditions acted to keep
drogues released from Station T-3 well offshore of Steven
Cay.
4.3 Hydrographic Sounding Data
Water depths ranged from 2.8 m (9.1 ft) at the nearshore end
of the hydrographic survey area to 24.7 m (81.2 ft) at the
outer-central portion of the site. The reef located in the
north-central portion of the site is steep-sided with the
surface of the main body being awash at low tide.
4.4 Dye Dilution Data
Figures 38-40 and Table 4 present the results of the dye
dilution investigations. Figure 38 depicts the developing
dye plume approximately 60 minutes after the initiation of
dye injection at Station T-3. Winds were light and current
speeds recorded during the period were on the order of 24
cm/s (.45 Kt). Eddy diffusion coefficients ranged from .038
2 2
to .088 m /sec (.41 to .95 ft /sec) during this mapping
session, which is manifested by the lack of dispersion normal
to the axis of the plume. Assuming an initial concentration
of 320 ppb at a distance of 1 meter (3.3 ft) from the
- 17 -
-------
TABLE 4
EDDY DIFFUSION COEFFICIENTS
Plume
Station A
Plume Designation (Meters)
11 .1
.1
.1
38.1
n .1
.1
.1
.1
.1
26.7
J3 .1
.1
.1
.1
.1
41.9
Widths
Station 8
(Meters)
91.4
57.2
38.1
91.4
952.5
205.7
80. v
72.4
26.7
205.7
845.8
228.6
137.2
53.3
41.9
228.6
Distance
Dow n stream
(Station B-Stat Ion A) Dilution
(Meters) Ratio
1,267
857
165
1,102
2,155
1,885
857
461
62
1,496
2,700
2,060
960
363
104
1,956
3,199:1
198
69
5,078
3,264
888
347
30
5,613
3,367
1,599
404
30
Eddy Diffusion
Current Speed
(m/sec)
.24
.24
.24
.24
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
Coefficients
(m /sec) (ft /sec)
.066
.038
.088
.046
6.49
.342
.111
.177
.177
.353
4.09
.390
.111
.177
.260
.399
.71
.41
.95
.49
69.8
3.68
1.19
1.90
1.90
3.80
44.0
4.20
1.19
1.90
2.80
4.29
-------
discharge (measured), dilution ratios varied from 69 at a
point 165 meters (541 ft) downstream to 3,199 at the tip of
the dye plume 1267 meters (4,157 ft) downstream.
Figures 39 and 40 display the characteristics of a
fully-developed flood tidal dye plume. Similar to Figure 38,
there is little lateral dispersion of the dye plume except in
the vicinity of Two Brothers. As shown in Table 4, the
maximum downstream dilution ratio measured was 5,613 at a
distance of 2,700 meters (8,858 ft) with typical nearfield
ratios equalling 30 at distances of 62 and 104 meters (203
and 341 ft). Eddy diffusion coefficients increased slightly
once the flood tidal currents approached a maximum speed and
the dye plumes became fully developed. These coefficients
2
varied between .111 in the nearfield and 6.49 m /sec (1.19
and 69.8 ft2/sec) at the downstream end of the plume.
The dilution data suggests that a conservative substance
released at Station T-3 undergoes little lateral dispersion
(E=.038 to .Illm2/sec = .41 to 1.19 ft2/sec) and is diluted
on the order of 198 to 888 times, depending on the mixing
characteristics of Turner Bay, at a distance approximately
equal to the distance form T-3 to Steven Cay.
-
-------
Under meteorological conditions where wind speeds are light
and/or when the wind has a westerly component, Steven Cay
would probably be impacted by effluent discharged at T-3 or
T-4. These conditions coupled with short residence times,
minimal lateral dispersion and low dilution could potentially
have a negative impact on Steven Cay. Flow rates, diffuser
characteristics and initial mixing, however, must be
considered before a complete assessment of the potential
effects of an outfall in Turner Bay can be made.
- 19 -
-------
APPENDIX E.I
CURRENT SPEED AND DIRECTION DATA
FEBRUARY STUDIES
-------
CURRENT VELOCITY ROSE
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, VI
N
E
S
SPfED DISTRJBUTION SUMMARY
o
o
o
o
CM
O
O
O
n
o
fM
o
o
lllllIITI
20
40 60
PERCENT
80
100
OCEAN
SURVEYS,
INC.
DATA PERIOD
23 FEB 66 -27 FEB 66
LOCATION
STATION T-1
SCALE
1'"25X
BY
CRR
DATE
7 APR 86
FIGURE
9
-------
CURRENT VELOCITY ROSE
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATE
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, VI
W
s
SPEED J3ISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
o
A
O
rg
o
o
o
ID
o
o
CM
oo
oo
I
O
o
in
i i i
o oo
o oo
•«• UX>
20
40 60
PERCENT
80
100
OCEAN
SURVEYS,
INC.
DATA PERIOD
23 FEB 66 -27 FEB 66
LOCATION
STATION T-2 TOP
SCALE
I'-=25X
BY
CRR
DATE
7 APR 66
FIGURE
-------
CURRENT VELOCITY ROSE
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, VI
w
SPEED .DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
o
A
O
(M
I
O
o
K)
o
-------
CURRENT VELOCITY ROSE
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY, ST. UOHN, VI
N
W
E
S
JDISJRIBUTION
20
40 60
PERCENT
T| ' 1 I 1 I I I ' I I
80 100
OCEAN
SURVEYS,
INC.
DATA PERIOD
23 FEB 66 -27 FEB 86
LOCATION
STATION T-3 TOP
SCALE
1' -25%
BY
CRR
DATE
7 APR 86
FIGURE
12
-------
CURRENT VELOCITY ROSE
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, VI
W
E
S
£PE£D DISTRIBUTION SUJ1MA&Y
o
CJ
o
rr>
o
CJ
o
in
i
o
00
O OO
N. co en
i i i
O OO
o
in
o
in
oo
20
40 60
PERCENT
60
100
OCEAN
SURVEYS,
INC.
DATA PERIOD
23 FEB 66 -27 FEB 86
LOCATION
STATION T-3 BOT
SCALE
I'-25X
BY
CRR
DATE
7 APR 86
FIGURE
13
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY» ST. JOHN, VI
DROGUE DEPTH?
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) •
DATE: 25 FEB 1985
TIME INTERVAL
(NO. )
1
2
3
(HR'.MIN)
0910
0941
1009
CHR'.MIN)
- 0941
- 1009
- 1036
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
33.8
44.0
46.7
(KTS)
0.66
0.85
0.91
DIRECTION
(DEC MAG)
141
128
119
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) •
DATE: 25 FEB 1985
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.)
1
2
3
(HR:MIN)
0910 -
0941 -
1009 -
(HR:MIN>
0941
1009
1036
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
33,9
43.7
46.4
(KTS)
0.66
0.85
0.90
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
140
129
120
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
3 METER(S) •>
DATE: 25 FEB 1985
TIME INTERVAL
(NO. )
1
2
3
4
(HR:MIN
0910
0943
1010
1037
) (HR'.MIN)
- 0943
- 1010
- 1037
- 1102
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
33.0
43.9
43.2
40.2
(KTS)
0.64
0.85
0.84
0.78
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
135
125
116
104
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
6 METER(S) A
DATE: 25 FEB i?85
TIME INTERVAL
(NO. )
1
2
3
4
(HR:MIN
0910
0943
1011
1038
) (HR'.MIN)
- 0943
- 1011
- 1038
- 1104
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
33.2
41.0
41.5
39.5
(KTS)
0.65
0.80
0.81
0.77
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
134
122
115
106
-------
LEGEND
• ofto«ut oepiomorr LOCATION
MM4UC DCTTHt
« n iito ' oetoo
OCEAN SURVEYS, INC. TO*
OLD SAYBROOK, CONNECTICUT
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY» ST. JOHN, VI
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) •
DATE: 25 FEB 1985
TIME INTERVAL
(NO. )
1
2
1136
1207
CHR:MIN>
- 1207
- 1245
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
43.6
28.2
(KTS)
0.85
0.55
DIRECTION
(DEC MAG)
148
124
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
DROGUE DEPTH: i METER(S> •
DATE: 25 FEB 1935
TIME INTERVAL
0. )
1
2
(HR:MIN)
1136
1207
(HR:MIN>
- 1207
- 1237
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
46.6
37.2
(KTS)
0.91
0.72
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
151
129
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
3 METER(S) •
DATE: 25 FEB 1935
TIME INTERVAL
0. )
1
2
(HR:MIN> i
1137 -
1206 -
[HR'.MIN)
1206
1241
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
49.1
34.1
(KTS)
0.95
0.66
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
148
129
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
6 METER(S) A
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HR:MIN) (HR:MIN)
1 1138 - 1208
2 1208 - 1248
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
36.3
19.8
DATE: 25 FEB 1985
DIRECTION
(DEG HAG)
0.71 141
0.39 128
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, VI
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION;
1 METER(S) D
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1257 -
1335 -
1404 -
1431 -
1505 -
1539 -
1335
1404
1431
1505
1539
1605
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
13.8
9.9
11.6
6.3
23.9
48.6
0.27
0,19
0.23
0.12
0.46
0.94
DATE: 25 FEB 1985
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
185
180
170
231
323
331
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) O
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.)
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY* ST. JOHN» VI
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
6 METER(S) A
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HR'.MIN) (HR'.MIN)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1257 -
1335 -
1407 -
1430 -
1503 -
1525 -
1335
1407
1430
1503
1525
1603
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
14,1
10.3
8.7
10.5
28.1
27.2
0.27
0.20
0.17
0,20
0.55
0.53
DATE: 25 FEB 1935
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
188
167
202
245
298
321
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) -fr
TIME INTERVAL
-------
ST. JOHN, U.S.V.
OCEAN SURVEYS. INC
OLD SAYBROOK, CONNECTICUT
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY* ST. JOHN* VI
1
2
3
6
7
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) •
TIME INTERVAL
CNO.)
0754
0809
0837
0908
0937
1009
1040
0809
0837
0908
0937
1009
1040
1109
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
37
21
5
5
36
74
52
.4
.5
,6
,6
.5
.3
,2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
.73
.42
. 11
. 11
.71
.44
.01
DATE: 26 FEE 1985
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
325
336
10
145
167
139
117
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) •
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HR:MIN> (HR:MIN)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0753
0808
0835
0905
0933
1005
1034
1102
- 0808
- 0835
- 0905
- 0933
- 1005
- 1034
- 1102
- 1134
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
38.9
28,7
14.0
7.7
29.9
39.4
46.4
50.9
0.76
0.56
0.27
0.15
0.58
0.77
0.90
0.99
DATE: 26 FEE 1985
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
319
315
281
246
136
152
142
130
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) •
(NO. )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TIME INTERVAL
(HR:MIN)
0810
0838
0909
0939
1012
1042
1112
1153
0755
0810
0838
0909
0939
1012
1042
1112
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
DATE: 26 FEB 1985
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
32.2 0.63 317
16.6 0.32 331
1.3 0.03 76
17.2 0.33 172
47.6 0.92 149
48.4 0.94 120
40.9 0.79 107
12.5 0.24 89
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY» ST, JOHN* VI
(NO
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) 4
TIME INTERVAL
) (HRtMIN) (HR'.MIN)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0751
0808
0834
0904
0934
1004
1033
1103
- 0808
- 0834
- 0904
- 0934
- 1004
- 1033
- 1103
- 1132
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
30.2
26.1
18,5
6.7
23.0
37.8
51.4
51.5
0.59
0.51
0.36
0.13
0.45
0,73
1,00
1.00
DATE: 26 FEB 1985
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
322
315
296
194
142
140
139
130
-------
ST. JOHN, U.S.V.I.
OCEAN SURVEYS, INC.
OLD SAY8ROOK, CONNECTICUT
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAYi ST. JOHN, VI
1
2
3
4
5
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 HETER(S) •
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.)
1227
1247
1308
1335
1407
1247
1308
1335
1407
1445
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
14.3
39.9
27.4
10.0
12.5
0.28
0.78
0.53
0.19
0.24
DATE: 26 FEB 1985
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
206
158
113
126
144
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HR:MIN)
1
2
3
4
5
1228 -
1246 -
1309 -
1336 -
1404 -
1246
1309
1336
1404
1436
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
16.9
39.4
20.2
25.4
28.5
0.33
0.77
0.39
0.49
0.55
DATE: 26 FEB 1935
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
209
144
130
143
148
1
2
3
4
5
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) •
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HR:MIN)
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN» VI
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) 4
DATE: 26 FEE 1995
TIME INTERVAL
(NO, )
1
2
3
4
5
(HRJMIN)
1229
1248
1307
1334
1405
- 1248
- 1307
- 1334
- 1405
- 1436
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
21,6
24.1
34,6
17.1
28.1
(KTS)
0.42
0.47
0.67
0.33
0.55
DIRECTION
(DEC MAG)
146
162
136
143
152
DROGUE DEPTH
DROGUE DESIGNATION
1 METER(S) Q
DATE: 26 FEE 1985
TIME INTERVAL
(NO. )
1
2
3
4
(HR:MIN:
1454
1510
1524
1545
> (HR:MIN)
- 1510
- 1524
- 1545
- 1628
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
18.8
30,3
28.0
2.3
(KTS)
0.37
0.59
0.54
0.04
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
351
337
355
325
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION
1 METER(S) O
DATE: 26 FEE 1985
TIME INTERVAL
(NO. )
1
2
3
4
(HR:MIN:
1459
1514
1529
1550
>
- 1514
- 1529
- 1550
- 1617
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
45.0
50.3
67.2
51,9
(KTS)
0.87
0.98
1.31
1.01
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
320
8
359
348
1
2
3
4
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION
1 METER(S) O
TIME INTERVAL
> (HRiMiN) (HR:MIN)
1456
1511
1527
1548
1511
1527
1548
1613
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
32.1
52.8
58.9
0.62
1.03
1.14
1.08
DATE: 26 FEB 1985
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
337
11
12
345
V i \ i
-------
DROGUE VE.LUCIIY Lift I ft
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN» VI
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S) <)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HR5MIN) (HRJMIN)
1
2
3
4
1457
1513
1528
1549
1513
1528
1549
1615
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
38.9
50.3
60.2
63.1
DATE: 26 FEB 1985
DIRECTION
(DEG MAG)
0.76 334
0.98 7
1,17 6
1.23 336
IX
-------
ST. JOHN, U.S.V.I. .
OCEAN SURVEYS, INC. f«P>
• Ofll
OLD SAYBROOK, CONNECTICUT
-------
APPENDIX E.Z
CURRENT SPEED AND DIRECTION DATA
JUNE STUDIES
-------
CURRENT VELOCITY ROSE
OUTFALL. SITE INVESTIGATION
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, USVI
N
W
E
S
DISTCBIBUTIONOSUMM^PY
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
O
o
o
f.0
IOC
/PERCENT
OCEAN
SURVEYS,
INC-
DATA PERIOD
3! 1A,Y 86 -OS JON 66
LOCATION
STATION T-2 TCP'
SC'ALf
! ' -2Z'/.
Bv
BJB
DATF
C'-3 JJi. S6
F I GORE
28
-------
OUTFALL
CURRENT VELOCITY ROSE
L'Ai ' SITE INVESTIGATION #2
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, USVI
S
Sf?£ED DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
o
o
fj
o
O
o
OJ
P" ' I I ] M I I [ I I I I I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
6 20 4C f>0 80 IOC
PERCENT
OCEAN
SURVEYS . hioc7':K
I-NC.
DATA PER I CD
Ji MAY 66 -Ori MAY
:>TAT10S T-2 BC
GCALF
Bv
BJB
DATF:
0:? JU,.
FIGiJRL
29
-------
CURRENT VELOCITY ROSE
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION #2
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, USVI
N
W
E
S
DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
o
o
o
OJ
Ci
o
o
LO
o
o
00
oo
| | I I | | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I ) I I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I |
6 20 40 SO SC IOC
PERCENT
OCEAN
SURVEYS,
INC.
DATA PERIOD SCAtF
3: MAY 66 -Or-> JJN 65 I'--2CX
LOCATION Bv
STATION T-3 TOP j BJB
OATF
09 J.J,. 6f>
FICu'Rt
30
-------
CURRENT VELOCITY ROSE
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION #2
CRUZ BAY, ST. UOHN, USVI
W
E
S
SPEEDoDISTglBUTUDN SUMMARY
X O
<_> I
o
o
o
O A
o
CM
o
o
o
o
o
in
o
o
!
20
!
so
M"
60
>1
IOC
PERCENT
OCEAN '
SURVEYS,
INC.
DATA PERIOD j SCALF.
3! MAY 66 -C'S Jo'N 6
-------
CURRENT VELOCITY ROSE
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION #2
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, USVI
N
W
E
s
cSPEFD DISTRIBUTION
o
OJ
I
o
o
Ifl
o
LI
o
o o
o o
lf> K.
I [I
"vr»
4G SO
PERCENT
60
1 I
IOC
OCEAN
SURVEYS,
INC-
DATA PLRICD
31 ^lAY 66 -0
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
DEPLOYMENT tl
1
2
3
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HR'.MIN) (HR5MIN)
DATE:
0951
1018
1036
1018
1036
1108
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
58,5
83,8
67,0
1.14
1.63
1.30
1 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
316
335
15
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HRJMIN) (HRJMIN)
0958
1020
1038
1020
1038
1117
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
DATE: i JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
69,4
80,3
59,6
1.35
1.56
1.16
316
334
338
1
2
3
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:A
1 METER(S)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HRJMIN) (HRIMIN)
DATE:
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
1002
1022
1039
1022
1039
1113
70.6
84,3
59,3
1 .37
1,64
1 ,15
1 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
317
331
356
-------
."•.ST. JOHN
'.•'••: usvi. '•
LEOEND
• DROOUE DEPLOYMENT LOCATION
OCKAN SURVEYS, INC. f<&
\Om
OLD SAYBROOK. CONNECTICUT
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION *2
DEPLOYMENT *2
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
DATE:
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
DATE:
1 JUN 1986
TIME INTERVAL
(NO. )
1
2
3
(HR'.MIN)
1137
1200
1230
(HRJMIN)
- 1200
- 1230
- 1308
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
71.7
77,0
57.5
(KTS)
1.39
1.50
1.12
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
317
334
342
1 JUN 1986
TIME INTERVAL
(NO, )
1
2
3
(HRJMIN)
1140
1202
1231
(HRIMIN)
- 1202
- 1231
- 1322
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
73.2
81,7
44.5
(KTS)
1,42
1,59
0.86
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
313
334
34
1
2
3
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HR:MIN) (HR:MIN)
DATE:
1144
1208
1244
1208
1244
1327
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
42.0
40.5
39.3
0.82
0,79
0.76
1 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
333
6
347
1
2
3
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HRIMIN) (HRIMIN)
DATE:
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
1146
1204
1233
1204
1233
1319
70,8
73,2
64.4
1.37
1.42
1.25
1 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
320
325
39
-------
ST. JOHN
•: ' V U.S.V.I. '
GREAT
ST. JAMES I.
AV«. WIND VCLOCfTY
14 KM/IT
I4«»T
LtCEND
DROOUE DEPLOYMENT LOCATION
TOSBTBoT"
34
"l" • 1290'
I-JUNE-1986
MAFTID IT
MTO
OCBAN BURVEYB, INC.
OU> SAYINOOK, CONNECTICUT
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION *2
DEPLOYMENT *3
1
9
3
4
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
DATE:
TIME INTERVAL
(NO,) (HRtMIN) (HR'.MIN)
1346
1417
1447
1522
1540
1417
1447
1522
1540
1609
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
23.2
32.3
27.0
25,6
29.3
0.45
0.63
0.52
0.50
0.57
1 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEC TRUE)
297
309
300
308
302
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO,) (HRiMiN)
DATE:
1
2
3
4
5
1349
1421
1453
1508
1547
- 1421
- 1453
- 1508
- 1547
- 1602
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
56.8
56.8
44,2
29.9
28.4
1*10
1.10
0.86
0.58
0.55
1 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
313
323
337
329
333
1
2
3
4
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO,) (HRIMIN) (HRJMIN)
DATE:
1350
1423
1454
1514
1546
1423
1454
1514
1546
1558
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
56.6
47.9
40.7
34,1
27,9
1 .10
0.93
0.79
0.66
0,54
1 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
315
32.7
331
330
325
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO.) (HRJMIN) (HRJMIN)
DATE:
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
1532
1627
1627
1640
6.6
14,8
0.13
0.29
1 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
144
145
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION #2
DEPLOYMENT *3
DROGUE DESIGNATION: •
DROGUE DEPTH: i METERCS) DATE: i JUN 1986
TIME INTERVAL SPEED DIRECTION
(NO,) (HRJMIN) (HRIMIN) (CM/SEC) (KTS) (DEC TRUE)
1 1629 - 1650 8,6 0.17 144
-------
ST. JOHN
'•-.•'••: us v.i. '
LEQENB
« DROGUE DEPLOYMENT LOCATION
OCBAN SURVEYS, IMC.
OLD SAYBROOK, CONNECTICUT
-------
DROGUE VELUL1Ir UflIR
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION *2
DEPLOYMENT *4
DROGUE DEPTH
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
DATE;
TIME INTERVAL
(NO,) (HR'.MIN) (HR'.MIN)
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0300 -
0810 -
0832 -
0847 -
0918 -
0945 -
1011 ~
1038 -
1054 -
1155 -
1240 -
1312 -
1343 -
0810
0832
0347
0918
0945
1011
1038
1054
1155
1240
1312
1348
1359
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
21
12
8
0
3
4
15
31
20
5
5
1
12
,9
, 1
.7
,9
,7
.4
.6
.8
,4
,4
,1
,4
,5
0.43
0,23
0.17
0,02
0.07
0.09
0.30
0.62
0.40
0.11
0.10
0.03
0.24
3 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
199
168
152
206
183
345
323
314
351
12
228
265
342
1
o
DROGUE DEPTH
DROGUE DESIGNATION; *
i METERCS)
TIME INTERVAL
(NO,) (HR:MIN>
DATE;
1025
1056
1135
1056
1135
1211
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
15,7
31,3
50,9
0.31
0.61
0,99
3 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
301
319
345
DROGUE DEPTH;
DROGUE DESIGNATION;
i METER(S)
DATE:
TIME INTERVAL.
(NO,) < HR'.MIN) (HR'.MIN)
1
1203
1318
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
56,1 1,09
3 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
330
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION
DEPLOYMENT *4
*2
(NO
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
DATE:
TIME INTERVAL.
) (HRtMIN) (HR'.MIN)
1
'2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0742
0804
0825
0851
0922
0950
1029
1059
- 0804
- 0825
- 0851
0922
- 0950
- 1029
- 1059
- 1141
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
30
15
?
4
5
11
23
39
,0
, 1
*7
,7
,0
,0
,2
.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,58
,29
, 19
,09
,10
,21
,45
,77
3 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
184
196
210
TOO
*L »- 7
306
327
325
32.9
(NO
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
DATE:
TIME INTERVAL
) (HRJMIN) (HR',MIN>
0745
0807
0823
0854
0925
0953
1032
1102
1138
0807
0828
0854
0925
0953
1032
1102
1138
1220
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
9,3
9,6
7,0
1 ,4
4,8
13,2
25,3
38,7
51 ,6
0, 18
0,19
0,14
0,03
,09
26
.49
0,75
1 .00
0
0
0
3 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
203
197
211
357
341
328
334
340
3
-------
.MINGO CAY
f.'.ST. JOHN
?'•'-. US.V.I. '.
t rtt.
LEGEND
9 DROGUE DEPLOYMENT LOCATION
GREAT
ST. JAMES I.
DAIt
3-JUNE-I986
OCEAN SURVEYS, INC. f «S»
lost
OLD SAYBHOOK. CONNECTICUT
-------
DROGUE VELOCITY DATA
OUTFALL SITE INVESTIGATION *2
DEPLOYMENT *5
(NO
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
i METEP(S)
TIME INTERVAL
(HR1M1M) (HRJMIN)
DATE?
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
.-L
.-.'.'.
3
4
1
1
1
1
303
330 -
353 -
444 -
1
1
1
1
3 3 0
3
4
C7
J
53
44
33
5
6
4
2
9.
5,
5,
~t
O »
7
4
5
O
D
1
1
0
0
, 1
O
t jL.
,8
,4
6
7
f~V
O
6
3 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
315
330
11
37
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
DATE:
3 JUN 1986
NO . )
1
^
3
4
flME INTERVAL
(HRtMIN
1307
1336
1403
1441
) (HRJMIN)
1336
1403
1441
1530
SPEED
(CM/SEC)
56,5
64,3
46 <. 9
30,8
(KTS)
1,10
1 ,25
0,91
0,60
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
315
325
353
35
DROGUE DEPTH:
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
1 METER(S)
TIME INTERVAL
:NO , ) (HR'.MIN) (HR'.MIN)
1
DATE:
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
.1344 -
1410 -
1437 -
1526 -
1410
1437
1526
1538
58
61
39
24
,0
,4
,8
,2
1,13
1 , 19
0,77
0.47
3 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
315
326
1
14
1
DROGUE DESIGNATION:
DROGUE DEPTH: i METER
DATES
SPEED
(CM/SEC) (KTS)
1418
1545
49,4
0,96
3 JUN 1986
DIRECTION
(DEG TRUE)
-------
..ST. JOHN
. .•'•-. usv.i.
LEGEND
DROQUE DEPLOYMENT LOCATION
OCEAN SURVEYS, INC. f «&
"OBI
OLD SAYBROOK. CONNECTICUT
-------
N IB9.0QO
TWO
BROTHERS
o
C-
•z.
o
10.
HLW-
X
GREAT
ST. JAMES I.
ST. JOHN
. ' '-. US.V.I. '•
OOOO IIOO OOOO
I1"
I IM
AVO. WIND VELOCITY
19 Km/hr
124* T
FIGURE NO.
38
SCALE
I" « 1250'
DATE
S.JUNE-1986
DRAFTED By
MTD
OCEAN SURVEYS, INC.
OLD SAYBROOK. CONNECTICUT
-------
N iTt.ooq
HENLEY
CAY
GREAT
ST. JAMES I.
T-i
r-sr. JOHN
U.S.V.I. '
* '
AV«. WIND VELOCITY
15 K«/hr
I4»«T
FIGURE NO.
39
SCALE
I - 1290'
DATE
5- JUNE-1986
DRAFTED BY
MTD
OCEAN SURVEYS, INC.
OLD SAYBROOK, CONNECTICUT
-------
..ST. JOHN
. ' -. US.V.I. '.
OCBAN SURVEYS, INC. f
-------
APPENDIX F
IMPORTANT FLORA AND FAUNA PRESENT IN THE
CRUZ BAY STUDY AREA, ST. JOHN. US VIRGIN ISLANDS
-------
APPENDIX F
IMPORTANT FLORA AND FAUNA PRESENT IN THE
CRUZ BAY STUDY AREA, ST. JOHN. US VIRGIN ISLANDS
Note: This Appendix lists species mentioned in the text, as well
as any special status species (if applicable) and related
pertinent comments.
Common Name
Algae (Marine)
(Various Species)
Bermuda Grass
Guinea Grass
Slender Manatee Grass
Turtle Grass
Sea Grape
Fustic
Cactus
Pricklypear
Prickly Ash
Machette
PLANT SPECIES
Genus and Species
Caulerpa spp.
Halicystis osterhontii
Padina spp
Cynodon dactyl on
Panicum maximum
Cymodocea manatorum
Thallasia testidinum
Coccoloba uvifera
Opolonia spinosa
Tragia volubilis
Talinum triangulare
Pictetia aculeata
Designation and Comments
(if applicable)
Common along shoreline
Shrub
Vine
Herb
Scrub
Pilocereous royenii
Qpuntia (Consolea) rubescens Cactus
Zanthoxylum thomasianum Territory Endangered
Tillandsia lineatispica Territory Endangered
Erythrina eggersii Proposed Category 3*
*Category 3 species should be recognized as threatened, but more study
is required to determine their actual population status.
F-l
-------
PLANT SPECIES
Common Name
Maricao
Common Guava
Coconut Palm
Croton
Acacia
Red Mangrove
Black Mangrove
White Mangrove
Button Mangrove
Brain Coral
Elk Horn Coral
Finger Coral
Fire Coral
Sea Fans
Soft Corals
Starfish
Sea Cucumber (various
species)
Sea Urchin (various
species(
Queen Conch
Genus and Species
Byrsonima spp.
Psidium spp.
Cocos nucifera
Codiaeum sjp.
Acacia sp.
Rhizophora mangle
Avidennia germinans
Languncularia racemosa
Conocarpus erectus
ANIMAL SPECIES
Coelenterates
Daploria scrigosi
Acropora palmata
Porites porites furcata
Millepora alcicrovis
Gorgon i a spp.
Alcyonacea sp.
Echinoderms
Oreastra reticulatus
Hlo:huria mexicana
oTaberrina
Echinometra lucunter
Tripnuestes esculentes
Lytechinus variegatus
Molluscs
Strombus gigas
F-2
Designation and Comments
(if applicable)
Limited distribution
Limited distribution
-------
ANIMAL SPECIES
Common Name
Helmet Shell
Stocky Cerith
Genus and Species
Cassas tuberosa
Cerithium litteratum
Designation and Comments
(if applicable)
Blue Crab
Land Crab
Mangrove Tree Crab
Arthropods
Callinectes danae
Cardisoma guanhami
Aratus pisonii
Common Iguana
Gecko
Reptiles
Iguana iguana
Spaerodactylus
macro!epis
American Green Turtle Chelonia mydas
Leatherback Turtle
Demochelys coriacea
Territory Endangered
Territory Endangered,
Federal Endangered.
Territory Endangered,
Federal Endangered
Territory Endangered,
Federal Endangered.
Brown Pelican
Birds
Pelecanus occidental is
White Cheeked Pintail Anas bahamensis
White Crowned Pigeon Columba leucocephala
Puerto Rican
(solid) Flycatcher
Myiarchus stolidus
Puerto Rican Screech Owl Otus nupides
Territory Endangered,
Federal Endangered.
Territory Endangered,
found on east side of
Fish Bay.
Territory Endangered
may be found near
Fish Bay.
Territory Endangered,
may be found in upper
parts of Fish Bay and
Battery Guts.
F-3
-------
Common Name
Antillean Night hawk
Peregrine Falcon
ANIMAL SPECIES
Genus and Species
(Chordeiles
gundilachii)
(FaIco peregrinus)
Designation and Comments
(if applicable)
Territory Endangered,
may be found in the
study area.
Territory Endangered,
may be found in the
study area.
Mammals
West Indian Manatee
Humpback Whale
Indian Mongoose
Trichechus manatus Territory Endangered,
Federal Endangered,
Megaptera novaegliae Territory Endangered,
Federal Endangered,
has been observed
offshore of St. John
in the winter and spring.
Herpestes auropunctatus Introduced species
F-4
-------
APPENDIX G
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS
-------
APPENDIX G
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS
An important issue which has been identified through the public
participation program is that many residents of Cruz Bay have little
knowledge of, or access to those government agencies and officials
which have responsibility for water quality and wastewater facilities.
The following discussion presents a brief and simple explanation of
this structure. This discussion is intended to serve as a guide to
inform residents about which government departments or offices are
responsible for various issues included in the wastewater facilities
planning project. All citizens of the Virgin Islands have the right
to seek and gain information from these offices. Current telephone
numbers and addresses for territorial and local government offices are
listed in the Virgin Islands Telephone Company (VITELCO) Telephone
Directory.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - EPA is the lead
agency for this project, and may participate in funding a major
share of the project's eligible construction cost. In addition,
EPA oversees the Territory's implementation of the Territorial
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) program. EPA is
also responsible for complying with the regulations of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and for implementing the
provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean
Water Act).
Preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the
responsibility of EPA. More information on this project is
available from:
Mr. William Lawler, P.E., Project Officer
US Environmental Protection Agency - Region II
Environmental Impacts Branch
26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8556
U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service (NPS) -
NFS is responsible for the administration and maintenance of the
Virgin Island National Park. Local NPS offices are located in
Cruz Bay, St. John and in Redhook, St. Thomas.
U.S. Representative - The Virgin Islands is represented by one
non-voting member of the US Congress. The Representatives office
is in the Federal Building in Charlotte Amalie.
G-l
-------
U.S. VIRGIN ISLAND (TERRITORIAL) GOVERNMENT
Department of Public Works (DPW) - DPW is responsible for plan-
ning, financing, constructing, operating, and maintaining public
wastewater facilities in accordance with the requirements of its
TPDES permit, and the public water supply in the study area.
It is expected that DPW will apply for the EPA wastewater facili-
ties construction grant for this project and thus become the
project "grantee". The grantee will be responsible for funding
the portion of the overall project that is not funded by EPA, as
well as for operation and maintenance of wastewater conveyance
and treatment facilities once they are built. DPW has a local
office on St. John in Adrian.
Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs (DCCA) - DCCA has
primary responsibility for general environmental issues in the
Virgin Islands. Three distinct divisions of DCCA are relevant to
this project: The Division of Natural Resource Management, the
Division of Fish and Wildlife, and the Office of Coastal Zone
Management.
Division of Natural Resource Management (NRM) - NRM is
responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with
Territorial Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permits.
This Division has primary authority over protection of water
quality and other Natural Resources in the territory.
Division of Fish and Wildlife (FWS) - FWS is responsible for
the study and protection of fish and wildlife, particularly
endangered or threatened species, in the territory.
Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) - CZM is responsible
for defining and administering coastal zones and Areas of
Particular Concern which are protected under the Coastal
Zone Management Act. A CZM permit is required for
construction of wastewater facilities (or other structures)
in coastal zones.
Other departments with authority over peripheral issues of this
project include:
The VI Planning Office,
The VI Port Authority, and
THe VI Department of Health.
Virgin Island Territorial Representative
St. John is represented by one member in the territorial Con-
gress. The Representative's local office is the Boulon Center in
Cruz Bay.
6-2
-------
ST. JOHN (LOCAL) GOVERNMENT
Administrator - Each of the three main Virgin Islands has an
administrator who reports to the Governor. The office of St.
John's Administrator is located at the Battery in Cruz Bay.
G-3
-------
APPENDIX H
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
-------
APPENDIX H
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
A full scale public participation program has been conducted for this
project. This ongoing program is an integral part of the EIS process
as it encourages public awareness and involvement, thus facilitating
the acceptance and implementation of the project's recommendations.
A mailing list of approximately 200 addresses, radio announcements,
and posted notices have been used to inform citizens, agencies, and
other involved parties of the project's developments and status. A 19
member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed in order to review
project reports and make recommendations regarding wastewater treat-
ment alternatives. A series of CAC and public meetings have been held
in Cruz Bay to facilitate public participation and allow concerned
individuals the opportunity to comment and ask questions regarding the
project.
Major events of this program are summarized as follows:
Event
Scoping Meeting
CAC solicitation
and formation
Needs Survey
1st CAC Meeting
Date
December 17, 1985
December and
January, 1985/86
January 13-17, 1986
January 16, 1986
2nd CAC meeting February 27, 1986
3rd CAC meeting March 20, 1986
Project Newsletter April 30, 1986
4th CAC
Meeting
Public Meeting
April 30, 1986
May 1,1986
Primary Activity
Introduced project and
identified major issues
Announcements and screening of
applicants.
Door to door survey
Presented needs and constraints
analyses and identified major
issues.
Selected CAC chairman, presented
preliminary alternatives
Presented water use projections
and alternatives.
Distributed approximately 200
copies
Discussed feasible alternatives
Presented alternatives and
identified major issues
H-l
-------
Responsiveness summaries of the meetings listed above were prepared
and distributed to the project mailing list following each meeting.
These summaries and the Project Newsletter comprise the remainder of
this Appendix.
H-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
PROJECT SCOPING MEETING
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Date: 7:30 PM, Thursday
December 17, 1985
Place: Territorial Court Building
Boulon Center
Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands
Introduction;
The scoping meeting for the Cruz Bay Wastewater Facilities Plan
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was a public meeting held by
representatives of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -
Region II and its consultant, CE Maguire, Inc. The purpose of the
meeting was to introduce the project to interested public officials,
citizens, and other individuals; to present major issues involved in
thisyproject; and to offer attendees the opportunity to comment and
ask questions on the project.
Approximately thirty (30) persons attended the meeting. (See attach-
ment A for a list of attendees)
Each attendee was given a "scoping meeting handout", which included a
description of the project's purpose and need, a preliminary EIS
outline, and a preliminary project schedule.
The following is a summary of the evening's proceedings.
Presentation;
Mr. Cecil George, Commissioner of the Virgin Islands Department of
Public Works, opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and intro-
ducing Mr. William Lawler, EPA project officer. Mr. Lawler introduced
the representatives of EPA and its consultant who were present,
briefly addressed the purpose and need of the project, and discussed
the purpose of the scoping meeting. The purpose of the meeting was
stated as (1) to bring forth issues involved in the project, and (2)
to welcome comments and questions on the project.
H.a-1
-------
Mr. Clinton Webb, project manager for CE Maguire, Inc., then presented
a more in-depth discussion of the project's purpose and need. Mr.
Webb explained that EPA was required by the National Environmental
Policy Act to prepare an EIS for Cruz Bay wastewater facilities plan,
and that the project would be conducted under an aggressive schedule
in order to permit a fiscal year 1986 EPA design/construction grant.
Finally, Mr. Dean Slocutn, project Planner for CE Maguire, Inc.,
briefly described the importance of the project's public participation
program and Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Slocum also notified
attendees that CE Maguire will be conducting a door to door survey of
wastewater treatment needs in Cruz Bay during the week of January
12-18, 1986.
Comments/Responses:
After the presentations by EPA and CE Maguire, Inc., Mr. Lawler
invited attendees to comment or ask questions on the project. The
comments and questions raised and the responses to these are summa-
rized as follows:
Question: Will EPA funding be available to pay for operation and
maintenance of wastewater facilities?
Response: No, the EPA grant may be used for design and construction of
facilities only.
Comment; The Virgin Islands Public Works Department (PWD) must
reactivate and enforce the sewer-use fee. These funds may
be 'sed to pay for operation and maintenance of facilities.
Question; Will residents who are currently using septic tanks be
required to connect to the proposed system?
Response: PWD will encourage these residents to connect to this
system.
Comment: PWD has extended its study of wastewater needs to areas
beyond the boundary of the area which is eligible for EPA
wastewater facility funding.
Question: If new, bigger wastewater treatment facilities are
implemented but not properly operated/maintained, won't this
just increase the problems?
Response: The point is well taken. EPA will carefully consider this
point in weighing alternatives, and will implement a
relatively simple system with low operation and maintenance
requirements.
Comment: The population of St. John is divided on whether or not
more growth should occur. The proposed wastewater facili-
ties may have a positive effect on growth by influencing
higher density zoning.
H.O--2
-------
Comment: The technical aspects of the Comprehensive Plan for the
Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay are not understandable to the
layman and ordinary citizen of St. John. EPA should explain
the technical aspects of alternatives in simple terms.
Comment; It is good that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
being prepared for this project, but an EIS is not good if
it only produces more words and more time spent planning.
The document must yield a sound and implementable plan of
action.
Comment: It is difficult to establish a Citizens Advisory Committee
that will have real power to influence decisions, because
Cruz Bay is such a small community. Political decisions are
typically made on St. Thomas, with little input from the
people on St. John.
Comment; Environmental issues (particularly those associated with a
potential ocean outfall) should be addressed more thoroughly
in the EIS than in the Comprehensive Plan for Sewage Needs
for Cruz Bay.
Question: What did EPA find deficient in the Comprehensive Plan for
Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay report? Was this report a waste of
time and money?
Response: This report was not a waste of resources. It was the first
step in the planning process for the overall Cruz Bay
wastewater facilities project. In reviewing this report,
EPA found that the project involves issues that must be
addressed in more detail, and therefore required the
preparation of an EIS.
Question: Is Cruz Bay's existing wastewater treatment plant
functioning properly?
Response: No, the plant is not operating in compliance with EPA design
criteria.
Question: When will EPA funding be granted for design and construction
of the proposed facilities? Isn't EPA cutting back on
funding wastewater facilities?
Response: EPA expects to issue a design/construction grant for this
project before October 1, 1986. Although the Clean Water
Act has not yet been reauthorized by Congress, EPA allocates
(under provisions of this Act) approximately one million
dollars each year to the Virgin Islands government for
design and construction of wastewater facilities. The exact
amount of the grant for this project has not yet been
determined.
H.a-3
-------
Question; What happens to the money that EPA collects from the Virgin
Islands government as a fine for not complying with waste-
water treatment criteria?
Response: This money is put into a fund for the territorial government
to use for operation and maintenance of its wastewater
treatment plants.
Question: Is EPA satisfied with the Virgin Islands government's effort
to bring its plants into compliance with EPA criteria?
Response: As of tonight, yes. However, it is important to continue
this effort and push to get the plans implemented.
Comment: Citizens need to know the chain of command of the Virgin
Islands government so that they know with whom to speak
about specific issues. It is unclear who is responsible for
issues such as wastewater facilities, for instance.
Comment: It is good that EPA is working on this project. Please
finish it as soon as possible so that the problems can be
solved.
Comment: The project study area includes only areas where
condominiums and other development will occur. Needy areas
are not included.
Question: Do citizens have access to documents and other resources in
the Virgin Islands Public Works Department's (PWD) office,
so that they may learn more about wastewater facilities?
Response: Yes, all of these resources are public information.
Citizens are welcome to go to the PWD office and review this
material.
Question: Will EPA be considering any other treatment plant sites than
that which was proposed in the Comprehensive Plan for the
Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay?
Response; Yes, EPA will determine if there are other feasible sites by
conducting on site fieldwork and by analyzing maps and other
pertinent resources.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 PM, with an
understanding that anyone interested in serving on the Citizens
Advisory Committee would notify EPA immediately.
Please Note:
EPA consultants will be conducting a door to door
survey of wastewater treatment needs in Cruz Bay during
the week of January 12-18.
H.a-4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
DATE: 8:00 PM, THURSDAY
JANUARY 16, 1986
PLACES: TERRITORIAL COURT BUILDING
BOULON CENTER
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, US VIRGIN ISLANDS
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the first Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting was
to create the CAC as required by law and to introduce prospective CAC
members to the project. The meeting included a presentation of the
major issues and provided an opportunity to comment and ask questions
relating to the project.
Approximately thirty (30) people attended the meeting. (See Attach-
ment A for a list of attendees.)
The following is a summary of the evening's proceeding:
PRESENTATION;
Mr. Clinton L. Webb, project manager of CE Maguire, Inc., opened the
meeting by welcoming the attendees. He briefly addressed the purpose
and need of the project and discussed the purpose of the CAC meeting.
The purpose of the meeting was stated as follows:
(1) The opportunity for admission to the CAC by the public as
well as individuals representing local/territorial agencies,
the appointment of CAC chairman and;
(2) The opportunity to comment and ask questions relating to the
project.
Mr. Webb then described the need for EIS preparation for Cruz Bay as
required by the National Environmental Policy Act and that the plan
would be conducted under an aggressive schedule in order to permit a
fiscal year 1986 EPA design/construction grant. Finally Mr. Webb
mentioned the door to door survey of wastewater treatment needs in
Cruz Bay that was currently underway during the week of January 12,
1986.
-------
COMMENT/RESPONSES:
After the presentation by CE Maguire, Inc., Mr. Webb invited attendees
to comment or ask questions on the project. The comments and ques-
tions raised and the responses to these are summarized as follows:
Question: There was a previous CAC chairman (Rudolph Thomas). Will
this new CAC change or keep him?
Response: The previous chairman had been invited to the 1/16/86 CAC
meeting. He will be contacted again to see if he wants to
be chairman of the Cruz Bay Wastewater Facilities Plan EIS.
Comment: CEM is requested to take into account that seasonal homes
have an impact on the water usage flow.
Comment: The original study area has been expanded to possibly
include poor sewage discharge areas not in the Cruz Bay
drainage basin. If cost-effective (or necessary) these
areas may also have access to the new wastewater facility.
Question: Why hasn't this committee met before?
Response: Each individual EPA project is required by law to establish
a new CAC committee and the purpose of this meeting is to
establish the new CAC.
Question: Had attendance to this meeting been restricted?
Response: No, this meeting was set to provide an opportunity for
anyone (public or private) to participate on the CAC.
Comment: All the original CAC members were invited to join this
project CAC. Not all have accepted. (A list of the previ-
ous members was passed among the attendees)
Comment: The previous meeting had agreed on the upgrading of the
existing sewage treatment plant.
Question: Does the Department of Public Works (DPW) have new plans for
plant improvement?
Response; No, not yet.
Question: Were the ex-committee members not invited or interested?
Response: Those members were invited.
Comment: It is mandated by law that a new CAC be formed for each
project.
-------
Comment: This meeting will reflect strongly on who will be chosen for
the committee by EPA.
Comment: The planning office (VIPO) wants to be represented on the
committee but not as chairman. The VIPO also wants a good
cross-section of the population on the CAC.
Comment: Chairmanship should be served by a private citizen, and the
purpose of the CAC is to "fill the gaps" that may have
occurred in the original investigations.
Comment; The public document should be pallitable to the average
citizen.
Question: Where do the Virgin Islands stand in EPA's priority?
Response: The Virgin Islands are not in any ranking systems for
funding. When the study and final designs are complete,
then the funding process starts. This study will get St.
John on the "stream" of the process to get funding.
Comment: (To the attendees from a private citizen) I have a copy of
a Washington, DC Committee Report that recognizes the severe
situation in Cruz Bay and says that the funding process has
already begun.
Question: Can the project be speeded up?
takes so long.
We cannot understand why it
Response: The project is already on an aggressive schedule and the due
process of funding must be followed.
Comment: The money is available for the project and the reality of
its (facility) construction is closer.
Mr. Webb then asked (from the list of attendees) who would want to be
on the CAC. He then informed attendees that letters would be sent to
CAC members for further meeting dates and project updates. Fifteen
(15) members volunteered for CAC duty.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. with a 45 minute personal question/
answer period.
H.fc-3-
-------
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN EIS
1st CAC Meeting - January 16, 1986 - Boulon Center, Cruz Bay, VI
MEETING LIST
NAME
*Ralf H. Boulon, Jr.
*Robert L. Norton
*Brian Turnbull
Cecil A. George
Lillian Smith
Roy L. Sewer
*Gabriel St. Surin
*Kurt Van Gelder
Morris Nicholson
*Deborah Charles for
Sen. Maynard
*Ken Damon
*Ralph Jones
*Alline Thurlow
*Victor Johansson
Marc Pacifico
Marcia Gilnack
*Haynes Small
*Frederica Payne
*Neal Sprauve
*Leopold Chinnery
*Geraldine Brown
*Glen Speer
*Warren A. Sewer
Clint Webb
Andrew Kuchta
Dean Slocum
ORGANIZATION
DCCA-Div.Fish & Wildlife
DCCA/DFW
V.I.P.O.
DPW
Merchant
Resident
DPW
DCCA/NRM
deJongh Assoc.
Legislature
Resident
PWD
Resident
Resident
DCCA/Natural Resources
DCCA/NRM 3-9310
Resident
Resident
Resident, PWD
Resident, PWD
Resident, PWD
Resident
Resident, PWD
CE Maguire,Inc.
CE Maguire, Inc.
CE Maguire, Inc.
ADDRESS/PHONE »
101 East Nazareth, St.T. 5-6762
101 Estate Nazareth,St.T. "
P.O.Box 2606, St.Thomas,VI 4-1730
P.O.Box 83, St.John,VI 6-6766
P.O.Box 181 - St. John
P.O.Box 4400 - St. Thomas
P.O.Box 6155, St.Thomas.VI 00801
P.O.Box 66, St. John, VI 00830
776-6233
6-3-103 Est.Carolina 6-6610
Coki Point #9 5-4230
East End, St. John 6-6920
Rendezvous Bay 6-6354
1600 Grapetree Bay, St. Croix 3-9353
West Indies Lab., Teague Bay,Ctsd.St.
Cruz Bay, St. John Box 6-6390
P.O.Box 312 - St. John 6-6484
*Box 353, St. John 6-7556
Cruz Bay, St.John 6-7556
Cruz Bay, St. John
*P.O.Box 111, St. John 6-6920
P.O.Box 4653, St. Thomas 6-7556
1 Court St., New Britain.CT 06051
(203) 224-9141
1 Court St., New Britain, CT 06051
(203) 224-9141
1 Court St., New Britain, CT 06051
(203) 224-9141
* Interested in being a CAC member
H.b-4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
SECOND CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
DATE: 8:00 P.M. THURSDAY
FEBRUARY 27, 1986
PLACE: OFFICE OF VICTOR JOHANSSON, ARCHITECT
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, USVI
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the second Citizens Advisory Committee CCAC) meeting
was to solidify the formation of the CAC and present recent project
developments for the CAC's consideration. Three members of the CE
Maguire, Inc. project team and ten interested citizens or officials
attended the meeting, as shown on the attached list.
PRESENTATION:
Clinton Webb, CE Maguire project manager, opened the meeting by
reminding attendees of the CAC's purpose and scope. The CAC is to
serve as a group which represents community interests, reviews EPA's
findings and proposals regarding this project, and advises EPA on
these findings and proposals. Formation of a CAC for a project such
as this is a federal requirement. The CAC should select a chairperson
and secretary, and should determine the minimum number of members
required to constitute a quorum for voting on issues.
The CAC elected Victor Johansson as acting chairperson and Alline
Thurlow as acting secretary. Richard Berlandy, project engineer, then
presented the findings of the recent survey of local sewage needs and
Jared Wibberley, project ecologist/environmental planner, presented
the findings of an analysis of environmental constraints to growth in
the study area. Mr. Berlandy also presented the collection, treat-
ment, effluent disposal, and sludge disposal alternatives being
considered for this project. All of this information will be formally
presented in the public meeting and the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, both scheduled for May, 1986.
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS:
Mr. Webb invited the attendees to comment and ask questions on the
project. These comments and questions, along with responses to the
questions, are summarized below.
H.C-I
-------
Question: Why were service and infrastructure constraints (such as
the limited public water supply) not quantified in area or
percentage of study area in the constraints analysis?
Response: These constraints cannot be mapped or measured like physical
constraints (such as steep slopes or National Park Service
(NFS) land, though they may be equally or more influential.
Question: Why does the sum of percentages of total study area covered
by the quantitative constraints equal more than 100 percent?
Response: These constraints are not mutually excessive, one may
overlap another.
Question: Are areas with multiple constraints strictly prohibited from
future development?
Response: Not necessarily, it depends on the actual influence of each
particular constraint.
Question: Why are NFS land and VI Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
Program land shown together on a map?
Response: Mainly in order to consolidate information. Although both
are legal constraints to development, it is recognized that
development is prohibited in NFS land, while development may
be permitted under special conditions in CZM land.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 PM.
-------
*Ken Damon
Marcia Gilnack
*Rafe Boulon
Marc Pacifico
*Alline Thurlow
*Geraldine Brown
*Haynes Small
*Elroy Henley
*Victor Johansson
*Kurt VanGelder
Richard Berlandy
Clint Webb
Jared Wibberley
ATTENDANCE LIST
Resident, St. John
DCCA -DNRM, St. John
DCCA - DFW, St. Thomas
DCCA - DNRM, St/ Croix
Resident, St. John
PWD, St. John
Resident, St. John
Assistant Administrator, St. John
Resident, St. John
DCCA - DNRM, St. Thomas
Project Engineer, CE Maguire, Inc.
Project Manager, CE Maguire, Inc.
Project Ecologist, CE Maguire, Inc.
*CAC Member
H.C-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
THIRD CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
DATE: 7:50 P.M. THURSDAY
MARCH 20, 1986
PLACE: TERRITORIAL COURT ROOM, BOULON CENTER
CRUZ BAY, ST. JOHN, USVI
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the third Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting was to
present recent project developments and issues to the CAC for consideration
and discussion. Three members of the CE Maguire, Inc. project team, a rep-
resentative of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region II, and
nine residents or officials attended the meeting (see attached attendance
list). The following is a summary of the proceedings.
PRESENTATION:
Victor Johansson, CAC chairperson, opened the meeting by requesting a vote
to confirm his status as chairperson. This was confirmed by a majority note
of present CAC members. Mr. Johansson then introduced Mr. Clinton Webb,
Maguire Project Manager.
Mr. Webb told attendees that the project team would present summarized find-
ings of population and water use projections and the alternatives analysis.
Dean Slocum, Project Planner, informed the meeting that the following increases
are protected to occur in the core study area:
. an increase in population from 1892 (existing pop.) to 2555
in .the design year 2010,
. an increase in per capita water use from 25 gallons per capita
per day (gpcd) go 50 gpcd, and
. an increase in overall water use (including commercial and other
use) from 92,150 gallons per day (gpd) to 192,290 gpd. '
Richard Berlandy, Project Engineer, discussed the proposed wastewater collection
system and identified two alternative treatment plant sites: (1) on the east
bank of Enighed Pond, adjacent to the existing pump station, and (2) at the site
H.d-1
-------
2.
of the existing treatment plant(in the spit between Enighed Pond and Turner Bay).
Mr. Webb and Mr. Johansson invited comments and questions from the audience.
These are summarized (with responses to the questions raised) below.
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
Question:
Response:
Question:
Response:
Comment:
Question/
Comment:
Response:
Question:
Response:
Comment:
Comment:
Are flood elevations being considered in treatment plant
siting and preliminary design?
Yes. A plant should be sited above the 100 year flood elevation
(6 feet above mean high tide) and should be protected to the 500
year flood level (approximately 10 feet above msl).
Are there any VI government regulations concerning required
hook-ups to a wastewater treatment system and the collection
of a system user fee?
There are such regulations and DPW is currently preparing to
implement a program for collecting user fees.
It is imperative that user fees be collected and used to
assure proper operation and maintenance of wastewater facilities.
The EIS for this project should address this issue.
The existing and projected average water use flow figures (25 gpcd
and 50 gpcd respectively) seem too high. Is this really accurate?
While average water use per se may not actually be this high, it is
important to account for the excess loadings in the wastewater due
to heavy solids content. While water use in the study area is
much lower than in other areas of the United States, the amount
of solids in the wastewater is generally the same.
Have any other treatment plant sites (besides the two identified
earlier) been considered? Has private land or National Park
Service (NPS) land been considered?
Siting,on private land has not been deeply pursued based on the
assumed high property values. Sites on NPS land were pursued
further, but NPS expressed reservation about allowing such siting
due to legal and political complications.
EPA should consider three additional plant sites on private land
and one on NPS land. The CAC will pursue the issue of using NPS
land with NPS officials and will inform EPA of the outcome in
two weeks.
The area on the east bank of Enighed Pond (one of the proposed
plant sites) is very valuable to the community for purposes other
than the location of a treatment plant.
-------
3.
Comment: NPS, Caneel Bay Foundation, and Allen Williams (developers for
the new Virgin Grand Hotel) should be more involved in this
project because of their impact on the community and their
resources. Representatives of these organizations should attend
the next meeting.
Question: Will an ocean outfall be recommended for effluent disposal?
Response: Both the ocean outfall and land application methods of wastewater
effluent disposal are being considered. (The Caneel Bay Foundation
has expressed an interest in using the effluent to irrigate its
lawns.)
CONCLUSION:
A public meeting date was set for Thursday, May 1 (at 6:30 p.m. in the Territorial
Court Room). It was decided that the CAC should meet on the night before this
(April 30th). The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.
-------
NAME
Clint Webb
Dean Slocum
Richard Berlandy
William Lawler
Alline Turlow
Glen Speer
Robert E. Rutherford
Morley Rutherford
Haynes Small
Geraldine Brown
Warren Sewer
Gabriel St. Surin
Victor Johansson
ATTENDANCE LIST
AFFILIATION
CE Maguire, Project Manager
CE Maguire, Inc., Planner
CE Maguire, Inc., Engineer
USEPA - Project Officer
Resident
ADDRESS/PHONE
1 Court St., New Britain.CT
(203) 224-9141
VI Public Works Department
Resident, CAC Chairman
26 Federal Plaza, New York
St. John
St. John
Monte Bay
ii
St. John
St. John
St. John
St. Thomas
St. John
H.ci-4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
FOURTH CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
DATE:
PLACE:
INTRODUCTION:
7:30 P.M., Wednesday
April 30, 1986
Territorial Court Room
Boulon Center
Cruz Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands
The purpose of the fourth Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
meeting was to present detailed information on the project
alternatives to CAC members. Representatives of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its consultant
firm, CE Maguire, Inc.,attended-the meeting to make the
presentation. Ten CAC members also attended. (See attached
list).
PRESENTATION:
Mr. Victor Johanssen, CAC chairperson, opened the meeting, reporting that
he had spoken with the superintendent of the VI National Park and that the
use of Park land for a treatment plant does not look promising. Mr. Johanssen
then turned the meeting over to the CE Maguire project team for the presen-
tation of alternatives.
Mr. Clinton Webb, Project Manager, presented a brief overview of the process
by which the project alternatives have been developed, evaluated, and selected.
Mr. Richard Berlandy, Project Engineer, then discussed the alternatives in
more detail. His presentation is summarized by the following major points:
. The proposed collection system would cost approximately $3 million, and
is very similar to that proposed in the 1985 Facilities Plan.
. The size of the proposed treatment facilities is based primarily on the
wastewater solids loading, which is expected to increase by approximately
30% between 1990 and design year 2010.
. Five treatment pi ant technologies were considered, ranging in cost from
$2.5 million (aerated lagoon) to $7 million (recirculating sand filter).
The rotating biological contactor, oxidation ditch, and tricking filter
technologies were also considered.
. Three treatment plant sites were considered. One of these may not be a
feasible alternative because it is located on National Park Service land.
-------
2.
. The use of ultraviolet light (rather than chlorination) is recommended
for wastewater effluent disinfection.
. Alternative effluent disposal methods considered are ocean outfall, land
application, and supplementary irrigation of lawns at the Caneel Bay Resort.
. The cost of the complete wastewater treatment system alternatives range in
cost from approximately $7 million to $11 million.
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND RESPONSES
Following this presentation, attendees were invited to comment or ask questions.
The comments and questions raised and the responses to these are summarized as
fol1ows:
Comment: Outfall construction could be less expensive if light equipment
is used.
Comment: It seems that land application would be more environmentally
sound than ocean outfall.
Response: This may be so, although land application could cause significant
adverse impacts if wastewater is not properly treated.
Question: Is there any way to use land application but to temporarily
discontinue this process in the event of a treatment system
failure?
Response: Yes, a requirement may be made in a sewer use ordinance that
effluent must be of an acceptable quality to be land applied.
However, this requirement would have to be enforced.
Question; Why are the costs of the proposed system higher than those
presented in the 1985 Facilities Plan while the proposed
collection system is essentially the same?
Response: The population projections are higher than those used for the
Facilities Plan. Also, EPA projects higher flows from non-
residential sources of wastewater (excluding those with their
own treatment systems).
Question: Has the National Park Service (NPS) been contacted about the
possible use of their land for a treatment plant?
Response: Yes, both project team members and CAC members have spoken
with the VI National Park Superintendent. The superintendent's
general feeling is that it would be very difficult to implement
such use. EPA will send a copy of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) to NPS for review and official comment.
-------
Question:
Response:
Comment:
Comment:
.Question:
Response:
Question:
Response:
CONCLUSION
3.
Is the CAC responsible for making a recommendation regarding
the alternatives presented by EPA at this point?
The CAC may make a recommendation immediately or after the
Draft EIS is distributed (in late May).
Land application at Caneel Bay seems to be the best effluent
disposal alternative, if it is implementable. The Draft EIS
should indicate this.
Implementation of the proposed wastewater facilities may
induce growth in the study area.
Have the needs of the extended study area (including Monte,
Gift Hill, Fish Bay, etc.) been considered by EPA?
Yes. The needs of this area were identified through a needs
survey. This survey indicated that the wastewater treatment
needs of this area would best be served through the use of
on-site (septic) systems. An exception is the Power Boyd's
Plantation area, which is recommended for connection to the
centralized treatment facilities.
Has there been any communication with residents living near
the alternative treatment plant sites.
This will occur at the public meeting (on May 1 - the follow-
ing night) and the public hearing (on June 26).
Mr. William Lawler, EPA Project Officer, discussed the upcoming project events.
These are:
. distribution of the Draft EIS to the public in late May,
. 45 day comment period after this distribution,
. public hearing on June 26 (near the,end of the comment period),
. distribution of Final EIS in late July/early August, and
. possible EPA record of decision (to award a project grant) by
early September.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 P.M.
H.e-3
-------
ATTENDANCE LIST
4th CAC Meeting - April 30, 1986
Name
Bill Lawler
Clinton Webb
Rich Berlandy
Dean Slocum
Rafe Boulon
Caroline Rogers
Kurt VanGelder
Brian Turnbull
Haynes Small
Geraldine Brown
Warren Sewer
Glen Speer
Elroy Henley
Victor Johannsen
Organization
U.S. EPA - Region II
CE Maguire, Inc.
CE Maguire, Inc.
CE Maguire, Inc.
DCCA, Div.Fish and Wildlife
National Park Service
DCCA, Div. Natural Resource Mgmt.
VI Planning Office
Resident
Resident
Department of Public Works
Resident
Administrator's Office
Resident
New York, N.Y.
New Britain, CT
New Britain, CT
New Britain, CT
St. Thomas, VI
St. Thomas, VI
St. Thomas, VI
St. Thomas, VI
St. John, VI
St. John, VI
St. John, VI
St. John, VI
St. John, VI
St. John, VI
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
CRUZ BAY WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
PUBLIC MEETING
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
DATE: 6:30 P.M., Thursday
May 1, 1986
PLACE: Territorial Court Room
Boulon Center
Cruz Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the public meeting was to present information on the wastewater
treatment system alternatives being considered for Cruz Bay and on the overall
progress of this project. Approximately thirty (30) persons attended this
meeting, including representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region II and its consultant, CE Maguire, Inc. (See attached list)
PRESENTATION
Mr. William Lawler, EPA, Project Officer, opened the meeting by explaining
that this project is being conducted in order to determine the most cost-
effective, environmentally sound, and implementable solution to wastewater treat-
ment needs in Cruz Bay.
Mr. Richard Berlandy, Project Engineer, then described the alternatives being
considered as he had during the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting on
the previous night (see Responsiveness Summary for the fourth CAC meeting).
COMMENTS, jjUE^TIQiS, ANDj RESPONSES:
At the end of this presentation, attendees were invited to comment or ask questions.
The comments and questions raised and the responses to these are summarized as
follows:
Question: Has EPA received a favorable response from the National Park
Service (NPS) regarding the use of treatment plant site #3?
Answer: No. Members of the project team and the CAC have spoken with
local NPS officials, whose response has been that it is extremely
unlikely that NPS land could be used for this purpose, due to a
variety of legal and political problems.
Comment: One benefit of site #3 is that treatment facilities would be
further away from residences than at the other sites.
-------
2.
Question:
Response:
Question:
Response:
Question:
Response:
Question:
Response:
Question:
Response:
Question:
Response:
Question:
Response:
Summary:
Were any sites considered in the extended study area
(outside of the Cruz Bay drainage basin)?
Yes. Two sites in the extended study area were initially
considered but dropped due to their distance from wastewater
service areas and disposal sites.
Has EPA considered serving the extended study (in addition to
the "core" study area) area with centralized facilities?
Yes, but based on the findings of the needs survey, on-site
treatment systems were determined to be a more appropriate
solution to the extended study area's needs.
Would there be a problem in acquiring the land for site #1
from the VI Port Authority?
DPW feels that it should be able to obtain this land without
much problem.
When will the proposed wastewater facilities be operational?
It is difficult to say, because this depends on the availability
of funding. Generally, facility design takes 1-2 years and
construction takes another 1 - 2 years.
What are the chances that the proposed system will not be built?
The chances are very low that none of the proposed facilities
will be built.
Will the Draft EIS be available to the public?
Yes. This document will be available for public review at the
St. John Administrator's office, Cruz Bay Public Library, Enid
M. Baa Public Library in St. Thomas, and Department of Public
Works office in St. Thomas. In addition, copies will be sent
to CAC members. The Draft EIS will be available in late May -
early June.
Are there any measures available to improve wastewater treat-
ment in the interim period before the proposed facilities are
operational?
DPW must address this issue. For instance, the Department may
develop an interim wastewater facilities plan.
Attendees were reminded that the Draft EIS will be available for public review in
i is the formal pub
The public meeting
late May - early June and that the next project meeting,which is the formal public
hearing, will be held on June 26'In the same meeting place. ' "~~*
was adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.
-------
NAME
ATTENDANCE LIST
5/1/86 - Public Meeting
Clint Webb
Richard Berlandy
Dean Slocum
Bill Lawler
Caroline Rogers
Sylvia Kudirka
Dot & Doug Schouler
Warren A. Sewer
Deborah Charles/Sen.
Maynard's Office
Robert L. Norton
Alline W. Thurlow
Glen Speer
Gabriel St. Surin
Brian Turnbull
Noble B. Samuel
Emily Stone
WAS
Roy Sewer
Austin Dalmida
Calvert Marsh
Ralph Jones
Egbert Hendricks
Irma Pickering
Ira Fleming
Llewellyn A. Sewer
Jessie L. Richards,
Haynes Small
Geraldine Brown
CE Maguire, Inc.
New Britain, CT
Sr.
EPA - Region II
VINP
Resident
Tradewinds Newspaper
Resident
H
DPW
V.I.P.O.
Adm. Office
Resident
n
Retired Admin.
DPW
Asst. Appraiser
DPW
Supv. - PWD
Resident
Sen. Hodge's Office
Director Veterans Affairs
Resident
New York, NY
St. John
STT/St. John
STT/St. John
St. John
St. Thomas
St. John
-------
APPENDIX I
GLOSSARY
-------
APPENDIX I
GLOSSARY
1-1 AGENCIES:
DCCA (VI) Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
DPW (VI) Department of Public Works
EPA (United States) Environmental Protection Agency
FWS (United States) Fish and Wildlife Service
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
SCS (United States) Soil Conservation Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VIPA Virgin Islands Port Authority
VIPO Virgin Islands Planning Office
WAPA (VI) Water and Power Authority
1-2 ABBREVIATIONS:
ac acre
C Centigrade
CAC Citizens Advisory Committee
cm centimeters
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
F Fahrenheit
ft feet
gal gallons
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
ha hectares
in inch
km kilometers
1-1
-------
ABBREVIATIONS (Cont'd)
kph kilometers per hour
lat latitude
long longitude
1 liter
m meter
mi mile
mph miles per hour
mg miligrams
mgd million gallons per day
N North
O&M operation and maintenance
ppm parts per million
t U.S. ton
TPDES Territorial Pollution Discharge Elimination System (permit)
W West
yd yard
1-3 DEFINITIONS:
Alluvium: Sand, silt, or similar loose material deposited by
flowing water.
Aquifer:
A subsurface geologic formation made up of permeable
rock, sand, or gravel that is water-bearing.
Benthic:
Pertaining to the sea floor or deep water.
Contamination: Any introduction into water and/or soil of micro-
organisms, chemicals, wastes or wastewater in a concen-
tration that makes the water unfit for its desired use.
1-2
-------
DEFINITIONS (Cont'd)
Design Life:
Ecosystem:
The useful period for which the elements of a sewage
disposal facility are designed. The design life will
vary according to the nature of the facility and the
relative ease of increasing capacity.
An interrelated community of plants, animals,
bacteria, and other physical and chemical
features in an environment.
Effluent: Wastewater flowing out of a sewage treatment plant,
after being treated.
Evapotrans-
pi ration:
The process by which moisture is returned to the
atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration.
Force Mains: Pipelines that convey wastewater from one elevation to
a higher elevation under pressure.
Gray Water: Water reused for nonpotable purposes.
Grinder Pump: A unit used to lift wastewater from homes below street
level to the lateral or interceptor sewer.
Gut:
A local expression for a watercourse.
House
Connections:
The service sewer constructed from outside of the house
foundation to the common sewer located in the street.
Impervious: Impenetrable; water cannot pass through.
1-3
-------
DEFINITIONS (Cont'd)
Industrial
Wastes:
The liquid wastes from industrial manufacturing pro-
cesses, trade or business, as distinct from domestic
sewage.
Infiltration: Seepage of ground water into sewers through pipe
joints, broken pipes, cracks or openings in manholes,
house connections or other defects.
Influent:
Wastewater flowing into a sewage treatment plant.
Interceptor
Sewer:
A trunk or major sewer into which the sewage from one
or more main sewers is discharged, intercepting the
sewage which would otherwise discharge to surface
drainage courses.
Lateral Sewer: A common sewer serving buildings and homes on one or
two streets.
Main Sewer: A sewer that is receiving waste from two or more
lateral sewers.
One hundred
(100) year
Flood:
A flood of the magnitude which is expected to occur
with a frequency of once in 100 years.
Orinthologist: A bird specialist
Orographic: A type of meterological effect in which mountains form
a barrier to air currents, causing moist air to be
lifted to higher elevations and resulting in precipita-
tion.
1-4
-------
DEFINITIONS (Cont'd)
Permeability: The ability of rock, soil, sediment or other material
to allow movement of water through it without damage to
the structure of the material.
Pollution: A condition created by the presence of harmful or
objectionable material in water.
Sewage:
A combination of the water-carried wastes from resid-
ences, business buildings, institutions, and industrial
establishments, together with such ground, surface, and
storm waters as may be present.
Sewerage
Systems:
Tectonic:
Tuff:
Watercourse:
All facilities for collecting, pumping, and transport-
ing sewage.
Pertaining to movement or deformation of earth's crust.
Trunk Sewer: A major sewer collecting flow from several main sewers,
Rock formed of compacted volcanic fragments.
A channel in which a flow of water occurs, either
continuously or intermittently.
METRIC-CONVERSION TABLE
1 kilometer (km)
1 hectare (ha)
1 meter (m)
1 centimeter (cm)
1 kilometer per hour (kph)
1 cubic meter (m3)
1 litre (1)
1 metric ton (mt)
parts per million (ppm)
0.6 miles
2.5 acres
3.3 feet (ft)
0.4 inches (in)
0.6 miles per hour (mph)
264 gallons (gal)
0.26 gallons (gal)
1.1 U.S. tons (t)
1-5
-------
APPENDIX J
CULTURAL RESOURCES
-------
APPENDIX J
CULTURAL RESOURCES
This appendix contains the summaries from the Stage 1A and Stage IB
Cultural Resource Surveys conducted for the study area. A Stage 1A
survey is a preliminary investigation of existing records that is
undertaken in order to identify the potential for cultural resources
in an area. These surveys were prepared by MAAR Associates, Inc.,
under contract to deJongh Associates, as- part of the Comprehensive
Plan for the Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay, St. John, V.I. The Stage 1A
survey for the core study area was completed in September, 1985, and
the Stage 1A survey for the extended study area was completed in
April, 1986.
Based on the findings of the Stage 1A Surveys, a Stage IB Survey was
performed by MAAR in July, 1986 in order to investigate more closely
the potential project impacts on cultural resources. The following
pages are reproduced directly from these studies.
-------
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY - CORE STUDY AREA
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Investigations
This Stage IA Cultural Resources Investigation of a proposed
Wastewater Treatment System at Cruz Bay, U.S. Virgin Islands was
conducted under the auspices of deJongh Associates, Inc. as an integral
part of the Environmental Impact Statement preparation. The
investigation was undertaken by MAAR Associates, Inc., acting as a
consultant to deJongh, in June and July 1985. The work involved
conducting a background study, a brief reconnaissance of the project area
watershed, and the analysis of available information to develop a
statement as to the potential of the proposed project to impact
significant cultural resources.
The background study involved gathering information about known and
potential aboriginal occupation within the watershed and the documented
and possible undocumented history of the Cruz Bay area. This was
accomplished by reviewing the available published and unpublished
documents as well as maps and land records. Reference sources at the
University of Delaware's Morris Library, the Library of Congress, the
Danish Archives in Copenhagen, the Enid Ba Library and National Park
Service libraries on St. Thomas, and the library at Enighed, Cruz Bay
were used to obtain this information.
Informant interviews and field reconnaissance were conducted by a
MAAR Associates, Inc. research team on St. John. During this phase of
the study, an attempt was made to contact all individuals with knowledge
of and/or interest in the aboriginal and historic periods of St. John.
Contacts were made with professional archaeologists and historians on St.
John and St. Thomas and with avocational historians and archaeologists in
the community of Cruz Bay.
The two day reconnaissance involved a pedestrian survey of the Cruz
Bay area and a vehicle survey of reported historic and prehistoric sites
within the limits of the proposed watershed project area. A large number
of both aboriginal and historic archaeological resources have been
identified through previous surveys and record searches (Figure III-l).
The following paragraphs summarize the results of the background
research, the informant interviews, and the field reconnaissance. They
also discuss the recommendations made for further investigation within
the impact area of the proposed wastewater treatment system.
Prehistoric Site Sensitivity
Despite the several archaeological survey and excavation projects
conducted in this part of the Antilles (Hatt 1924, Bullen 1962, Figueredo
and Bradstreet 1973, Johnston 1981 in the Virgin Islands, Carbone 1980 in
Puerto Rico, Vescelius n.d. and Figueredo 1976 in Vieques), attention has
only recently been given to the development of predictive settlement and
subsistence models for prehistoric cultures. In other parts of the
world, models which attempt to predict the locations and types of
settlements within a given cultural framework and temporal period have
proven useful as tools for archaeological survey as well as for
conservation planning efforts.
-------
Indians in this part of the Antilles depended on, mainly root crops, did
not require highly fertile soils. Therefore, soil fertility is probably
not a good predictor of prehistoric site location.
Topography on this mountainous island imposes a particularly serious
constraint for prehistoric settlement distribution. Fully 86 percent of
the island has grades of 20 percent or more. Therefore, habitation sites
would be limited to those few areas of level or gently sloping terrain.
Second, to minimize soil loss, aboriginal horticulturalists would
probably have preferred to farm level or gently sloping terrain. Level
or gently sloping terrain, therefore, should be a fairly good predictor
of settlement location.
The grounds around historic plantations are known to be likely
locations for prehistoric settlements. It cannot now be gainsaid that
all of them are disturbed beyond profitable salvage. These are locations
which must be considered to have moderate to high potential for
aboriginal sites.
Based on the foregoing considerations, the background research into
aboriginal settlement patterns in nearby St. Thomas, Vieques and Puerto
Rico, and on information previously available or obtained during the
Phase IA research on St. John itself, the potential for archaeological
resources to exist within the limits of the proposed wastewater treatment
system is very high. Figure II-l identifies a relatively large number of
areas of high potential for aboriginal resource zones including beaches
and salt ponds in the Calcareous Lowland Unit and the level or gently
sloping terrain with adequate soils in the Flat Ridgetops and Flat-Topped
Headlands Unit. There is a moderate potential in the Volcanic Mountain
Slopes Unit for farming and resource procurement encampments.
Consequently, there is a definite impact potential within the watershed.
Historic Archaeological Resource Sensitivity
The discussion of historic resources reported in the Historic
Overview and Data Base sections of this report demonstrate the obvious
significance of Danish, English and U.S. historical resources within the
Cruz Bay watershed. The potential for adverse impact to historic
archaeological and architectural resources is easily seen. In addition,
ephemeral, but nonetheless historically significant sites such as slave
villages, are almost certainly located in the project area. Pulsipher
(1985) has proposed the use of documentary data and ethnographic analogy
as tools in researching possible patterns of Caribbean slave multi-
dwelling units. Such sites can occupy as little as one-quarter acre and
leave little in the way of surface remains, although the observation of
remnant stands of economic plants and altered landforms may serve as
surface indicators. Subsurface testing in proximity to such indicators
may reveal artifacts and patterns of archaeological features, i.e., soil
stains where wooden, structural house parts, open hearths, trash pits,
etc. were once located.
Among the types of archaeological resources that have been
demonstrated to be of scientific and historical significance are
plantation sites, Caribbean town or urban sites, and those sites that
relate to the Afro-Caribbean peoples of the slave and post-emancipation
0-2
-------
.Three factors are involved in the construction of settlement pattern
models: 1) the identification and distribution of necessary or valued
natural resources in the prehistoric past; 2) the degree of disturbance,
and, therefore, the recognizability of aboriginal sites; and 3) the
existence of a representative sample of known sites.
Most models begin with the definition of the natural resources
exploited by a given population. As has been discussed, primary
prehistoric resources on St. John are freshwater and marine protein
sources (i.e., beach, mangrove swamp, salt pond habitats, etc.), more or
less level terrain with at least moderately fertile soils, and/or forests
that have a high variety of edible or otherwise useful plant species
(i.e., hardwoods for tools and sugar and starch components of the diet),
and cryptocrystalline rocks for the manufacture of lithic tools. These
resource zones were, no doubt, differentially emphasized in different
prehistoric economies. It should also be noted that St. John is small
enough that the various resource zones would always be in reasonable
proximity to each other and to prehistoric encampments throughout the
island. Trade between various communities could have decreased the
importance of the proximity to favored resources.
The most severe constraint to settlement during all cultural periods
would appear to be the availability of potable water due to the current
scarcity of freshwater springs and perennial rivers. Prehistoric water
availability would also appear to have precluded settlements in some
areas where other valuable natural resources might otherwise have been
attractive. Fresh water availability, therefore, should be the best
predictor of settlement location. Unfortunately, the distribution of
accessible fresh water cannot be determined in the absence of paleo-
environraental investigations. The present distribution is not a
reliable guide. The hydrology of the entire island has been altered due
to historic period deforestation and its effects on relative humidity,
bedrock absorption capacity, soil moisture retention, and runoff. As the
forest is allowed to regenerate in the Virgin Islands National Park area,
perhaps some of the ancient aquifers will be reactivated.
Accessibility to cryptocrystalline rocks for tool manufacture
probably presented few constraints to settlement, particularly in the
project area. St. John is well endowed with stone tool manufacturing
materials in the Louisenhoj andesites found- predominantly in the
northwestern section of the island. Although it is not as good a medium
for controlled chipping, basalts from the Water Island formation would
also have been adequate. It should also be noted that most tropical
peoples tend to utilize a wood/bone/shell tool kit, stone being used to
make other tools and stone tool technologies usually being
underdeveloped. Therefore, access to lithic materials is probably not a
good predictor of site location on St. John.
A serious consideration for hortlculturalists is access to fertile
soils. The degree of fertility required, however, is largely a function
of population density, insofar as dense populations tend to concentrate
use of the same soils subjecting them increasingly to nutrient depletion,
invasion of troublesome second growth, and erosion. There are no
indications so far of prehistoric population densities having reached
this magnitude. Moreover, the kind of staple crops that the prehistoric
J-3
-------
periods. As has been shown, the cultural resource potential of the
Cruz Bay Watershed study area is high and should contain examples of most
of the above resource types. A number of plantation sites have been
documented; many of these were owned and/or operated by persons within a
range of ethnic and socio-economic status positions. The presence of
documented Afro-Caribbean sites of the slave period and the post-
emancipation period may allow for studies of transition, adaptation by
blacks to new economic and social parameters, and ethnic remnants in
historic society.
In general, the research potential and historic resource
conservation and education opportunities within the study area of the
island of St. John are such that any impact to the available resource
base must be further evaluated. Specifically, those areas noted in
Figures 1-4 and II-2 should not be approached without concern for
possible impact to potentially significant cultural resources.
Recommendations
MAAR Associates, Inc. recommends that a Stage IB Cultural Resource
Survey be conducted within the expanded portion of the proposed Cruz Bay
Wastewater Treatment System on the island of St. John. Survey effort
should focus on those areas identified as high and moderate potential for
cultural resources (Figure II-l). However, even areas of relatively
steep slope, i.e., 20 to 40 percent grades, will likely contain evidence
of historic plantation activity and cannot be excluded from Stage IB
investigations.
It is recommended that this survey be initiated after the
development of a final and/or alternate plan(s). Stage IB surveys should
be conducted at all treatment plant, pump station, and effluent spray
sites proposed so that the results of the survey can be considered in the
final selection process. In addition, it cannot be assumed, because
the proposed collection system will be located beneath or alongside
existing roadways, i.e., in already disturbed areas, that the existing
disturbance has obliterated significant cultural resources. Moreover, in
the absence of historical documentation on the placement of current
roadways, it cannot be assumed that the current roadways have actually
destroyed earlier historic and/or prehistoric resources. For example,
were roadbeds cut or simply laid over historic roadways? Therefore, it
must be recommended that general collector pipe areas be surveyed by
means of frequent subsurface testing in adjacent house lots and other
adjoining areas in the town of Cruz Bay and outside of it.
The recommended Stage IB surveys should include additional
background research to assure that all pertinent Caribbean settlement
data, including slave settlements, is considered. Informant interviews
should be conducted over a sufficiently long period of time to allow for
the natural reluctance of Cruz Bay residents to divulge information about
aboriginal and historic resources of which they have knowledge. Field
investigations should include surface surveys. Intensive subsurface
testing and frequent shovel tests combined with limited test pitting. An
J-4
-------
evaluation of resource significance and assessment of potential impact
should be made in a research report. A shortened version, or popular
report, should be distributed to all involved agencies and made available
to the general public on St. John and abroad.
J-5
-------
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY - EXTENDED STUDY AREA
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Investigations
This Stage IA Cultural Resource Investigation of an expansion area
of the proposed Wastewater Treatment System at Cruz Bay, U.S. Virgin
Islands was conducted on behalf of deJongh Associates, Inc. as an
integral part of an Environmental Impact Assessment. The investigation
was undertaken by MAAR Associates, Inc., acting as a consultant to
deJongh, in November 1985. The work involved conducting a background
study, a brief reconnaissance of the project area watershed, and the
analysis of available information to develop a statement as to the
potential of the proposed project's to impact on significant cultural
resources.
The background study involved gathering information about known and
potential aboriginal occupation within the watershed and the documented
history of the Cruz Bay area. This was accomplished by reviewing
available published and unpublished documents as well as maps and land
records. Reference sources at various locations were used to obtain this
information.
Informant interviews and field reconnaissance were conducted by a
MAAR Associates, Inc. research team on St. John. During this phase of
the study, contact was made with individuals who have a knowledge of
and/or interest in the aboriginal and historic occupations of St. John.
Contacts were made with professional archaeologists and historians on St.
John and St. Thomas and with avocational historians and archaeologists on
the island of St. John.
The reconnaissance involved a vehicular survey of the expanded Cruz
Bay watershed area and of reported historic and prehistoric sites within
the limits of the proposed watershed project area. A small number of
aboriginal and historic archaeological resources have been identified
through previous surveys and record searches (Figures 1-4 and II-2). The
following paragraphs summarize the results of the background research,
the informant interviews, and the field reconnaissance. They also
discuss the recommendations made for further investigation within the
expanded impact area of the proposed wastewater treatment system.
Prehistoric Site Sensitivity
Despite the several archaeological surveys and excavation projects
conducted in this part of the Antilles (Hatt 1924; Bullen 1962; Figueredo
and Bradstreet 1973; Johnston 1981), in Puerto Rico, (Carbone 1980), and
in Vieques, (Figueredo 1976 and Vescielius 1979), only recently has
attention been given to the development of predictive settlement and
subsistence models for prehistoric cultures. In other parts of the
world, models which attempt to predict the locations and types of
settlements within a given cultural framework and temporal period have
proven useful as tools for archaeological survey as well as for
preservation planning efforts.
J-6
-------
Three factors are involved in the precision of settlement pattern
models: 1) The identification and distribution of necessary or valued
natural resources in the prehistoric past, 2) the degree of disturbance,
and, therefore, the recognizability of aboriginal sites, and 3) the
existence of a representative sample of known sites.
Most models begin with the definition of the natural resources
exploited by a given population. As has been discussed, primary
prehistoric resources on St. John are access to fresh water and marine
protein sources (i.e., beach, mangrove swamp, salt pond habitats, etc.),
more or less level terrain with at least moderately fertile soils and/or
forests that have a high variety of edible or otherwise useful plant
species (i.e., hardwoods for tools and sugar and starch components of the
dietary), and cryptocrystalline rocks for the manufacture of lithic
tools. These resource zones were no doubt differentially emphasized in
different prehistoric period economies. It should also be noted that St.
John is small enough that the various resource zones would always be in
reasonable proximity to each other and to prehistoric encampments
throughout the island. Trade between various communities could have
mitigated long distances to favored resources.
The most severe constraint to settlement during all cultural periods
would appear to be the availability of potable water, due to the current
scarcity of fresh water springs and perennial rivers. Prehistoric water
availabilities would also appear to have precluded settlements in some
areas where other valuable natural resources might otherwise have been
propitious. Freshwater availability, therefore, should be the best
predictor of settlement location. Unfortunately, the distribution of
accessible freshwater cannot be determined in the absence of paleo-
environmental investigations. The present distribution is absolutely no
guide, as the hydrology of the entire island has been altered due to
historic period deforestation and its effects on relative humidity,
bedrock absorption capacity, soil moisture retention, and runoff. As the
forest is allowed to regenerate in the Virgin Islands National Park area,
perhaps some of the ancient aquifers will be activated again.
Accessibility to cryptocrystalline rocks for tool manufacture
probably presented few constraints to settlement, particularly in the
project area. St. John is well endowed with stone tool manufacturing
materials in the Louisenhoj andesites found predominantly in the
northwestern section of the island. Although it is not as good a medium
for controlled chipping, basalts in the Water Island formation would have
been adequate. It should also be noted that most tropical peoples tend
to utilize a wood/bone/shell tool kit, stone being used to make other
tools and stone tool technologies usually being underdeveloped.
Therefore, access to lithic materials is not a good predictor of site
location on St. John.
A serious consideration for horticulturalists is access to fertile
soils. The degree of the fertility required, however, is largely a
function of population density, insofar as dense populations tend to
concentrate use of the same soils, subjecting them increasingly to
nutrient depletion, invasion of troublesome second growth, and erosion.
There are no indications so far of prehistoric population densities
J-7
-------
having reached this magnitude. Moreover, the kind of staple crops that
the prehistoric Indians of this part of the Antilles depended on, mainly
root crops, did not require highly fertile soils. Therefore, soil
fertility is probably not a good predictor of prehistoric site location.
Topography on this mountainous island imposes a particularly serious
constraint for prehistoric settlement distribution. Fully 86 percent of
the island has grades of 20 percent or more. Therefore, habitation sites
would be limited to those few areas of level or gently sloping terrain.
Second, to minimize soil loss, aboriginal horticulturalists would
probably have preferred to farm level or gently sloping terrain. Level
or gently sloping terrain, therefore, should be a fairly good predictor
of settlement location.
While construction in the town of Cruz Bay has, no doubt, disturbed
much of the prehistoric site materials, the existence of aboriginal
sites, such as those only recently destroyed during construction of the
modern ball field, allows us to conclude that prehistoric resources
can be contained therein. Similarly, the grounds around historic
plantations are known to be likely locations for prehistoric
settlements. It cannot now be gainsaid that all of them are disturbed
beyond profitable salvage. These are locations that must be considered
as having moderate to high potentials for aboriginal sites.
Based on the foregoing considerations, the background research into
aboriginal settlement patterns in nearby St. Thomas, Vieques and Puerto
Rico, and on information previously available or obtained during the
Phase IA research on St. John itself, the potential for archaeological
resources to exist within the limits of the proposed wastewater treatment
system is very high. Figure III-2 locates a relatively large number of
areas of high potential for aboriginal resource zones, including beaches
and salt ponds in the Calcareous Lowland Unit and the level or gently
sloping terrain with adequate soils in the Flat Ridgetops and Flat-Topped
Headlands Unit. There is a moderate potential in the Volcanic Mountain
Slopes Unit for farming and resource procurement encampments.
Consequently, there is a definite impact potential within the watershed.
Historic Archaeological Resource Sensitivity
The discussion of historic resources reported in the Historic
Overview and Data Base sections of this report demonstrate the obvious
significance of Danish, English and U.S. historical resources within the
Cruz Bay sewershed. The potential for adverse impact to historic
archaeological and architectural resources is easily seen. In addition,
ephemeral but, nonetheless, historically important sites, such as slave
villages, are almost certainly contained in the project area. Pulsipher
(1985) has proposed the use of documentary data and ethnographic analogy
as tools in researching possible patterns of Caribbean slave multi-
dwelling units. Such sites can occupy as little as one-quarter acre and
leave little in the way of surface remains, although the observation of
remnant stands of economic plants and altered landforms may serve as
surface indicators. Subsurface testing in proximity to such indicators
may reveal artifacts and patterns of archaeological features, i.e.,"soil
stains where wooden, structural house parts, open hearths, trash pits,
etc. were once located.
J-8
-------
Among the types of archaeological resources that have been
demonstrated to be of scientific and historical significance are
plantation sites, Caribbean town or urban sites, and those sites that
relate to the Afro-Caribbean peoples of the slave and post-emancipation
periods. As has been shown, the cultural resource potential of the Cruz
Bay study area is high and should contain examples of all of the above
resource types. A number of plantation sites have been documented, many
of these were owned and/or operated by persons within a range of ethnic
and socio-economic status positions. The town of Cruz Bay was a mid-19th
century settlement that has rarely been studied within the Caribbean and
may prove to contain cultural resources of extreme importance. Finally.
the presence of documented Afro-Caribbean sites of the slave period and
the post-emancipation period may allow for studies of transition,
adaption by blacks to new economic and social parameters, and
ethnic remnants in historic society.
In general, the research potential and historic resource
conservation and education opportunities within the study area of the
island of St. John are such that any impact to the available resource
base must be further evaluated. Specifically, those areas noted in
Figure III-l should not be approached without concern for possible
impacts on significant cultural resources.
Recommendations
MAAR Associates, Inc. recommends that a Stage IB Cultural Resource
Survey be conducted within the major portion of the proposed Cruz Bay
Wastewater Treatment System on the island of St. John. Areas that may be
excluded are those where deep modern disturbance can be demonstrated (see
below). Even areas of relatively steep slope, i.e., 20 to 40 percent
grades, will likely contain evidence of historic plantation activity and
cannot be excluded from Stage IB investigations.
It is recommended that this survey be initiated after the
development of a final and/or alternate plan(s). Stage IB surveys should
be conducted at all treatment plant, pump station, and effluent spray
sites proposed, so that the results of the survey might be considered in
the final selection process. In addition, it cannot be assumed, because
the proposed collection system will be located beneath or alongside
existing roadways, i.e., in already disturbed areas, that the depths of
the existing disturbances have obliterated significant cultural
resources. Moreover, in the absence of historical documentation of the
placement of current roadways, it cannot be assumed that the current
roadways have actually destroyed earlier historical and/or prehistoric
resources. For example, were roadbeds cut or simply laid over
potentially historic roadways ? Therefore, it must be recommended that
general collector pipe areas be surveyed by means of frequent subsurface
testing in adjacent house lots and other adjoining areas in the town of
Cruz Bay and outside of it.
The recommended Stage IB surveys should include additional
background research to assure that all pertinent Caribbean settlement
data, including slave settlements, is considered. Informant interviews
should be conducted over a sufficiently long period of time to allow for
the natural reluctance of Cruz Bay residents to divulge information about
0-9
-------
aboriginal and historic resources of which they have knowledge. Field
investigations should include surface surveys. Intense subsurface
testing and frequent shovel tests combined with limited test pitting
should be emphasized. An evaluation of resource significance and
assessment of potential impact should be made in a research report. A
shortened version, or popular report, should be distributed to all
involved agencies and made available to the general public on St. John
and abroad.
J-10
-------
STAGE IB CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
SUMMARY
Summary o-f Investigations
In addition to a pedestrian survey, shovel testing was carried out
at three locations within the project area; 1) the Sewage Treatment Plant
and the flat area just south o-f it, 2) the land between Turner and Frank
Bays, and 3) Route L (an unpaved road east of Southside road and Enighed
Hill). Three backhoe cuts within the proposed sewage treatment plant
site, adjacent to Route 1O4, revealed fill deposits. Cultural material
recovered was recent, with the exception of a late 18th or early 19th
century glass bottle fragment screened from material removed below the
water table in Cut 2. Map study and informant interviews confirmed that
the area of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant Site was formerly marshy
and has been covered with fill for about 20-30 years. The area continues
to be used for dumping of soil, construction debris and other refuse such
as cars.
Because it is located on Jaucas soils, thought to have high
potential for aboriginal sites, the land between Turner and Frank Bays
was shovel tested. The only historic materials recovered there were two
bottle fragments (probably late 18th or early 19th century) recovered
near the surface of two shovel tests. The artifacts could have been
there due to erosion of the headland which is located near the active
beach at Turner Bay. No evidence of aboriginal occupation was found.
Testing on the road east of Southside road (Route L) produced a
•flake of prehistoric derivation mixed in with modern materials confirming
that the right of way has been filled and/or disturbed.
Discussion of Results
Dahlin (Dahlin, Tyson & Thomas 1965) had defined fresh water and
marine protein sources (beach, mangrove swamp, salt pond habitats,
etc.),more or less level terrain with at least moderately fertile soils,
forests that would have a high variety of edible or otherwise useful
plant species (i.e. hardwoods for tools and sugar and starch components
of the diet), and crypto-crystalline rocks for the manufacture of lithic
tools as resources that would have been exploited. He points out St.
John's small size would have made resources accessible and trade could
have mitigated long distances to favored resources. Although no
aboriginal sites were located during this study the degree of disturbance
and the limitations of the survey to areas lying within proposed
construction rights—of—way did not allow a valid test of the settlement
model proposed by Dahlin.
Despite the high probability for and historic remains within the
project area, no in situ structural remains or significant cultural
resources deposits were located during the survey. Findings were based
upcn examination of the project area using a combination of pedestrian
survey, shovel testing, trenching, and screening. Historic materials
recovered are thought to come from recent fill deposits, both at the
plant site and on the road east of Southside road. The bottle fragments
from the headland at the northwest corner of Turner Bay were probably
washed io or may represent isolated artifacts as no other cultural
J-ll
-------
materials were recovered in the shovel tests excavated there. The plant
site is to be located on -fill and no in situ remains were encountered in
the backhoe cuts there.
The results o-f the Stage IB study do not constitute a valid test of
the potential of the entire Cruz Bay area. Sewage lines are scheduled to
be placed, for the most part, within existing road beds which have been
cut, or cut and filled, The treatment plant site is to be located on
recent fill. Although no historical remains from the colonial
plantations, which once covered the island, were recovered within the
project area, this may be due to the extensive disturance documented or
because the project area does not include the major areas of plantation
building in and around the town of Cruz Bay,
The 20th century development of the town of Cruz Bay has covered
and or destroyed most areas within the project area with some potential
for archaeological remains. As a consequence, it is unlikely that the
proposed construction operations will impact any significant cultural
resources. Therefore, no further investigatons are recommended.
J-12
-------
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The need to determine the potential -For culturally significant sites
within the project area o-f a proposed Cruz Bay Wastewater Treatment
System on St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, led to a Stage IB site
recognition survey o-f potential impact areas within the watershed. This
Stage IB study was conducted in June o-f 1986 by MAAR Associates, Inc. , a
cultural resources -firm headquartered in Newark, Delaware. The work was
contracted by the A ?< E firm of CE Maguire of New Britain, Connecticut.
Prehistoric cultural resources have previously been identified at
two locations within the Cruz Bay area. A prehistoric village site was
discovered in Cruz Bay in the 1920"s but subsequently destroyed by
construction activities. Another site has recently been located near the
ferry dock. Several historic plantations were once located near Cruz Bay
as well. Therefore, the potential was considered high that cultural
resources would be found within the project area.
Field investigations, consisting of vehicular and pedestrian survey,
and both shovel testing and backhoe trenching , determined that
alteration of the landscape had been extensive within the project area,
including cutting, trenching, and filling associated with raad and
residential area construction. No structural remains or artifact
deposits c-f prehistoric or historic significance was found.
Since no evidence of in si tu cultural resources was identified,
further (Stage II) investigations of the Cruz Bay project area are not
recommended,
J-13
-------
APPENDIX K
REFERENCES
-------
APPENDIX K
REFERENCES
Ambient Group, As Built Survey Map of Eniqhed Pond Area (showing
uti1ities, roads, parcels, etc.) 8/17/84
Bowden, Martyn J. Hurricane in Paradise: Perception and Reality of
the Hurricane~Hazard in the Virgin Islands, Islands Resources
Foundation, 1975.)
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Report on Sewerage and Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, August, 1973.
Caribbean Research Institute, Estimated Water Use in St. Thomas, U.S.
Virgin Islands, July 1983 - .
with U.S. Geological Survey.
Virgin Islands, July 1983 - June 1984. Prepared in cooperation
ith U.S. Ge
Caribbean Research Institute, Microbial Analysis of Domestic Cistern
Water in the U.S. V.I. January 1981.
Caribbean Research Institute, A Study of the Waters, Sediments and
Bioa of Chocolate Hole, St. John with Comparison to Cruz Bay,
St. John, January, 1970.(Brody, Grigg, Raup, VanEopoel.)
CE Maguire, Inc. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Culebra
Wastewater Facilities Plan Culebra, Puerto Rico, August, 1985.
CE Maguire, Inc. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Mangrove
Lagoon Turpentine Run Wastewater Facilities Plan USVI July, 1984.
ChLm Hill, Inc. Draft Water Management Plan for the Public Hater
System - Demand Study (Computer Data on non-residential water
use), March 13, 1982.
CH?M Hill, Southeast, Inc., Water Management for the Public Hater
Supply System. 1983. (for DCCA)
Chester, R.H., Destruction of Pacific Corals by the Sea Star
Aconthaster planci, Sci. 165: 280-283, 1969.
deJongh/URS Associates, Comprehensive Plan for the Sewage Needs of
Cruz Bay. St. John USVI - Final Report. December, 1981.
deJongh/URS Associates, Draft Final Report on the Comprehensive Plan
for the Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay, St. John, USVI, July 30, 1985.
deJongh/URS Associates, Interim Sludge Management Plan for the USVI,
(VI DPW, 1985.)
deJongh/URS Associates, Responsiveness Summary for the Comprehensive
Plan for Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay, St. John, USVI Public Hearing,
July 30, 19857
K-l
-------
Donelly, T.W., Geology of St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin
Islands. 1966.
Grigg, David I., Final Environmental Information Document for
Comprehensive Plan for the Sewage Needs of Cruz Bay, St. John
USVI, 1985.
Grigg, David I., Some Effects of Dredging on Water Quality and Coral
Reef Ecology, (Island Resources Foundation, October. 1970).
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Report on Current Groundwater Conditions in
the US Virgin Islands, April, 1983.
Island Resources Foundation, VI Bays: Modeling of Water Quality and
Pollution Susceptibility, April, 1979.
Island Resources Foundation, Marine Environments of the Virgin Islands,
August, 1977.
Jadan, Doris, A Guide to the Natural History of St. John, 1985.
Johannes, R.E., "Pollution and Degradation of Coral Reef Communities",
in E.J.F. Wood and R.E. Johannes, ed., Tropical Marine Pollution,
(Amsterdam: Elsevier Oceanographic Series No. 12, 1975), pp.
13-51.
Jones, Alick and Sefton, Nancy, Marine Life of the Caribbean, 1979.
Jordan D. G. and 0. J. Cosner, Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey, A Survey of Water Resources of St. Thomas, Virgin Islands,
1973.
JRB Associates, Study of Ten Publicly Owned Treatment Works in the US
VI, 1983.
Lenox, G. W., and Seddon S. A., Flowers of the Caribbean, the Bahamas,
and Bermuda, 1978.
Lenox, G. W., and Seddon, S.A., Trees of the Caribbean, the Bahamas,
and Bermuda, 1980.
Little, Elbert L. and Frank H. Wadsworth, Common Trees of Puerto Rico
and The Virgin Islands, 1964.
MAAR Associates, Inc., Stage 1A Cultural Resource Survey, St. John
USVI (for Comprehensive Plan for Wastewater Facilities) 1985.
MeComb, W. F. Engineering, Aerial Photograph of Enighed Pond Area.
McComb, W.F., Engineering, Environmental Assessment Report, Marine
Terminal Facilities, Enighed Pond, St. John. 1985T
K-2
-------
Miscellaneous correspondence between EPA & deJongh/URS, August 20 &
30, 1985. Ninth Legislature of the Virgin Islands of the US,
Act No. 3284 (Zoning Law), August, 1972.
Norton, Robert L., Migration of Birds in the West Indies Region, no
date.
Pageprint Systems Inc., West Indies, Virgin Islands. St. Thomas to
Virgin Gorda, Soundings, Map.
Tucker, R.E., Alminas H.V. and Hopkins R.T., Geochemical Evidence for
Metalization on St. Thomas and St. John U.S.V.I, open file report,
85-297, 1985.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Inventory Report of the
National Shoreline Study, August, 1971.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Costal Zone Management,
The Virgin Islands Costal Management Program and Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement, 1979.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Reconnaissance
of Groundwater Quality in the U.S. Virgin Island, July. 1984.
(Prepared in cooperation with the Caribbean Research Institute.)
U.S. EPA, Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems, On-Site
Disposal/Septage Treatment and Disposal, October, 1977-
U.S. EPA, Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems,
Pressure Sewers/Vacuum Sewers, October, 1977-
U.S. EPA, Design Seminar Handout, Small Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, January 1978.
U.S. EPA, National Conference on Less Costly Wastewater Treatment
Systems for Small Communities, April. 1977.
U.S. EPA, On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Design
Manual. October. 1980.
U.S. EPA, Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small
Communities, August, 1980.
U.S. EPA, Process Design Manual, Wastewater Treatment Facilities for
SewerecTSmall Communities, October, 1977.
U.S. EPA, Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document. November,
1982.
K-3
-------
U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrogeologic Map of Puerto Rico and Adjacent
Islands, 1965.
U.S. Geological Survey, Topographic Map of Western St. John, VI, 1958,
Photo revised, 1982.
U.S. Geological Survey, Topographic Map of Eastern St. John, VI, 1958,
Photo revised, 1982.
U.S. Geological Survey, Provisional Geologic Map of Puerto Rico and
Adjacent Islands, 1964.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of the U.S. Virgin
Islands. August, 1970.
U.S. National Park Service, Map of vegetation zones on St. John, USVI
U.S. National Park Service, General Management Plan, Development
Concept Plan, Environmental Assessment, VI National Park,
September, 1983.
VI Bureau of Public Administration Directory of the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Revised Edition, 1983.
VI Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, Environmental Laws
and Regulations of the Virgin Islands, 1979.
VI Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, List of Endangered
Species of the Virgin Islands, December, 1982.
VI Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, Map of St. John,
USVI - Definition of Reef Zones, January, 1979.
VI Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, Revisions to David
Grigg's Environmental Information Document Endangered Species
ETst (from deJongh/URS, Comprehensive Plan for the Sewage Needs
of Cruz Bay, St. John, USVI., December, 1985.
VI Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, Environmental
Laws and Regulations of the Virgin Islands, 1979.
VI Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, Division of
Natural Resources Management, Report on Water Quality, U.S.
Virgin Islands, 1970-75, June, 1975.
VI Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, Summary of Marine
Mammal Sightings: 1984-85.
VI Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, USVI Water Quality
Management Plan, September, 1980.
VI Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs; Water Quality Data
for Station No. 55 - Turner Bay, St. John, 1985.
K-4
-------
VI Department of Public Works, Proposed Transportation Improvements:
Woodward Passage Hotel to Raphune Hill, St. Thomas USVI.
December, 19837
VI Governor's Economic Policy Council and Economic Advisory Board,
1982-1983 Overall Economic Development Program for the USVI,
December, 1982.
VI Industrial Development Commission, United States Virgin Islands at
a Glance, St. Croix, St. John, St. Thomas.
VI Office of Policy, Planning and Research and USVI Department of
Commerce U.S.V.I. Growth Statistics.
VI Office of Tax Assessor, St. John, Tax Assessors Maps, 1986.
VI Planning Board, 1:2400 scale maps of Cruz Bay and Surrounding Area,
St. John, VI, 1963.
VI Planning Office, Draft VI Comprehensive Policy Plan, August, 1983.
VI Planning Office, Land Use and Housing Elements, USVI, June, 1977.
VI Planning Office, Summary: The Virgin Islands Economy, 1975.
VI Planning Office, Zoning Regulations, 1971 (Current).
VI Planning Office, Zoning Map of Cruz Bay St. John, 1972 - Updated.
Woodbury, Roy 0., and Peter L. Weaver, The Vegetation of St. John and
Hassel Island, US Virgin Islands, 1985 (portions copied from NPS
original).
K-5
------- |