MITIGATING SECONDARY IMPACTS FROM
THE WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROGRAM
AN EPA CASE STUDY SERIES
OFFICE OF EPA LAND USE COORDINATION
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Purposes and Objectives
Case Study Approach.
Program Description
Secondary Impacts
EPA Policy on Secondary Impacts
Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
Where Are The Involvement Points
Acknowledgements
Bibliography
Block Island Case Study
Rockaway Case Study
Falling Creek Case Study
Renner Case Study
East Bay Case Study
Fairfield-Suisun Case Study
Freemont Case Study
Appendices
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Case Study Series on mitigating secondary impacts provides
an opportunity for a detailed examination of the variety of ways in
which projected impacts have been resolved within the Wastewater
Facilities Program. The approach draws from cases where realistic
solutions were instituted and builds on the accumulated regional
experience and knowledge in this area. In certain instances, the
study may serve to bring to light constructive opportunities for
new Agency initiatives in mitigating impacts.
The series arose in response to the charge that new regional
sewage facilities may in certain cases be facilitating rapid popu-
lation growth and that such growth may be unplanned, resulting in
adverse impacts on water quality and the total physical environment
as well as on the fiscal resources of local communities.
NEPA, as implemented by the guidelines of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, requires that agencies analyze the primary and secon-
dary effects of all major Federal actions with significant impact on
the quality of the human environment and determine means of avoiding
or mitigating these effects. Section 511(c)(l) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments specifically provides that NEPA re-
quirements apply to the construction grants program. EPA's final
regulations implementing the requirements of NEPA (40 CFR Part 6) and
EPA's Program Guidance Memorandum No. 50 were issued to comply with
and clarify EPA's responsibility in mitigating secondary impacts.
The introduction provides background material for the Case Studies
including a detailed description of the many stages a wastewater treat-
ment project goes through from its inception to final operation and
maintenance. A number of opportunities or involvement points are also
indicated within the process where secondary impacts can be identified
and mitigated. The Studies which follow describe how mitigation was
accomplished.
Purposes and Objectives
The general purposes for undertaking the case study series are:
first, to provide a forum for information exchange. A description of
successful mitigation in one part of the country will provide examples
of how similar impacts may be mitigated in other regions. EPA regional
representatives, states, grantees and the professsional engineering com-
munity engaged in wastewater facility planning and design will be able
to look to the Case Study Series for guidance in implementing the 201
grants process. A second purpose involves land use policy development.
Thorough discussion of the impacts will contribute a deeper understanding
of the issues involved and will serve to sharpen the focus of EPA policy
in this area.
-------
More specific objectives include: first, to demonstrate the need
to make an early determination of projected secondary impacts and to
insure that these impacts are mitigated early on in the 201 process;
second, to develop a documented set of workable mitigation measures
which may be adopted in'the various regions; third, to provide back-
ground material for developing supplemental criteria where and if
needed for evaluating the secondary impacts of proposed projects;
fourth, to demonstrate the need for ensuring that the gain in improved
water quality resulting from a new project going on-line is not off-
set by the adverse impacts from induced new development within environ-
mentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and floodplains. In such
cases, residuals from the new development would have the potential to
repollute the surface and groundwater systems. A fifth objective is
to encourage increased awareness of secondary impacts questions so
that the EPA funded facility remains compatible with local community
growth objectives.
Case Study Approach
[A large variety of land use issues involving secondary
impact? are raised in conjunction with the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities. Many of these issues tend to fall within certain
broad categories such as the general question of reserve capacity or the
placement of interceptor lines. The case study approach will document
regional office experiences in dealing with each of these broad categories.
Each case will be carefully chosen on the basis of how well it exemplifies
the successful resolution of the issues. Wherever possible, the analysis
will attempt to bring out the items of general applicability within each
case.
As mentioned in the objectives above, many of the potential impacts
could be more easily resolved if they were raised early in the facility
planning process. Consequently, the case studies will indicate when the
issues were raised and discuss how they surfaced in facility planning as
opposed to a late public appeal or court suit.
Each case study will include a description of:
o The Project describing the facilities which are
to be constructed.
o The Problem describing the water quality problem
the facilities were designed to correct.
o The Land Use Issues describing the land use
context within which the secondary impacts
are to be considered.
-------
o The EPA Regional Involvement Points describing
where and when the Regional Office became in-
volved in considering secondary impacts.
o The Mitigating Measures describing the mitigating
measures which were taken in each case.
o The Continuing Regional Involvement describing
what has occurred since the mitigating measures
were taken.
o The Regional Contact naming a person in each
Region who can provide additional information.
o The Sources listing available sources and back-
ground material used in writing the study.
Program Description
The Wastewater Treatment Facility Program (Section 201 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) represents
a Federal commitment of $18 billion for the planning, design, and
construction of treatment facilities. These funds are obligated for
projects on state priority lists. The lists, developed by applying
EPA and State criteria, rank proposed projects within each State on
the basis of water pollution control need. The Federal share is 75%
of the capital costs for planning and construction of each facility
funded under the FWPCA. Once a plant is completed, its operation and
maintenance becomes the responsibility of the local municipality,
although EPA maintains an enforcement role through the municipal
permit authority. After completion, EPA and the States continue to
make inspections and to provide training and technical assistance.
The funding process for planning, design and construction of waste-
water facilities involves three major steps. Step I facility planning,
entails a comprehensive study of the need for public wastewater treatment
for a given area. It also includes an assessment of the various alterna-
tives available for pollution control and an evaluation of the environ-
mental impact of the feasible alternatives. Designs and specifications
are developed in Step IT for the treatment alternative selected in Step I.
Step IIT involves the construction of the treatment facilities. All
three steps are generally funded by separate EPA grants. In addition
to the three step funding process, each project goes through a pre-
application period which includes placement on the state priority list
and an operation and maintenance stage which starts after construction
has been completed.
-------
Secondary impacts
.The major secondary impacts within the 201 program result
from the placement, sizing, and staging of interceptor sewers and the
provision of reserve capacity in those sewers. Primary impacts are
usually of a temporary nature, resulting from construction at the treat-
ment plant site and laying down the interceptor sewer within the right-
of-way corridor. Primary impacts are easily conceived of as being
directly related to the construction process and are generated from a
specific activity, at a specific location, at a specific time.
Secondary impacts are more difficult to determine and consequently,
more difficult to mitigate. They result from indirect or induced changes
in the patterns of land use and population growth and the environmental
effects resulting from those changes. Examples of secondary impacts are
as follows:
A. Changes in the timing, density, type and location of
development including residential, commercial, indus-
trial development, or changes in the use of open space
or other categories of land. The provision of public
sewage capacity is recognized as a determinant in facil-
itating growth particularly for those land uses for
which on-site systems would not be feasible. The cum-
ulative results of these impacts may or may not adversely
affect the environment.
B. Changes in air, water, noise, solid waste or pesticides
pollution stemming from the induced changes in population
and land use. The induced changes have the potential to
further aggravate the water pollution problem the waste
treatment facility was designed to alleviate or to create
new pollution problems from effluent disposal or non-
point sources of pollution.
C. Damage to sensitive ecosystems (wetlands, habitats of
endangered species) or culturally important areas
(parks, historic sites) resulting from changes in popu-
lation densities and land use.
One of the most comprehensive reviews of the secondary impacts of
sewer extensions is contained in EPA publication 600/5-75-002 entitled
Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Wastewater Investments: Review
and Bibliography (Bascom et al., 1975).The report generalizes from a
number of research efforts on the impact of providing sewer capacity on
growth within four different land use categories as follows:
-------
Residential: Generally, significant increases in single-family
housing construction can be expected to follow new sewer in-
vestments in areas where there is little vacant, sewered land,
where vacant land prices are low relative to the regional average,
and where large tracts of contiguous undeveloped land exists.
Any variation from these conditions reduces the likelihood of
major secondary impacts on single-family housing.
Residential: The most significant impact on multi-family
development will occur when sewer service is provided to
areas with high access to existing employment centers and
with substantial amounts of vacant lands. This situation
seldom occurs except in conjunction with highway investments,
where previously inaccessible, partially undeveloped areas
are made accessible. The combination of high accessibility
arid land availability is ideal for major, intensive residential
development.
Commercial: Conditions under which a new sewer investment
will have important secondary effects are: availability of
vacant, previously unsewered land available at low cost,
relative to average cost for comparable commercial sites,
and having high access to households. Individual stores
or small office structures of low density may not require
sewer service. Therefore, some low density commercial
development is possible without public sewers.
Industrial: Industrial location depends primarily on
access to labor and to external markets. So important
are these factors that the relative influence of public
sewer service is usually small. The absence of sewer
service in a particular location may nevertheless
effectively constrain development. While most industries
are not sensitive to marginal differences in land costs,
the need to fund their own private wastewater system may
prove prohibitive in terms of additional, expense.
EPA Policy on Secondary Impacts
Section 511(c)(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments specifically provides that NEPA requirements apply to the construction
grants program. Current EPA policy on analysis of secondary impacts of
wastewater treatment facilities Is contained in the final regulations
implementing the requirements of NEPA (40 CFR Part 6) which were published
in April, 1975. In June, 1975 EPA issued Program Guidance Memorandum No. 50
-------
entitled', "Consideration of Secondary Environmental Effects in the
Construction Grants Process". The Memorandum states that where
analysis has shown that,
secondary-effects of a project can reasonably
be anticipated to contravene an environmental
law or regulation, or a plan or standard required
by an environmental law or regulation, the Regional
Administrator shall withhold approval of a Step II
or Step III construction grant until the applicant
revises the plan, initiates steps to mitigate the
adverse effects or agrees to conditions in the
grant document requiring actions to minimize the
effects.
In 1973, EPA issued a policy statement entitled, "Protection of
the Nation's Wetlands" (38 Federal Register, page 10834, May 2, 1973).
The policy statement recognizes the Nation's wetlands as a unique,
valuable and irreplaceable resource which needs to be protected. It
specifically mentions the construction grants program as follows:
it shall be the policy of this Agency not to
grant Federal funds for the construction of muni-
cipal wastewater treatment facilities or other
waste treatment associated appurtenances which
may interfere with the existing wetland ecosystems,
except where no other alternative of lesser environ-
mental damage is found to be feasible.
Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
When secondary impacts are found to "contravene environmental
standards, plans or regulations" as indicated above, action is then
taken to mitigate or lessen their effects. There are a large variety
of actions which can provide successful mitigation. PGM No. 50 lists
a number of examples including:
phasing and orderly extension of sewer service.
project changes.
improved land use planning
better coordination of planning among
communities affected by the project
sewer use restrictions
-------
—. modification or adoption of environmental
programs or plans such as Air Quality
Maintenance Plans
improved land management controls to
protect water quality, such as sedi-
mentation, erosion control, and flood-
plain management.
The Facilities Grants process offers a number of opportunities for
applying the kinds of mitigating actions mentioned above. These oppor-
tunities can be referred to as involvement points since they represent
points in the process where adverse effects on land use and the environ-
ment can be resolved.
Many of the case studies in the series were chosen because they
exemplify successful mitigation by taking advantage of one or more of
the involvement points. A detailed outline of the process shown on
the next page reveals a number of points where significant impacts
should be considered and mitigated early in the life of the proposed
project.
Where Are The Involvement Points
As; an aid in identifying the involvement points, the process has
been disaggregated to provide a step-by-step analysis with a brief
description of the opportunities at each step. Not all of the involve-
ment points are formally specified in Agency regulations. In some in-
stances, opportunities have been identified for providing technical
assistance. Other points provide a chance for unofficial discussions
with the applicant. Once again, the emphasis has been placed on early
identification and mitigation of the impacts.
-------
TYPICAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN A MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT
Preapplication
Stage
o State places
project on
priority list.
o Applicant selects
consultant.
o Applicant and con-
sultant have pre-
application con-
ference with State
and EPA.
o Applicant prepares
plan of study and
submits to A-95
Review Process.
Facilities Planning
Stage
o Application for Step o
I grant submitted to
State and EPA includ-
ing the plan of study
for review and approval.
o Consultant prepares
facilities plan in-
cluding an environ-
mental assessment.
o
o Facilities plan is sub-
mitted to A-95 Review.
o Consultant conducts o
public hearing on the
facilities plan.
o EPA and State review
and approve facilities
plan.
o EPA prepares environ- o
mental impact state-
ment, if necessary,
or declares none is
needed in a negative
declaration and en-
vironmental appraisal.
o Public hearing is con-
ducted as part of EIS
process when required.
Design Stage
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step II
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
StepH grant on
mitigating secondary
impacts.
Consultant prepares
and sumbits plans
and specifications.
EPA and State re-
views and approves
project plans and
specification
In projects where
there is no Step
I, NEPA require- °
ments would still
have to be performed
prior to awarding
the Step II or Step °
III grant..
Construction Stage
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step III
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
Step HI grant on
mitigating secondary
impacts
Grantee advertises
for construction
bids selects re-
sponsive low bidder,
submits all bids in
tabular form to
State and EPA for
approval, and upon
approval awards
contracts.
Project is
constructed.
EPA and State
conducts final
inspection.
EPA conducts
final audit and
makes payment.
Operation and
Maintenance Stage
Plant operated
and maintained
for life of
project.
o State and EPA
make operation
maintenance
and permit
compliance
inspections.
o Municipality
collects sewer
service charges
and promulgates
sewer use
regulations.
co
-------
PreappHcation
Stage
. , ..TYPICAL ;STA6ES OF DEVELOPMENT IN A WiNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT
Design Statie Construction Stage
Facilities Planning
Stage
t State places
project on
priority list.
Applicant selects
consultant.
o Appl leant: and con-
sul tant have pre-
appi,1 cation con- -
ference vd testate
, and EPA.' • ' .
o Applicant prepares
plan of study and
submits to A-95
Review Process^
Application for Step o
I grant submitted to
State and EPA Includ-
ing the plan of study
for review and approval.
Consultant prepares
facilities plan in-
cluding an environ-
mental assessment.
' . ' ' c
Facilities plan'Is sub-
mitted to A-95 Review.
Consultant conducts . (
pulbic hearing oh the
facilities plan.
EPA and State review
and approve facilities
plan.
EPA prepares environ- o
mental impact state-
ment, if necessary,
or declares none is
needed 1n a negative
declaration and en-
vironmental appraisal.
Public hearing is con-
ducted as part of EIS
process when required.
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step n
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
Step]! grant on
mitigating secondary
Impacts. :
Consultant prepares
and sumbits plans
and specifications.
EPA and State re-
views and approves
project plans and
specification
In-projects where
there is no Step
I, NEPA require-
ments would still
have to be performed
prior to awarding
the Step II or Step
III grant.
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step III
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
StepHJ grant on
mitigating secondary
impacts
Grantee advertises
for construction
bids selects re-
sponsive low bidder,
submits all bids in
tabular form to
State and EPA for
approval, and upon
approval awards
contracts.
Project is
constructed.
EPA and State
conducts final
Inspection.
EPA conducts
final audit and
makes payment.
Operation and
Maintenance Stage
.Plant operated
and maintained
for life of
project.
State and EPA
make operation
maintenance, .
and permit
compliance
Inspections.
Municipality
collects sewer
service charges
and promulgates
. sewer use
regulations.
One of the early opportunities for mitigation involves the
listing of proposed projects on the state priority list.
States in reviewing projects for inclusion on the priority
list could be encouraged to apply secondary impact criteria
on incoming projects. A general indicator of possible
secondary impacts at this early stage is the amount of
reserve capacity to be provided by a new plant. Agency
policy on this issue is that "construction grant funds
are intended to be used primarily for abatement of existing
pollution rather than treatment of expected future waste-
water flows. Thus9 where population affected is used as
a priority system criterion, population should be defined
as that presently existing." (State Priority Systems Used
in the Development of State Project Priority Lists",
September 29, 1975, PGM: SAM-9).
The engineering consultant selected by the local jurisdiction
has an opportunity to exert a strong influence on the project
plans and designs and on the approach toward secondary impacts.
The consultant could be encouraged to develop a further under-
standing of secondary land use impacts identification and
mitigation, and to attend EPA sponsored training sessions
and workshops on this subject.
-------
TYPICAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN A RUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT
Preapplfcation
Stage .
o State places
project on
priority 11st.
o Applicant selects
consultant.
Applicant and con-
sultant have pre-
appllcation con-
ference with State
and EPA.
I Applicant prepares
plan of study and
submits to A-95
Review Process.
Facilities Planning
Stage
o Application for Step o
I grant submitted to
State and EPA Includ-
ing the plan of study
for review and approval.
Consultant prepares
facilities plan in-
cluding an environ-
mental assessment.
c
Facilities plan is sub-
mitted to A-95 Review.
Consultant conducts '<
pulbic hearing on the
facilities plan.
EPA and State review
and approve facilities
plan.
EPA prepares environ- o
mental impact state-
ment, if necessary,
or declares none is
needed 1n a negative
declaration and en-
vironmental appraisal.
Public hearing 1s con-
ducted as part of EIS
process when required.
Design Stage
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step 11
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
Step! grant on
mitigating secondary
Impacts.
Consultant prepares
and sumbits plans
and specifications.
EPA and State re-
views and approves
project plans and
specification
,In projects where
there is no Step
I, NEPA require-
ments would still
have to be performed
prior to awarding
the Step II or Step
III grant.
Construction Stage
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step III
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
StepIEt grant on
mitigating secondary
impacts
Grantee advertises
,-eir construction
bids selects re-
sponsive low bidder.
submits all bids 1n
tabular form to
State and EPA for
approval, and upon
approval awards
contracts.
Project Is
constructed.
EPA and State
conducts final
inspection.
EPA conducts
final audit and
makes payment.
Operation and
Maintenance Stage
Plant operated
and maintained
for. life of
project.
State and EPA
make operation
maintenance
and permit
compliance
Inspection's.
Municipality '
collects sewer
service charges
and promulgates
sewer use
regulations.
The pre-application conference between EPA, the State,
the applicant, and the consultant, generally represents
the first direct contact between the applicant and the
Agency. It is important at the conference that the EPA
representative stress the applicant's and the consultant's
responsibility for evaluating secondary impacts under
NEPA and analyzing mitigation methods. It is also im-
portant to clearly define the extent to which EPA funds
can and cannot be used in financing reserve sewage capacity.
The Plan of Study, should include in its itemized tasks
provision for an evaluation of the environmental impacts
of the proposed alternatives as well as the selected plan.
An environmental assessment which analyzes any environmental
impacts is prepared as an integral part of the facility plan.
As required by EPA regulation 40 CFR 6.512, the environmental
assessment must include a description of secondary land use
impacts involved in all feasible alternatives.
10
-------
Preappllcation
Stage
TYPICAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN A MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT
Design Stage Construction Stage
Facilities Planning
Stage
•o State places
project, on
priority list.
o Applicant selects
consultant.
o Applicant and con-
sultant: have pre-
appllciitlon con-
ference with State
and EPA.
o Applicant prepares
plan of study and
submits to A-95
Review Process.
Application for Step o
I grant submitted to
State and EPA Includ-
ing the plan of study
for review and approval.
Consultant prepares
facilities plan in-
cluding an environ-
mental assessment.
c
Facilities plan is sub-
mitted to A-9S Review.
Consultant conducts c
pulbic hearing on the
facilities plan.
EPA and State review
and approve facilities
plan.
EPA prepares environ- o
mental impact state-
ment, if necessary,
or declares none is
needed in a negative
declaration and en-
vironmental appraisal.
Public hearing 1s con-
ducted as part of EIS
process when required.
Consultant prepares .
and submits appli-
cation for Step II
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
Step! grant on
mitigating secondary
Impacts.
Consultant prepares
and sumblts' plans
and specifications.
EPA and State re-
views and approves
project plans and
specification
In projects where
there is no Step
I, NEPA require-
ments would still
have to be performed
prior to awarding
the Step II or Step
III grant.
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step III
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
StepHJ grant on
mitigating secondary
impacts
Grantee advertises
for construction
bids selects re-
sponsive low bidder,
submits all bids 1n
tabular form to
State and EPA for
approval, and upon
approval awards
contracts.
Project 1s
constructed.
EPA and State
conducts final
inspection.
EPA conducts
final audit and
makes payment.
Operation and
Maintenance Stage
Plant operated
and maintained
for life of
project.
State and EPA
make operation
maintenance
and permit
compliance
Inspections.
Municipality
collects sewer
service charges
and promulgates
sewer use
regulations.
The hearing provides an opportunity for public comment on
any predicted significant impacts. Citizens likely to be
concerned about the proposed project should be encouraged
to attend and state their concerns at this early stage so
that the issues can be resolved. Public concerns expressed
at the later stages in the development of the proposed pro-
ject become more difficult to resolve as they may require
costly revisions in previous work.
OMB Circular A-95 can be an effective tool for resolving
secondary land use issues. The "Project Notification and
Review System" provides a forum for State and local govern-
ments to comment on the facilities plan and provides an
additional opportunity for public comment.
11
-------
TYPICAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN A MUNICIPAL HASTEHATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT
PreappHcatlon
Stage
o State places
'project on
priority 11st.
o Applicant selects
consultant. '""
o Applicant and con-
sultant have pre-
appllcatlon con-
ference with State
and EPA.
o Applleant prepares
plan of study and
submits to A-95
Review Process.
Facilities Planning
Stage
o Application for Step o
I grant submitted to
Stdte and EPA includ-
. Ing the plan of study
for review and approval.
o Consultant prepares
facilities plan in-
cluding an environ-
mental assessment.
(
.0 Facilities plan is sub-
mitted to A-95 Review.
o Consultant conducts <
pulbic hearing on the
facilities plan.
m EPA and State review
y and approve facilities
. plan.
rEPA prepares environ-
mental impact state-
ment, If necessary,
or declares none is
needed in a negative
declaration and en-
vironmental appraisal.
o Public hearing 1s con-
ducted as part of EIS
process when required.
Design Stage
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step 11
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
StepJE grant on
mitigating secondary
impacts.
Consultant prepares
and sumbits plans
and specifications.
EPA and State re-
views and approve^
project plans and
specification
In projects where
there is no Step
I, NEPA require-
ments would still
have to be performed
prior to awarding
the Step II or Step
III grant.
Construction Stage
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step III
.grant to State and
EP/1 for approval.
EPA may condition
StepEI grant on
mitigating secondary
impacts
Grantee advertises
r*ir construction
bids selects re-
sponsive low bidder,
submits all bids in
tabular form to'
State and EPA for
approval, and upon
approval awards
contracts.
Project is
constructed.
EPA and State
conducts final
Inspection.
EPA conducts
final audit and
makes payment.
Operation and
Maintenance Stage
Plant operated
and maintained
for life of
project.
State and EPA
make operation
maintenance
and permit
compliance
inspections.
Municipality
collects sewer
service charges
and promulgates
sewer use
regulations.
The EPA review of the Step I facilities plan includes an exam-
ination of the secondary land use impacts. This represents the
key involvement point for mitigating these impacts. Prior to
funding the Step II grant, EPA must decide whether or not to
require a further look at the proposed project's impacts. This
decision is based on a regional review of the environmental
assessment. The Agency then decides if an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. An EIS must be filed if the
Region decides that the project will have a significant adverse
environmetnal impact or if the project's impact is likely to be
highly controversial. If a project's impacts can be mitigated
by changes made at this stage of the process, an EIS may not
have to be prepared.
>When an environmental review indicates there will be no
significant impact or that significant adverse impacts
have been eliminated by making changes in the project,
EPA prepares a negative declaration to allow for public
review of this decision before it becomes final. An
environmental appraisal supporting the negative declaration
is also prepared.
>When an EIS is required, a draft impact statement is then
prepared and circulated to interested parties, a public
hearing is held and a minimum 45-day review period is
established for public comment on the draft EIS. The
EIS is then revised and a final draft is issued with an
ensuing 30 day comment period.
12
-------
TYPICAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN AMUNICIPAL HASTEHATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT
PreappllcaHlon :
Stage
o-State places
project (in
. priority list.
o Applicant: selects
consultant.
o Applicant and con-
sultant have pre-
appllcat'fon con-
ference with State
and EPA.
o Applicant prepares
plan of study and
submits to A-95
Review Process.
Facilities Planning
Stage
o Application for Step o
I grant submitted to
State and EPA Includ-
ing the plan of study
for review and approval.
Consultant prepares r
facilities plan In-
cluding an environ-
mental assessment.
o
Facilities plan ,1s sub-
mitted to A-95 Review.
Consultant conducts o
pulblc hearing on the
facilities plan.
EPA and State review
and approve facilities
plan.
EPA prepares environ- o
mental Impact state-
ment, If necessary,
or declares none 1s
needed In a negative
declaration and en-
vironmental appraisal.
i Public hearing 1s con-
ducted as part of EIS
process when required.
Design Stage
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step II
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
»EPA may condition
StepJC grant on
mitigating secondary
impacts.
Consultant prepares
and sumbits plans
and specifications.
EPA and State re-
views and approve^
project plans and
specification
In projects where
there 1s no Step
I, NEPA require-
ments would still
have to be performed
prior to awarding
the Step II or Step
III grant.
Construction Stage
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step HI
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
StepHX grant on
mitigating secondary
impacts
Grantee advertises
for construction
bids selects re-
sponsive low bidder,
submits all bids in
tabular form to
State and EPA for
approval, and upon
approval awards
contracts.
Project is
constructed.
EPA and State
conducts final
Inspection.
EPA conducts
final audit and
makes payment.
Operation and
Maintenance Stage
Plant operated
and maintained
for life of
project.
State and EPA
make operation
maintenance
and permit
compliance
Inspections.
Municipality
collects sewer
service charges
and promulgates
sewer use
regulations.
If the Agency determines that a public hearing is
warranted, the hearing will be held after the draft
EIS is prepared. The hearing provides the last
opportunity for comments prior to the design stage.
At this point in the life of the project, the
secondary land use impacts ought to have been clearly
defined with an agreed determination of recommended
mitigating measures.
A further opportunity for mitigating secondary impacts
involves the conditioning of Step II or III grants.
This is done with the stipulation that the local juris-
diction adopt certain specified growth management measures.
These measures can range from protecting environmentally
sensitive areas, to a staging of new hook-ups in previously
undeveloped areas, to the adoption of a revised local
zoning ordinance. The conditioning of grants on the
adoption of land use measures raises a series of legal
and political questions in terms of how far the Agency
can go in controlling what should be local land use
decisions. If not properly instituted, grant conditions
can create a considerable administrative burden within EPA
Regional Offices in overseeing local adherence to the
conditions. Most of the case studies involve grant
conditions, however, they were written so as to reinforce
existing State or local legislation thereby leaving the
administrative responsibilities with the local government
involved.
13
-------
PreappH cation
Stage
TYPICAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT JN A,MUNICIPAL NASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT
Design Stage Construction Stage
Facilities Planning
. Stage
o State places
project on
priority list.
o Applicant-selects
consultant.
o Applicant and con-
sultant have pre-
appHcation con-
ference with State
and EPA.
o Applicant prepares
plan of study and
submits to A-95
: Review Process.
Application for Step o
I grant submitted to
State and EPA Includ-
ing the plan of study
for review and approval.
Consultant prepares
facilities plan in-
cluding an environ-
mental assessment.
Facilities' plan \$ sub-
mitted to A-95 Review.
Consultant conducts
pulbic hearing on the
facilities plan.
EPA and State review
and approve facilities
plan.
EPA prepares environ-
mental impact state-
ment, 1f necessary,
or declares none 1s
needed In a negative
declaration and en-
vironmental appraisal.
Public hearing 1s con-
ducted as part of EIS
process when required.
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step n
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
StepI grant on
mitigating secondary
Impacts.
Consultant prepares
and sumblts plans
and specifications.
EPA and State re-
views and approves
project plans and
specification
In projects where
.there is no Step
I, NEPA require-
ments would still
have to be performed
prior to awarding
the Step II or Step
III grant.
Consultant prepares
and submits appli-
cation for Step III
grant to State and
EPA for approval.
EPA may condition
StepfiX grant on
mitigating secondary
impacts
Grantee advertises
for construction
bids selects re-
sponsive low bidder)
submits all bids 1n
tabular form to
State and EPA for
approval, and upon
approval awards
contracts.
Project is
constructed.
EPA and State
conducts final
inspection.
EPA conducts
final audit and
makes payment.
Operation and
Maintenance Stage
Plant operated •'
and-maintained
.for life of
project..
State and EPA
make operation
maintenance
and permit
compliance
inspections.
Municipality
collects sewer
service charges
and'promulgates
sewer use
regulations.
When Step II work is complete, flexibility in alternative
treatment processes and location of facilities or plant
size is considerably diminished. The Step II Design Stage
represents a large investment in local and federal funds.
To change the location of an interceptor, or of the facility
itself, may require a reworking of the Step II designs.
Mitigating secondary effects by altering the configuration
of the facility or changing the treatment alternative will
be more costly at this point.
After the project has been constructed, the local regu-
lations and service charges become instrumental in
determining the rate of new sewer hook-ups. The sewer
use charge regulations should be carefully drawn up so
as not to allow the excess capacity to be fully committed
before the design life of the plant. As is often the case,
the local jurisdiction is tempted to fully commit the
excess capacity as early as possible so that the service
charges will pay off the local debt incurred in the plant
planning, design and construction.
14
-------
15
The Case Study Series seeks to resolve secondary impact issues
affecting the Agency by contributing a clearer understanding of the
issues involved, presenting the different experiences within each of
the EPA Regions and providing a basis for further policy development
in the area of secondary impacts. The cases will be analyzed for
policy impacts or changes. To aid the users of this report, EPA
documents relating to secondary impacts have been included as an
appendix. These include: Program Guidance Memorandum No. 50,
"Consideration of Secondary Environmental Effects in the Construction
Grants Process"; Final Regulations, "Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements" for EPA; and "EPA Policy to Protect the Nation's
Wetlands", Administrator's Decision Statement No. 4 issued February,
1973.
Acknowledgement
This report represents a joint effort by a number of individuals
both at Headquarters and in the Regional Offices. The Introduction
was principally authored by Thomas H. Pierce, Office of Land Use
Coordination with assistance and review by Allen Olson, Office of
Water Program Operations, Susan Watkins, Office of Federal Activities,
Martha Burke, Office of Transportation and Land Use Planning, Cheryl
Wasserman, Office of Planning and Evaluation, and Peter Haller, Office
of General Counsel. The above individuals also took part in reviewing
and editing the Case Study drafts by EPA Summer interns Michael
Desautels, and Bruce Barnes and HUD interns Helen Shimbo and Carol
Jones, on rotational assignment to the Office of Land Use Coordination.
The Regional Offices reviewed, commented on and signed-off on their
respective studies. Those involved included the Regional Contact
listed on the first page of each Case Study and others who administered
the original grant or EIS including Ray Pfortner, Bob Pickett, Wes
Wilson and Peter Perez.
-------
16
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR FURTHER READING:
An Evaluation of the Consideration Given to the Land Use and
Environmental Impacts of the Sacramento Regional Wastewater
Management Program by Duncan & Jones Consultants, Submitted
to the Council on Environmental Quality, Published October,
1975
Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Works by Ernest Leffel, January, 1976, EPA-430/9-76-003
Interceptor Sewers and Urban Sprawl by C. Binkley, et.al., 1975,
Published by D.C. Heath & Company
Secondary Impact of Regional Sewage Systems, New Jersey Department
of Community Affairs, June, 1975
Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Wastewater Investments:
Review and Bibliography, Bascom, et.al., 1975, EPA 600/5-75-002
The Costs of Sprawl by Real Estate Research Corporation, April,
1974, GPO Stock No. 4111-00021
Use of Environmental Analyses on Wastewater Facilities by Local
Government by Fensterstock & Speaker, July, 1974, EPA 600/5-74-015
-------
BLOCK ISLAND, RHODE ISLAND
-------
BLOCK ISLAND WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT
.NEW SHOREHAM, RHODE ISLAND
PROJECT "NUMBER :
REGIONAL CONTACT:
C-44-0074-01
Robert Mendoza
Environmental Policy Coordination Office
Region 1^
Environmental Protection Agency
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
The Project
The Problem
Land Use Issues
EPA Region I
Involvement Point
Mitigating Measures
Sources
o Combined Step II, and III grant
for a collection and treatment
system with ocean outfall sewer
o Ocean discharge of raw sewage.
o Malfunctioning on-site sewage systems
o The size and location of the service
area as a determinant of the total
amount of new growth to be served
o Encroachment by new facilitated
development on environmentally
sensitive areas
o Initial issuance of a Negative
Declaration
o Later preparation of a Draft and Final
EIS in response to a high degree of
public controversy
o Scaling down original project
design which would have covered
a larger service area
o Grant conditioned on not accepting
discharge from new development on
wetlands in accordance with State
law
o Draft EIS issued March, 1975
o Final EIS issued September, 1975
o Draft Case Study on Block Island
From a Community handbook prepared
by Barry Lawson, Boston University,
under a grant from HEW
-------
The Project:
The proposed project involves a combined Step II/III grant for
the design and construction of a wastewater collection and treatment
system. The effluent is to Jje discharged into the ocean via an outfall
sewer. The system will have a design capacity of 0.30 mgd and will
serve existing and future needs of both the Old and New Harbor areas
on Block Island within the township of New Shoreham (see accompanying
map). The total eligible cost of the project amounts to $4,083,000.
The Federal share of the eligible costs will be 75%, the State of
Rhode Island will fund 15% of the eligible costs and the remainder
will be financed by the applicant.
Block Island is located in Long Island Sound roughly 10 miles
off the coast of Rhode Island. The Island's land area comprises
approximately 11 square miles.
The Problem:
Block Island's existing wastewater disposal problems indicate
an immediate need for a public sewage treatment and collection system.
The need is particularly evident in the Old Harbor area where early
development clustered closely together. The Old Harbor community had
previously relied on on-site sewage systems and direct ocean disposal
of raw wastewater. Since the latter technique is no longer acceptable
and the tightly clustered housing pattern does not allow sufficient
land area for adequate on-site systems, the community must turn to
public wastewater collection and treatment.
The concentration of a number of failing on-site systems has
resulted in a situation which is aesthetically displeasing to residents
and visitors and which according to the State Health Department, repre-
sents a potential health hazard. The small leaching fields which serve
many of the hotels and commercial establishments appear sufficient for
winter operation but are undersized for the great demands put on them
by the large influx of summer residents and daily tourists. The State
Department of Health has indicated that a number of warnings have been
issued to establishments on the Island which are in violation of the
State Sanitary Code. The State has been hesitant to close these
establishments because of the community's intention of building a
municipal collection and treatment system.
In both the Old and New Harbor, motor boats and cruisers discharge
raw sewage and other wastes directly into the water. No public disposal
-------
-------
facilities, such as pump-out stations, are presently provided at the
marinas for proper handling of boat wastes. The situation violates
existing State and Federal ocean discharge regulations.
Land Use Issues:
Development on the Island has been concentrated in the Old Harbor
Area. Old hotels, inns, rooming houses, restuarants and shops are
clustered along the harborfront. Within a few blocks of the old
harborfront, houses are spaced further and further apart, with stone-
walls enclosing bayberry heath and abandoned pastureland. 1.5 miles
to the northwest, smaller scale, hewer development has taken place in
the New Harbor area. The remainder of the Island is largely open heath,
pasture, numerous ponds and inland wetlands. Of the Island's nearly
7,000 acres, over 5,000 are in heath and open pasture and another 1,000
acres are in water and wetlands.
The Island's population and economic activity reached its peak
shortly after the turn of the century. By that time, total year
round population had reached 1,400. The Old Harbor area supported a
prosperous summer tourist trade. The fishing industry provided steady
employment. Since the 1920's the year-round residential population has
declined to its present level of roughly 500. In the summer, however,
the population increases by approximately 1,200 seasonal residents,
1,000 overnight visitors and an average of 1,000 day visitors, although
on peak wesk-ends, this figure has ran as high as 3,000.
In 1972, the Island adopted a Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP).
The plan was prepared by the Rhode Island Department of Community
Affairs in consultation with the Island's Town Council and Planning
Board. The goals and policies outlined in the CCP include protection
of environmentally sensitive lands and natural areas, preserving the
rural New England character of the Island and confining development
utilizing septic tanks to lands with good subsurface drainage. The
plan also cites the marked upturn in construction of new summer houses
as a warning to plan wisely to protect the Island's future environment
and charm. In 1973, New Shoreham up-dated its 1967 zoning ordinance
to conform with the new plan and to ensure the protection of wetlands,
ponds and streams.
New Shoreham's policies toward future growth reflect a major goal
in the State Land Use Plan—the control of urban sprawl. Policies out-
lined in the State Plan with specific regard to utilities include:
-------
Policy #5: Locate public water and sewer facilities so as
to shape development in accordance with the
State Land Use Plan.
Policy #10: In developments which are of an intensity to
support public water and sewer facilities,
coordinate development with provision of
facilities so as to assure availability of
these facilities at the time the area is
developed.
Policy #12: Minimize extensions of water and sewer systems,
consistent with goals to reduce existing pollu-
tion, in order to discourage urban sprawl.
EPA Role:
In April, 1973, New Shoreham signed a contract with a consulting
firm to design and construct a sewage treatment plant. In August of
that year, the town applied to EPA for a grant for construction of the
consulting firm's design and reimbursement for planning and design. A
public hearing was held and a number of comments were received from
Federal and State agencies and from the general public. When these
findings were presented in an Environmental Impact Assessment in April,
1974, EPA initially determined that environmental concerns had been
considered in the final design of the plant. The Regional Office,
therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on the project. By mid-
September, however, public controversy surrounding the project's
possible growth implications had grown to the point where the Region
decided that an Environmental Impact Statement would be required and
reversed its original decision.
The EIS was the first to be written on a Region I construction
grants; project. EPA decided to write the Impact Statement "in-house"
rather than hire an outside consulting firm. Responsibility for re-
searching and writing the document was divided between the Environmental
Impact Office and the Water Planning and Construction Grants Division.
The Draft EIS was issued in March 1975 and provided a focal point for
local debate which had been steadily growing more heated on the merits
of the proposed project. The Final EIS was issued six months later in
September, 1975.
-------
Both the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements discussed
in some detail the project's possible secondary land use impacts. Based
on development pressures along the Island's coastline and proximity to
the Northeast's recreation demand centers, construction of sewer lines
and waste treatment capacity could predictably facilitate new growth
within the service area. A major concern, however, was that such growth
could take place at an accelerated rate if the sewer system were permitted
to expand with complementary changes in zoning densities either by
variance, special exception or by-law amendment. The Draft and Final EIS
warned that, based on the experience of other Island resort communities
and depending on the strength of development demand to force zoning
changes and further expand treatment capacity, an extreme growth situation
could result in the following secondary impacts:
o Impose resort complexes and residences on wetland and
shoreland ecosystems and on flood hazard areas. Especially
adverse would be encroachment upon the salt water marshes
of the Great Salt Pond embayments as well as fresh water
marshes; also, vulnerable would be the south shoreline of
Great Salt Pond and extensive areas in the south central
sector of the Island proposed for "conservation" or "open
space recreation" in the CCP.
o Facilitate condominium and high density residential
development in the extensive open moors, dotted with
small lakes, to the southwest of New Harbor. Intrude
upon open space character, marsh and upland vegetation
and general sense of openness of the Great Salt Pond
area and view of Great Salt Pond and Block Island Sound.
o Stimulate medium density residential development
(1 acre lots) on the entensive "low density residential"
and "conservation" areas southeast and south of Old Harbor
proposed in the CCP. These areas embrace perched fresh
water marshes, ponds, water supply recharge areas, and
the picturesque pasture-bayberry moor vistas of Old Harbor
and the ocean from the Upland Plateau.
o Greater numbers, densities, and range of activities
on the Island would have an overall adverse impact
on the high quality of the existing environment:
-------
on water quality through runoff from additional
paved and impervious surfaces, through some
erosion and sedimentation of fragile ponds and
wetlands associated with construction and con-
tinuing earth disturbance, and through additional
solid waste-septage disposal and septic system
operation—all associated with a higher level of
development;
on noise levels through additional vehicles,
lawnmowers, and human activities;
on air quality through additional motor vehicles
and power boats;
on visual appeal of sweeping vistas of sea, sand,
and sky; of rolling moors, pastures, ponds, and
vegetation;
on fragile ecosystems; salt and fresh water marsh
associations, dunes associations, and upland plant
and animal associations.
The proposed project alternatives were carefully analyzed to ensure
that an extreme growth situation would not occur and that the above im-
pacts would be avoided. The analysis concentrated on what were consid-
ered the four most practical choices.
Alternative A Construction of the project proposed by the
applicant's consultant, which includes a treatment facility
and collection system to serve the Old and New Harbor sections
of the Island (Stage I) with provisions to serve the area
south of Old Harbor in the future (Stage II).
Alternative B Construction of the project (Stage I) with-
out provisions for sewering the area south of Old Harbor in
the future.
Alternative C No sewer construction, but a comprehensive
program for the rehabilitation of individual septic systems.
Alternative D Construction of a treatment facility and
collection system for the Old Harbor area only, with reha-
bilitation of individual septic systems in the New Harbor
area.
-------
The draft EIS recommended against allowing the situation to remain
unchanged (the "do nothing" alternative) or that the problem could be
solved simply by upgrading existing individual septic systems (Alter-
native C). Also rejected was the original proposal (Alternative A)
which was about to be enacted when the citizens raised their protests.
This alternative was eliminated because a large portion of the area
proposed to be sewered by Stage II was comprised of wetlands and other
environmentally sensitive areas. The Draft EIS recommended two alter-
natives:
o The first would provide sewers in both commercial
areas of the Island, bu.t eliminate the "Phase II
extension" into residential areas contained in the
original proposal (Alternative B).
o The second would provide public sewage capacity only
in the dense Old Harbor commercial area, and rely on
improved septic systems in the less dense New Harbor
area (Alternative D).
Of the two alternatives, the draft concluded that the second was
more appropriate. Pressures for induced growth would be minimized,
particularly along the strip between the two harbors. However, due to
comments received on the Draft, largely due to the insistence by the
Rhode Island Department of Health that septic systems could not be
made adequate in the New Harbor area, the Final EIS recommended the
first of the two alternatives mentioned above, advocating that both
commercial areas be serviced by public sewers rather than the Old
Harbor alone.
Mitigation:
Scaling down the originally proposed project design represented
the first mitigating measure. Elimination of Alternative A reduced
the size of the service area and meant that the project would not
induce growth on wetlands and other environmentally sensitive lands
within the originally proposed Phase II area. Service was thereby
restricted primarily to the Old and New Harbor communities. The
question remained, however, of protecting environmentally sensitive
lands primarily wetlands on the periphery of the two harbors as well
as lands adjacent to interceptors carrying wastes from the New Harbor
to the treatment plant in the Old Harbor.
-------
The second mitigating measure involves a specific condition to
protect these areas from encroachment by new facilitated development.
EPA's responsibility for protecting wetlands has been clearly enun-
ciated in the Agency's Wetlands Policy Statement published in the
Federal Register on May-2, 1973 (F.R., Vol. 38, No. 84 pages 10834-5).
The Policy Statement includes the following wording:
o "In its decision processes, it shall be the
Agency's policy to give particular cognizance
to and consideration to any proposal that has
the potential to damage wetlands...."
o "In compliance with th National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, it shall be the policy of
the Agency not to grant Federal funds for the
construction of municipal wastewater treatment
facilities or other waste treatment associated
appurtenances which may interfere with the
existing wetland ecosystem, except where no
other alternative of lesser environmental
damage is found to be feasible."
. The Region I Office therefore decided to condition the grant to
protect wetlands by partially controlling the distribution of the
limited amount of new growth the project may facilitate. The condition
reads as follows:
"The Town (New Shoreham) shall not permit any person
to discharge wastewater into any collection line,
lateral sewer, interceptor or other means of conveying
wastewater to the treatment plant if such wastewater
originates from any building, facility or other manner
of construction which is hereafter erected or other-
wise placed, in whole or in part, upon land which is
a wetland area within the means of G.L.R.I. Title 2,
§2-1-13 and §2-1-14 (Supp. 1974) (Rhode Island State
Law). This condition is deemed to be for the pro-
tection of wetland areas and shall constitute a
bilateral agreement between EPA and the Town which
may be enforced by any person who has an interest in
the protection of such wetland areas, including year-
round and part-time residents of Block Island."
It is important to note that the above condition reaffirmed
Rhode Island State Law on the protection of wetlands and that it
supports policies enunciated in the local comprehensive plan and
zoning ordinance.
-------
ROCKAWAY, NEW JERSEY
-------
Rockaway Valley Regional Sewer Authority
"Morris County, New Jersey
Project.dumber :
Regional Contact:
C-34-389-01
Barbara Metzger, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region. II
New York City, New York
Project Description
Water Quality Problem
Land Use Issues
EPA Region II
Involvement Points
Regional Interceptor to service
the Rockaway Valley in Morris
County, New Jersey as one segment
in an overall plan
Raw sewage discharge into Rockaway
River due to overloaded and failing
interceptor deemed to be an emer-
gency situation
Contamination of surface and ground
water by malfunctioning on-site
sewage systems
Court ordered building ban imposed
in 1968 due to overloaded interceptor
Ability of the service area to
accommodate induced new growth
Protection of environmentally
sensitive areas
Pre-application and plan formulation
meetings with consultant and applicant
Review of Environmental Assessment
Statement found it to be inadequate
Public information meetings and
work sessions with the applicant,
public interest groups, consultant
and county and regional planning
agencies
Negative Declaration issued April 23,
1976 on the interceptor only
-------
Mitigating Measures
Reduction of population projection
for the total project including
treatment plant based on a "Carrying
Capacity" study
Grant conditioned on limiting the
number of new hook-ups to the inter-
ceptor once it is constructed
Continuing Region II
Involvement
Sources
Construction is expected to begin on
the interceptor in the Spring of 1977
Region II is publically committed to
preparing an EIS on the remainder of
the project
Negative Declaration.issued
April 23, 1976
Secondary Impact of Regional
Sewage Systems, by New Jersey
Department of Community Affairs,'
June, 1975
Water and Sewer Service Areas and
Land Development Capacity by Tri-
State Regional Planning Commission,
November, 1973 -- Interim Technical
Report 4416-3603
-------
The Project
The Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority (RVRSA) has pro-
posed a wastewater management plan for the Upper Rockaway Basin. The
initial project consists of the design and construction of a replacement
interceptor through a cbmbined Step II and Step III grant.
The interceptor will be 13.7 miles long and will cost $25.2 million.
75% of this cost will be paid by EPA, 8% by the State and the remaining
17% by the applicant. The 55 square mile service area for the proposed
interceptor sewer includes roughly half of the Upper Rockaway Basin with-
in the Passaic River Valley. The area is located in Morris County,
New Jersey, roughly 30 miles west of New York City.
Future components of the RVRSA plan, not contained within the
present application, include the construction of branch interceptors
and an advanced wastewater treatment facility with reserve capacity
based on a projected population increase of 78% by 2020. The facility
will be built and funded in modules. The initial phase, plans to pro-
vide additional capacity only through 1985, and will serve a population.
only slightly larger (8%) than the existing service needs. The remaining
growth, 70%, will be accommodated in future phases of plant expansion.
The ultimate population increase is, however, subject to the outcome of
the EIS being prepared by Region II.
The Water Quality Problem
The interceptor is proposed as an emergency measure to replace
the existing inadequate regional interceptor which was built in 1923.
A court ordered building ban has been in effect since 1968 due to
severe overloading of the existing interceptor. Overflows have on
occasion resulted in surcharge of raw sewage, into the Rockaway River
upstream from a regional water supply reservoir. In addition the
structural failure of sections of the old, clay-tile interceptor is
a real possibility.
Failure of on-site systems resulting from dwelling units on soils
unsuitable for such systems has cause localized overflows and contamin-
ation of groundwater supplies.
Land Use Issues
The service area is located within the New Jersey Highlands. The
Highlands are noted for their varied topography, shallow soil mantle
and steep slopes. Due to its glacial history, the area contains restricted
-------
SUSSEX
WARREN %>
V /
>
'iPASSAICy? ^
—•X.J/"/ ^
X~. \ BERGEN
'\ "I
c-v }
/ -'
t'.
HUNTERDON
k
*» S •"-..
• ,/
*'"BUNION
f
,/-—'
•».'-
-'
\ SOMERSET ^'
i /
State of New Jersey
«..J, (MIDDLESEX^
MERCER %**^N ^J
,.'" MONMOUTH
\X
A.
/ *» OCEAN
\ BURLINGTON V
SALEM
[
k
\
\
%
\
TT3I
1EI
»
%
».
•t
\
1
*" >
\ \ •
VAMDEN \
> ^^ "
4 » ' \
\ * \
• V '»
/ v.
\
\
\
X
\
•
1
t
>
1
1
•
M \ /
/^ ]\/
/ %\% I *"» • ATLANTIC
CUMBERLAND
i
%
1
1
^••- "t!
i *•••*.(«.
J^
JSP
NC
>
)RTH
/ CAPE /P*
MAY
$
_/"
F
-------
LEGEND
LIMITS OF EXISTING RVRSA SERVICE AREA
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
o;
O-
-------
aquifers directly overlaid by their recharge zones. The service
area is totally reliant on the aquifers for its water supply,
since surface waters have already been committed to the downstream
city of Jersey City.
Reserve sewage capacity to be provided by the interceptor will
facilitate new growth potentially straining other public facilities
and services, particularly the supply of drinking water. It may
also induce development to occur in environmentally sensitive areas.
At present, new growth is carefully monitored by the court ordered
building ban. The ban controls the issuance of new building permits
and is based on a proportional allocation by municipality of the re-
maining gallonage. New permits are issued by the court at the request
of the Regional Sewer Authority or the municipality. As of this writ-
ing, two of the nine municipalities in the service area have used all
of their presently allocated gallonage. Construction of the
interceptor alone, however, will not cause the building ban to be
lifted. This will happen only upon completion of an expanded treat-
ment capacity. EPA has publically committed itself to fund a small
increase in plant capacity, sufficient to accommodate moderate growth
through 1985, but the Step II application for the expansion has yet
to be received by the regional office.
The extent of new growth to be facilitated by the project is
tied to both the lifting of the building ban and the amount of
reserve treatment capacity to be funded by EPA.
Region II Involvement Points
The interceptor sewer forms a portion of an overall system con-
sisting of connector interceptors and expansion of the existing treat-
ment plant. Region II and its predecessor agency has been reviewing
.the entire RVRSA project since the beginning of the building ban in
1968. During this time, many modifications have been made in the
project as it was originally submitted, for example, an update in
population projection resulted in a decrease in the ultimate capacity
of the project.
In August 1974, EPA indicated to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) that insufficient data was provided
in the Sewer Authority's Engineering Report and Environmental Assess-
ment Statement (EAS) to allow for further review. Additional infor-
mation was requested on existing water resources and on the carrying
capacity or the amount of new growth which could be reasonably accom-
modated within the service area. Region II indicated that a new
-------
determination should be made of the amount of land still vacant and
suitable for development and that the projected population used for
sizing the interceptor be compared both with this figure and avail-
able drinking water supplies.
In April 1975, an addendum to the EAS was submitted. However,
the new analysis of land suitable for development and the available
water supply, both of which confirmed the original projections, were
found to contain substantial errors. Considerable discrepancies in
population figures between the applicant's projections and Morris
County Planning Board (MCPB) and Tri-State Regional Planning Com-
mission (TSRPC) projections in all the work submitted up to that
point, suggested that the need for the applicant to consult with
both planning agencies along the lines of an A-95 review. An EPA
letter to NJDEP in August of 1974 formalized the suggestion.
In October 1975, the engineering consultant submitted the outcome
of the consultation with MCPB and TSRPC: an apparent agreement on pro-
jections. However, a meeting with the Tourne Valley Coalition (JVC),
a local environmental group, later that month presented detailed
documentation of substantial errors in both the April addendum and the
updated A-95 review. This prompted MCPB, TSRPC and EPA to agree to
a review of all the data, including that presented by the Coalition.
Further discussions between EPA and the two planning agencies
revealed a fundamental problem with regard to their own population
projections. In the past neither MCPB nor TSRPC based their projec-
tions on a detailed environmental analysis. Thus a simple agreement
on projections did not necessarily reflect an agreement on the actual
population the Basin could support.
To arrive at a reasonable figure which would reflect the area's
environmental constraints and simultaneously review MCPB and TSRPC
planning, the staffs of EPA, MCPB and TSRPC agreed to undertake a
detailed study of vacant land suitable for development in the service
area as a major determinant for projecting the population the land
could support. The categories of land unsuitable for development
were agreed to after several working sessions involving MCPB, TSRPC
and EPA. These included already developed areas, parklands, other
lands in public ownership and the following environmentally sensitive
areas:
1. Steep slopes
2. Shallow depth to bedrock areas
-------
3. Areas with seasonably high water table
4. Areas with frequent flooding
5. Aquifer recharge areas
The study participants clearly recognized the environmental con-
sequences which would occur if these sensitive lands were not properly
protected; increased siltation, increased storm water run-off, pollution
and a decreasing of groundwater sources and degradation of water quality
in general. They also recognized the economic costs involved. The
development of steep slopes, for example, also involves higher site
development costs and thus more costly housing and higher operating
and maintenance expenses for the owner for such things as landscaping
and soil stabilization. Such financial consequences also effect
municipal services and utilities in terms of higher costs for instal-
lation, maintenance and operation of the required infrastructure from
telephone poles to sewers and streets. The consequences could also
extend to the health, safety and welfare of citizens in such areas
in terms of degraded surface water for drinking and recreation, depleted
groundwater supplies for drinking and fire fighting and loss of property
and life due to landslides and flooding.
The study recommended a much lower figure for vacant land, suit-
able for development than was computed in the April 1975 addendum. The
determination was that 40% of the remaining available vacant land would
be suitable. The final population projection was reduced accordingly
to a figure of 168,000 for the year 2020, 78% greater than the estimated
1975 population but nearly 30,000 less than the 197,000 projection origi-
nally made by the applicant.
This projection was then compared with guaranteed potable water
supply for the service area. Analyses concluded that guaranteed
water supplies were adequate to support the revised population pro-
jection of 168,000 people, provided that water conservation was em-
ployed and that water allocation for industrial use would be reallocated
for domestic use.
On March 25, 1976, EPA, MCPB and TSRPC presented the assumptions,
the methodology and the findings of the joint study of the area's
carrying capacity at a public information meeting sponsored by the
applicant, but held at EPA's request. The purpose of the meeting was:
1) to air the assumptions made in the joint study with regard to the
protection of the area's, many environmentally sensitive areas; 2) to
discuss the need to provide for protecion of environmentally sensitive
-------
areas through local land use planning and ordinances, and; 3) to present
the potential water quality and water supply consequences for the area
if proper measures were not taken.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation of secondary impacts was accomplished through scaling
down the population projections for the overall wastewater facilities
plan on the basis of the carrying capacity study described above.
Although not specifically described above, earlier capacity reductions
were also agreed to prior to this study in previous consultation with
the applicant.
The second mitigation measure was tied to the interceptor itself.
Due to severe water quality problems caused by the outdated existing
interceptor and the need for emergency action, the Region issued a
combined Step II/III on June 30, 1976 to design and construct the
replacement interceptor only. The grant was issued, however, with
the following condition:
The interceptor sewer being funded under this grant
agreement is intended to be available for "hook-up"
only by those sewage sources now "hooked-up" to the
existing interceptor sewer which is being replaced
by this new interceptor sewer. No additional "hook-
ups" shall be made to the new interceptor sewer
except as may be specifically approved in writing
in advance (1) by EPA and NJDEP or (2) by specific
order or decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Approval of further "hook-ups" by EPA and the NJDEP
will be dependent upon the conclusions in the EIS
on the Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority,
the draft of which is anticipated to be completed
on or before December, 1977.
Continuing Regional Involvement
Stemming from meetings both at EPA Headquarters and at the Regional
Office with the Tourne Valley Coalition and the applicant, Region II has
decided to conduct an EIS review of the entire plan for the Upper Rockaway
Basin including connection interceptors and treatment plant expansion
through 2020. The EIS will examine the questions of plant sizing, and
the secondary impacts of facilitated development on both water quality
-------
8
and quantity. As a preliminary step two requests for proposals have
been issued by Region II to investigate potential water supply prob-
lems and to collect and quantify existing land use data within the
service area.
As indicated above, due to the severity of existing and potential
problems with the present interceptor, the replacement interceptor will
be built as soon as possible. Sewer right-of-way easements are being
negotiated and construction of the interceptor is expected to begin in
the Spring of 1977.
-------
FALLING CREEK, VIRGINIA
-------
FALLING CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA
PROJECT NUMBER :
REGIONAL CONTACT:
C-510484-01
Steve Torok, Chief
Environmental Impact Statement
Preparation Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region III - Curtis Building
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Project Description
Problem
Land Use Issues
EPA Region III
Involvement Points
Mitigating Measure
Continuing Regional
Involvement
Sources
o Upgrading and expansion of Falling
Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility
o Eutrophication of water supply
reservoirs
o The impact of induced secondary
effects on the Swift Creek Reservoir
o Additional Information Request issued
by Region to applicant after review
of Environmental Assessment
o Preparation of a Draft and Final EIS
o Region III decision to fund a 3 mgd
expansion as opposed to a 6 mgd
expansion
o Step II grant conditioned on the
development and adoption of a Swift
Creek Watershed Management Plan
o Implementation of the Swift Creek
Watershed Management Plan
o Draft EIS issued July, 1975
o Final EIS issued March, 1976
-------
Project Description
The Project
The proposed action Involves a Step II grant to design the up-
grading and expansion of the existing Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment
Facility from 6 to 9 MGD's. The plant expansion, 1n conjunction with a
locally funded Interceptor and collector system, is designed to gradually
eliminate on-lot septic tanks and place future growth in the area on
public sewers as much as possible.
The Service Area of the proposed project lies within Chesterfield
County, southwest of Richmond In east-central Virginia. With a land
area of 441.6 square miles (1143.7 km), the county has an estimated
population of 116,548. The existing facility at Falling Creek serves
only the northern section of Chesterfield County. The planned expansion
will Include the areas that are now excluded. At this time the only
other wastewater facilities 1n the Service Area are on-lot systems
and one small STP.
The proposed project is a major component of the first of three
phases of Chesterfield County's Sewerage Improvement Program. Other
EPA-flnanced facilities of the Phase I program (to be completed by
1078) include a 4.0 mgd treatment plant and associated trunk sewers
serving three drainage basins In the County. Additional Phase I
Interceptors and collectors are being financed through an $18 million
County bond issue.
The projected construction cost of the treatment plant expansion
and upgrading is estimated at $10.million. EPA will contribute 75
percent of the eligible costs or $7.5 million. An additional, as yet
undetermined, percentage will be financed by the State (approximately
with the remaining costs being borne by Chesterfield County.
Problem
Unsuitable soils have caused a number of on-site septic systems
to malfunction within the service area. This problem combined with
non-point sources of pollution carried by stormwater runoff has affected
groundwater supplies and accelerated eutrophic conditions within the two
county reservoirs - Falling Creek and Swift Creek.
The Swift Creek Reservoir is an artifical impoundment that was
created in 1964 by Chesterfield County. It has been the subject of
-------
CHESTERFIELD
COUNTY
t» o n so »» 100 in i«o ira too
LOCATION OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
IN EPA Region III
-------
continued public awareness and concern. There are several natural
characteristics in the Reservoir and its Watershed which tend to
produce eutrophic conditions: the water level in many areas is less
than five feet deep, allowing sunlight to penetrate to the bottom
(this is an important criteria in algal product!vitity); the low stream-
flows of the drainage basin produce a relatively slow flushing rate,
increasing nutrient residence time within the reservoir (this
results in an increase of biological assimilation and associated
algal growth); and The soil is highly erodable causing considerable
siltation. When the ground cover and surface soil is removed,
erosion levels range from moderate to severe. The net effect of
these combined natural characteristics is the magnification of
adverse water quality impacts resulting from construction-related
soil disturbances in the drainage basin.
Land Use Issues
Due to the fact that the immediate watershed of Falling Creek
Reservoir was largely developed at the time of the grant application,
the Region concentrated its attention on secondary impacts within
the relatively undeveloped Swift Creek area. The provision of in-
creased sewage capacity has the potential to facilitate new develop-
ment in addition to a large subdivision already under development in
the Swift Creek watershed. It is evident, however, that Chesterfield
County will continue to grow with or without an expanded treatment
facility. The County's proximity to the "urban cresent" from
Washington D.C. through Richmond to the Tidewater Area indicates
considerable future population growth. An analysis of existing land
use patterns shows that northern and eastern sections of the county
adjacent to Richmond have already been largely developed. A change
in future residential use within the County is projected from pre-
dominantly single family to a mixture of single and multi-family
dwellings.
The future growth has the potential to further degrade the already
eutrophic Swift Creek Reservoir. Highly erodable soils combined with
the non-point source pollution from new development will necessitate
adoption of specific management measures including both in-lake treat-
ment and land development controls.
The second land use issue concerns the right of public access and
recreational use of the Swift Creek Reservoir, a public water supply
impoundment. In an effort to further protect the Reservoir's water
supply function, the County has prohibited body contact sports and the
-------
use of internal combustion engines on the Reservoir. Public fishing
and non-engine boating is, however, permitted at two access points.
Although water supply constitutes the primary use, the Reservoir's
recreation potential also constitutes an important County asset.
Further discussion and recommendation on the issue of recreational
use may be found in the Final EIS.
State and County Background
In 1972, the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation directing
the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs to identify critical
environmental areas within the State. The Swift Creek Reservoir was
identified in the State study as a natural area with significant
recreational potential in the midst of an urbanizing region. The
Richmond Regional Planning District Commission proposed that the area
surrounding the Reservoir be set aside as a park. However, the recom-
mendation was not acted on by the local governments involved.
The responsibility for protecting both Swift and Falling Creek
Reservoirs lies within the County's jurisdiction. Chesterfield County
has adopted a 1995 General Plan, a zoning ordinance and a subdivision
ordinance containing provisions to control runoff and erosion.
'N
As mentioned above, development has begun on a large subdivision
comprising some 1,600 acres along the southern and eastern shores of
Swift Creek Reservoir. In recognizing the area's environmentally
sensitive nature, the County Board of Supervisors imposed a number of
development restrictions as conditions to the project's subdivision
approval. These include: runoff and sediment retention basins; various
soil conservation measures; restrictive use of specific environmentally
sensitive areas; and, establishing buffer zones. The County has thus
demonstrated an awareness of the relationship between land use practices
'and water quality.
EPA ROLE
The initial facilities planning was done on the Falling Creek
Project as part of the overall county sewer plan prior to the time
EPA issued its regulations on Step I plan submittal. Consequently,
the Environmental Assessment, submitted in the Summer of 1974, was
on a Step II grant application. In addition, the Environmental
Assessment was on the entire County plan. Consequently, the Regional
Office felt that it needed more information on the Falling Creek
-------
portion of the overall County program. In October, 1974, the Region
Issued an Additional Information Request on the up-grading and ex-
pansion of the Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility. In the
intervening period, the Region and the applicant met on several
occasions to discuss the secondary impacts involved with the proposed
project.
The possibility of controversy and the potential impact of the
secondary effects on Swift Creek Reservoir identified the project
from its early stages as a candidate for an environmental impact
statement. The EPA Regional Office filed its Notice of Intent for
preparation of an EIS in Feburary,, 1975 and indicated that an EIS
would focus on the following:
1. The appropriate sewage treatment plant expansion
capacity, and
2. The primary and secondary effects of the project
on water quality and water supply, with particular
reference to the Swift Creek Reservoir.
Mitigating Measures
The County's original application requested funds to upgrade and
expand the Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility from its present
6 MGD to 12 MGD. Based on a reexamination of population projections
and other pertinent data, during the EIS process, EPA ruled that only
a 3 MGD increase would be funded, expanding the capacity to 9 MGD.
The decision to fund a smaller facility expansion represents the
first mitigating measure. That decision was based on the following
considerations:
1. An actual per capita sewage flow of 80 gpcd was
used instead of a general 100 gpcd assumed figure.
2. The Region's analysis of population projections
for the service area led to the conclusion that
long term dependence on a recently experienced
high growth rate was unwarranted.
3. The 3 mgd expansion would be sufficient to serve
the existing population needs, as well as providing
adequate reserve capacity for a moderate level of
growth.
4. A cost-effectiveness analysis revealed no signi-
ficant savings involved with the construction of
-------
a 6 mgd expansion versus two 3 mgd expansion.
5. After the first 3 mgd expansion, the Region would be
able to conduct a "mid-course" evaluation of the
effectiveness of the revised 1995 General Land Use
Plan, and the development and implementation of the
Swift Creek Watershed Management Plan in mitigating
the project's secondary impacts. At this point
both the Region and the applicant could consider
funding the additional 3 mgd if it were still
deemed necessary.
6. Provision of a 6 mgd expansion would provide
excessive initial capacity which might unduly
stimulate new growth. If a lower growth rate
were to prevail, however, the drop in expected
user revenue could create an increased financial
burden to local tax payers who would be called on
to make up the difference. Each resident who
receives sewer service will pay a connection fee
of at least $300; a yearly service charge of
approximately $70 and an amount for installation
of hook-in sewers that average $400 but may vary
from $250 to $1,000. The cost of the County share
for interceptors and collectors makes it necessary
for the County to maintain a 5.8 percent rate of
growth on public sewers in order to meet bond
obligations using sewer connection fees and
service charges.
Even with the 3 mgd expansion, the Region felt that local planning
and management initiatives were needed to protect Swift Creek Reservoir
from the secondary impacts of the proposed project. As a result of the
E'lS process, Region III conditioned the Step II grant award on the
County developing and adopting a "Swift Creek Watershed Management Plan",
EPA maintained that special provisions would have to be taken to assure
that growth in the Swift Creek Watershed would be managed to minimize
its adverse environmental effects upon both the Watershed and the
Reservoir itself. The Plan is to include the elements listed below.
Elements of the Plan
"In order to protect the integrity of the Reservoir's resources
and to minimize future degradation, the County of Chesterfield must
prepare a watershed management plan incorporating the following general
-------
provisions:
a. establish a monthly tributary and in-lake monitoring
program of sufficient duration and scope to completely
describe the physical and biological conditions of the
hydrologic regime and of sufficient sensitivity to
discriminate seasonal and annual changes in the water
quality for all measured parameters.
b. revise the 1995 Land Use Plan for the Swift Creek
Watershed to indicate the following:
1. delineation of buffer zones, steep slopes,
critical soils and other sensitive areas
where development (either by sewer or septic
tanks) must be prohibited or limited;
2. location of soils unsuitable for septic tank
Installation noting all specific limiting
factors; and
3. based primarily on the information developed
for No. 1 and No. 2., a determination of the
recommended development patterns and/or
densities permitted in the Watershed based
on water quality effects.
c. prepare standards for all construction in the Watershed,
compatible with the erosion and sedimentation controls
of the Brandermill development. Part of the construction
standards will be an established procedure for mandatory
site inspection by the County Engineering Department
during construction. Enforcement of compliance with
the Watershed constuction standards (as well as the
standards of the Chesterfield County Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance) is provided in Section I (Part 1) of
the Chesterfield County Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook.
d. establish a Swift Creek Watershed Committee with the
fol1 owing responstbtlities:
1. review the monitoring and management programs,
providing recommendations for future additions
or delections when required.
-------
8
2. cooperate with the County Engineering and Planning
Departments to periodically review and modify, if
appropriate, the Watershed construction standards
and 1995 Land Use Plan.
3. solicit Virginia SWCD or other appropriate assis-
tance when necessary.
4. coordinate with the Recreation and Planning Departments
for the development of recreational resources in the
Swift Creek Watershed. The Committee will serve in
an advisory capacity to the Planning Commission with
respect to implementing the Chesterfield County Park
and Open Spaces Plan.
5. assist the County in administering and maintaining any
programs implemented with Section 314 funds (see below).
6. prepare an annual report indicating progress being
made in implementing the management plan; results of
implemented procedures; description of current and
anticipated quality of the Watershed and Reservoir;
and recommendations for revising the management plan.
The organization of the Committee will be the responsibility of the County.
Representative members from all relevant and interested parties, both
private and governmental should be included. Regularly scheduled meetings
will be held on a sufficient basis to fulfill its responsibilities."
Continuing Regional Involvement
EPA and Chesterfield County have established communications regarding
.the implementation of the Management Plan. Although the Step II grant has
not yet been offered to the applicant, the order of events necessary for
the plan's successful implementation will follow these general steps:
1. Chesterfield County will prepare the management
plan;
2. The Virginia State Water Control Board will review,
modify, and ultimately approve the County plan (EPA
will be apprised during SWCB progress and will offer
comments);
-------
3. Chesterfield County implements the plan Cassfsted
by the advisory committee formed as part of the
plan);
4. the advisory committee operates and reviews the
plan and data as made available, makes recommen-
dations to the County when appropriate, and assumes
other responsibilities as outlined in the Final EIS
Casststed by the County).
5. EPA receives Step 111 grant application and con-
currently reviews progress of the management plan
(assisted by both County and advisory committee).
6. the advisory committee continues its responsibilities
under the management plan, including the preparation
of an annual status report (assisted by the County).
-------
RENNER, SOUTH DAKOTA
-------
RENNER SANITARY DISTRICT
RENNER, SOUTH DAKOTA
PROJECT NUMBER:
REGIONAL CONTACT:
C-460313
William Geise, Chief
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
Project Description
Problem
Land Use Issues
EPA Region VIII
Involvement
Mitigating Measures
Continuing Involvement o
Collection system and four lift stations
connecting into the existing treatment
facility of the adjacent City of Sioux
Falls, South Dakota
Groundwater contamination caused.by failing
on-site disposal systems and possible con-
tamination of an aquifer which provides the
region with drinking water
Allowing sewer connections for new development
within the floodplain of the Big Sioux River
Determining proper sizing of the collection
system to adequately serve the District's
present needs and to allow for a "moderate"
amount of new growth
Step 1 review of facilities plan and environ-
mental assessment
Joint meetings between EPA and the County to
discuss the secondary impacts of the project
on the Big Sioux River Floodplain
Issuance of a Negative Declaration and
Environmental Appraisal
The Step II grant was conditioned so that
no connections would be allowed for future
development within the 100-year floodplain
The Region recommended that the collection
line be sized to serve existing residents
plus a "moderate" amount of new growth
The County Planning and Zoning Commission
foresees little difficulty in enforcing
the conditions under its existing flood-
plain ordinance
Sources
Negative Declaration and Environmental
Appraisal issued August 22, 1975
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project
Renner Sanitary District is located in Mapleton Township within
Minnehaha County one mile north of the corporate limits of Sioux Falls,
South Dakota. The proposed service area contains 614 acres consisting
of scattered residential and commercial development. 700 residents
presently reside in the District. A portion of the service area lies
within the Big Sioux River's floodplain. Renner is also located within
the recharge zone of an aquifer which supplies drinking water to Sioux
Falls and surrounding areas. Residents in the service area are currently
served by on-site sewer systems—septic tanks with or without proper
drainage fields and what are called dry wells, or outhouses.
The proposed project will consist of a collection system of the
minimum-recommended capacity to serve all existing residences and four
lift stations with force mains to transport the wastes to the City of
Sioux Falls for treatment.
The Step I grant was approved by EPA on September 1, 1975. The
Step II grant for design was awarded on October 19, 1976, following
EPA and State approval. Step III (construction) is scheduled to begin
on March, 1977.
The estimated cost for Step II and III is $693,228. Of this amount,
$519,921 will be paid by EPA; $34,661 will be paid by the State, and
$138,646 will be paid by Renner.
The Problem
In early 1972, the Minnehaha County Department of Health discovered
that the groundwater supply had been contaminated by malfunctioning on-
site systems in a number of low-lying areas, including Renner. The
results of the County investigation indicated that although health
standards had not as yet been violated, serious health hazards could
develop if the problem continued unattended. Since most of the proposed
service area is located within the recharge zone of a major regional
aquifer, it was singled out for special attention. The Minnehaha
Planning Commission indicated that no building permits would be issued
for new or improvement construction until such time as public sewer
facilities were constructed. Only then would the building ban be lifted.
-------
-------
Land Use Issues
Two major land use issues are involved in planning for Renner's
wastewater facility needs. The first concerns the question of how to
treat that portion of the district located within the 100-year flood-
plain of the Big Sioux River. The second concerns the question of
providing reserve capacity, which may facilitate new growth within
the recharge zone of an aquifer which provides the region with
drinking water.
Out of the fifty-odd lots subdivided for single family dwelling
within the floodplain, thirty-five have already been developed. In
July, 1975, the County's Planning and Zoning Commission decided that
development of the remaining lots must await the completion of the
wastewater treatment system. At this point, new development could
locate in the floodplain, provided that it met the requirements of
the local floodplain ordinance. However, one year later in July,
1976, the County revised its ordinance to prohibit the location of
any new dwelling units within the 100 year floodplain of the Big
Sioux River.
The second issue involves determining the proper capacity for
the collection system to adequately serve the district's need without
unduly inducing new growth. The Renner Sanitary District represents
one of the fastest growing areas surrounding the City of Sioux Falls.
Federal Census Bureau figures show that Mapleton Township, which
includes Renner, grew 44% during the decade of the 1950's and another
41% during the 1960's. By 1970, the population had grown to 1,105
residents. These figures represent a sizeable inmigration from the
rural areas surrounding Sioux Falls, one of the few urbanizing centers
in the region.
Judging from past growth the Consulting Engineer projected future
population for the service area to be four times the existing number
of 700 residents by 1995. As will be seen below, these projections
were not used in final project design primarily because the City of
Sioux Falls imposed limits on the quantity of sewage it would accept
for treatment from the Renner collection system.
EPA Role
EPA Region VIII first became involved when reviewing the facilities
plan and environmental assessment. The Region decided that an EIS would
not be necessary and issued a Negative Declaration on August 22, 1975.
-------
4
Prior to issuing a Negative Declaration, however, EPA and Minnehaha
County Planning and Zoning Commission held a series of joint meetings
to discuss the secondary impacts the proposed collection system could
have on the Big Sioux River floodplain. As a result of these meetings,
it was agreed by both the County and the Regional Office that EPA
would condition Step II and III grants disallowing connection from
any future dwellings within the 100-year floodplain.
EPA's decision to condition the grant was based in part on
Executive Order (E.O.) 11296 which states that "all executive
agencies responsible for the administration of federal grant
programs involving the construction of buildings, structures, roads,
or other facilities shall evaluate flood hazards in connection with
such facilities and shall, as far as practicable, preclude the
uneconomic, hazardous, or unnecessary use of floodplains in such
connection."
In addition, EPA's own regulations (40 CFR 6.214(b)(2)) states that:
"If an EPA action may directly cause or induce the
construction of buildings or other facilities in a
floodplain, the responsible officials shall evaluate
flood hazards in connection with these facilities
as required by Executive Order 11296 and shall, as
far as practicable, consider alternatives to preclude
the uneconomic, hazardous or unnecessary use of
floodplains to minimize the exposure of facilities
to potential flood damage, lessen the need for future
Federal expenditures for flood protection and flood
disaster relief and preserve the unique and signi-
ficant public value of the floodplain as an environ-
mental resource."
This section emphasizes the need to consider alternatives to
preclude the unnecessary use of floodplains. Further, while E.O.
11296 could be read to apply only to construction arising directly
as a result of a Federal grant, Section 6.214(b) expands the scope
of the Executive Order to include projects which may "induce"
construction of buildings in a floodplain.
In July, 1975, after weighing these considerations, the Regional
Office decided that it was permissable to allow existing dwelling
units and any units to be built in the future on the platted lots to
connect into the system but to preclude connections by any future
dwelling units constructed on currently unplatted floodplain land.
-------
The Regional Office interpreted E.O. 11296 and Section 6.214(b) as
only affecting that future development which would be considered as
being induced by the proposed project, i.e., that which would occur
on the unplatted land. However, since the Mlnnehaha County Planning
and Zoning Commission revised their regulations in July, 1976, to
prohibit the building of new dwelling units within the floodplain on
either platted or unplatted land, they requested that EPA condition
the grant so as to uphold the revised county regulation by prohibiting
hookups from platted floodplain land as well.
Further rational for the Regional decision may be found in EPA
Program Guidance Memo #50 which states in part that "The policy of
the Agency is:
"that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements shall indicate whether secondary
effects may contravene Federal, State and local
environmental laws and regulations, and plans and
standards required by environmental laws or regu-
lations. Where such contravention is possible,
the best available data and analytical techniques
should be applied to analyzing the likelihood and
extent of such violations.
Where careful analysis leads to the conclusion
that the secondary effects of a project can
reasonably be anticipated to contravene an environ-
mental law or regulation, or a plan or standard
required by an environmental law or regulation,
the Regional Administrator shall withhold approval
of a Step II or Step III construction grant until
the applicant revises the plan, initiates steps
to mitigate the adverse effects, or agrees to
conditions in the grant document requiring actions
to minimize the effects."
In the case of Renner, a local ordinance was in effect for the
floodplain in question which might have been contravened by the
secondary effects of the project. The Regional Office, therefore,
established the policy that whenever a proposed service area is subject
to a floodplain ordinance, the grant should be conditioned to reinforce
the goals and purposes of the ordinance. Thus, if the local ordinance
prohibits development within the floodplain, EPA's grant should not
make service available to those areas.
-------
Mitigating Measures:
As the first mitigation action, the Region recommended that the
service capacity be limited to the 700 existing residents plus a
reasonable amount of new growth, instead of the 3,200 residents
originally proposed by the consulting engineer in the initial facilities
plan. A subsequent agreement initiated by the City of Sioux Falls
and signed on September 20, 1976 by the city and the Renner Sanitation
District limits the flow of sewage to the Sioux Falls treatment
system to an 840.population equivalent over the next 20 years. This
amounts to a 20% growth rate through 1996. The system will therefore
be designed with an interceptor line of minimum recommended size
(8 inches) to serve the area.
As the second mitigation measure, Region VIII conditioned the
Step II and Step III grant as follows:
"Within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the
official zoning map of the Board of County Commis-
sioners, Minnehaha County, it shall be permissible
to only connect existing residential housing as of
the date of this grant. Further, any residential
construction after the date of this grant, within
the 100-year floodplain, shall not connect to this
collection system."
Continuing Involvement:
The applicant agreed to the above grant condition on November 1,
1976. The Minnehaha County Planning and Zoning Commission foresees
no difficulty in enforcing the provision under its existing floodplain
ordinance. The Renner Sanitation District is currently designing the
collection system and plans to commence construction by March, 1977.
-------
EAST BAY, CALIFORNIA
-------
EAST BAY DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Alameda County/ California
Project Number: C-06-0868-010
Regional Contact:
The Project
The Problem
Land Use Issues
EPA Region IX
Points
Director
Water Division
Region IX
San Francisco, California
0 Subregional wastewater treatment
conveyance and disposal system
0 Shallow shoreline effluent discharges
into 'southeastern areas of San Francisco
Bay
0 Increased non-point surface runoff from
increased development affecting water
quality and critical environmental areas
* Projected growth leading to increased
VMT and subsequent decline in air quality
0 Loss of agricultural and open lands
0 Mudslide and seismic hazards
0 EIS process raised the secondary impacts
for governmental and public review.
Mitigation
Measures
0 Regional office negotiated with individual
communities to develop satisfactory
mitigation measurer during Step 1 planning,
0 Step 2 and 3 grants to be conditioned
requiring municipalities' implementation
of VMT reduction strategies, including
transportation control plans and other
land use planning measures
0 Moratorium on hillside development
proposed by EPA but not accepted by local
government
Continuing Regional ° Final EIS published 8/17/76
Involvement
Sources
0 Step 2 grant awarded 9/21/76
0 Draft EIS issued December 1975
0 Final EIS issued August 1976
-------
The Project
On February 15, 1974, the East Bay Dischargers Authority
(EBDA) was formed as a joint powers authority to implement a
subregional wastewater treatment conveyance and disposal
program in the East Bay area adjacent to eastern San Francisco
Bay (see maps). The program would eliminate six shallow
shoreline discharges of moderately treated, chlorinated
effluent from the eastern shore of Lower and South San
Francisco Bay. The EBDA is composed of two incorporated
cities and three sanitary districts in southwestern
Alameda County, including the City of San Leandro, the Oro
Loma Sanitary District, the Castro Valley Sanitary District,
the City of Hayward, and the Union Sanitary District
(serving Union City, the City of Fremont, and the City of
Newark).
The major portion of the EBDA project includes construction
of a force main interceptor and outfall system with a 1995 PWWF
design capacity -of 185 mgd extending approximately 31 miles
from the site of the existing Union Sanitary District
Irvington wastewater treatment plant in the south portion
of the City of Fremont to a discharge point in north-central
San Francisco Bay. It also includes the conversion of
Union Sanitary District's existing treatment plants at
Irvington and Newark to raw sewage pumping stations and the
consolidation of Union Sanitary District's wastewater
facilities at an expanded Union-Alvardo treatment plant
with a 1987 ADWF design capacity of 19.5 mgd. The three
existing plants for the City of Hayward, Oro Loma-Castro
Valley Sanitary District and the City of San Leandro, with a
combined 1987 ADWF design capacity of 40.5 mgd, will dis-
charge secondary treated effluent to the EBDA interceptor.
The interceptor and outfall are sized to take in additional
PWWF of approximately 19.7 mgd from the Livermore-Amador
Valley Water Management Agency, which consists of the cities
of Pleasanton and Livermore, and the Valley Community
Services District, all of which are located outside the EBDA
service area.
The Problem
Although water quality in the entire Bay system has been
improving over the last several years as the result of
improved point source control, some beneficial uses of the
Bay waters are still impaired. These include a restriction
on shellfish harvesting for human consumption. Dissolved
oxygen depression and toxicity are other localized problems
in the Bay, attributable to municipal discharges. Localized
pollution conditions persist around much of the Bay shoreline
where surface discharges of treated effluent occur. The
-------
SSW*-*\, • "V -^
•S'-'v. > -\ '
. ••-'•_-». ! *(' A
,• - n-^ ~?r V x
\^vi*?r\
• V- ' .'•' - O \
AREA
EAST BAY
DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY
WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
PROTECTION AGENCY
MORC ENVIRONMENTAL
^LABORATORY
•EDMnr/coon
-------
«o
^ C >»TP ««0
Y" .
o \
'• ' H*YW«RO' PUMP
'
PHASE I
PROJECT
LEGEND:
PROPOSED E.aO.JL
INTERCEPTOR ALIGNMENT
PROPOSED ULVVM.A. ':
CONNECTION TO- THE EAOA.
WTtBCEPTOR . : ';•.•.---
PROPOSED
CONNECTION TO THE E.B.OA
INTERCEPTOR
EAST BAY
DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY
. WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMRftCT STATEMENT
U.S. ENVmONMENTW.
PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Phase I Project would improve water quality along the east
shoreline of the south area of the Bay by providing a
deepwater central Bay discharge point to replace shallow
shoreline discharges, allowing for increased dilution of
effluent. The project also would eliminate two discharges
of moderately treated sewage to sloughs upstream from the
San Francisco Bay National Refuge and provide wastewater
reclamation opportunities in the East Bay.
Land Use Issues
The EIS analysis concluded that the project is not a direct causa-
tive element in the location or rate of future growth. However,
construction of the wastewater treatment system will remove
existing constraints to development and accommodate a
projected 23.9 percent population increase, from 456,300 persons
in 1975, to 565,700 persons in 1995. Many land use
impacts resulting from this projected population increase
can be classified as secondary land use impacts. These
impacts fall mainly into three categories: those affecting
water quality and the aquatic environment, those affecting
air quality, and those affecting agricultural and open lands.
A population increase could have an indirect impact on non-
point sources of pollutants to the South Bay ecosystem,
affecting local biology and water quality. Permeable land
surfaces would be covered with impermeable surfaces such as
streets and buildings. Surface runoff would increase
over the next 20 years as development occurs. The main
aquatic habitats adversely affected by an increase in
surface runoff would be those shoreline areas located in
the southern half of the study area. This would include
principally the salt marsh, salt pond and mudflat habitats
within the present boundaries of the San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge. These habitats provide great
potential for human aesthetic enjoyment as open space and
are of considerable biological value, providing homes to
many species of animals, some of them rare and endangered.
A population increase has the potential of adversely affect-
ing air quality, since the type of development likely to
occur would add considerably to the total vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) in the area. (Approximately 21.1 million
VMT would be generated daily by vehicle trips to, from and
within the EBDA study area in 1995. This is a 21 percent
increase over 17.4 million VMT in 1975.) Federal air quality
standards are presently exceeded in the project service area.
-------
Even assuming certain reductions in air pollutant emissions
per VMT over the next 20 years, it appears that Federal
standards would continue to be violated.
Residential and industrial development is projected to
occur on prime agricultural land in the study area to
accommodate the anticipated increase in population. Of
the estimated 19,600 acres of land designated for future
residential use by local general purpose governments, 5,900 acres
are prime agricultural land, of which about 5,000 acres can
be expected to be developed during the 1975 to 1995 period.
A major portion of the absorbed agricultural land would be
in Fremont if the Northern Plain area is allowed to be
developed. Projected industrial development would absorb
from 250 to 1,100 acres of an additional 3,160 acres of
prime agricultural land which is now designated for industrial
use by existing public policy.
Other potential indirect impacts include increased mudslide
and seismic damage resulting from development of areas
both west and east of the presently developed corridor.
EPA Role
Planning for the Phase .1 Project officially began in 1971.
The preliminary steps of the Facilities Planning Stage were
completed prior to EPA involvement. On November 12, 1974,
EPA made a Step 1 grant offer to EBDA for the eligible portion
of EBDA's facilities planning, as well as other preliminary
planning.
EPA's review of the environmental assessment required of
EBDA revealed an insufficient investigation of possible
secondary land use issues. As a result of the environmental
review, EPA made the decision to issue an EIS and asked the
EBDA member agencies to submit mitigation proposals for
land use issues identified during EIS preparation. As a
result of the mitigation proposals, resolutions were passed
by the local general purpose governments to perform additional
studies, implement specific infrastructure investment proposals,
and implement land use measures. The applicant, EBDA, will
be required by Step 2 and 3 grant contract conditions to take
all reasonable steps to achieve implementation of these measures.
Mitigation
Although the new longer outfall pipe is expected to
improve water quality along the east shore of the Bay, there
is no existing plan for mitigating the projects secondary land use
impacts ofa water quality and the aquatic environment. Mitiga-
tion is however expected to be accomplished by implmenting the
Bay Area 208 Areawide Waste Management Plan.
-------
The EPA regional office has suggested curtailing the loss
of agricultural and open lands by deferring any further
development on large scale sites with prime agricultural
soils "Until completion of a study of the economic value
and need for such lands. The regional office has also
proposed that the communities reevaluate the areas now
designated for residential development on the hillsides,
with special reference to potential safety hazards for road
and utility linkages-needed to service those areas in an
effort to mitigate possible mudslide and seismic hazards.
However, there is no indication that the grantee or general
purpose governments will agree at this time to the mitigation
measures, and Region IX feels that it does not have the
authority to require the measures.
Primary emphasis was placed on reducing projected VMT within
the EBDA Study Area. A number of Mitigation measures were
proposed by the regional office as elements within two major
strategies. The first strategy is in two parts, Transportation
Mitigations A and B: Transportation Mitigation A is a
change or improvement of existing transportation
facilities and services and Transportation Mitigation B
is a plan for auto use disincentives. The second
strategy, Land Use Mitigation C, achieves impact
reduction by altering current land use policies or regula-
tions. Best mitigation results occur when Mitigation C
is used in conjunction with Mitigations A and B.
The following charts have been prepared which show the main
mitigation measures agreed to by the local general purpose
governments, suggested by EPA. Because some condensing
and rewording was necessary to prepare the charts,
some measures may appear different from the original measures
submitted. A more exact assessment of measures actually
planned for mitigation by the cities is available in the
'inal EIS. A key feature of the mitigation measures is a
commitment to participate in the area-wide Air Quality
Maintenance Planning effort.
-------
VWT Reduction Strategy # 1
Transportation Mitigation A
Improvement of Existing Transportation Facilities
San Leandro
Hayward
Union
City
Newark Fremont
1. Extend Rapid Rail Service; add new
service areas, bus stops and/or routes.
2. Provide transit rights-of-way: peak
or 24 hr. transit lines and busways.
3. Redesign terminals, stations, and
bus stops to improve functionality.
4. Establish local transit service
districts and improve existing service.
5. Incorporate subscription and charter
service into local transit. Incorporate
subscription/vanpool services at
large employment centers.
6. Develop bicycle routes.
7. Permit and encourage use of local,
short-range, low-power vehicles.
8. Coordinate schedules, fares, and
transfers among systems.
9. Improve services information
system.
10. Improve transit pricing structures,
including generally lowered fares,
and reimbursement of transit costs
to shoppers.
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
VMT Reduction Strategy # 1
Transportation Mitigation B
Auto Use Disincentives
San Leandro
Hayward
Union
City
Newark Fremont
1. Control parking supply. x
Reduce and limit public
and employee parking on-street
and in suburban lots.
2. Promote car-pooling by providing
special bus/carpool lanes, preferential
job sites parking, other free parking
3. Encourage/require flexible
and staggered work hours.
4. Make downtown area parking
requirements (for city planning)
substantially less than city-wide
standards.
-------
VMT Reduction Strategy # 2
Land Use Mitigation G
San Leandro Hayward
Union
City
Newark
Fremont
1. Increase planned intensity x
of all land use activities
near transit stations and major
transit corridors.
2. Require minimum levels of x
land use intensity to be
developed near transit stations
and major transit corridors.
3. Phase location of development x
with respect to transit access.
4. Increase planned intensity and x
variety of land use activities
in major activity centers.
5. Regulate minimum levels of land use
intensity to be developed in major
activity centers.
6. Have site plan review allowing x
city to require buffer zones'.
x
X
-------
FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA
-------
Fairfield-Suisun Wastewater Conveyance, Treatment
and Disposal Facilities, Solano County, California
Project. .Number :
Regional Contact:
C-06 0810-01
Director, Water Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
San'Francisco, California 94111
Project Description
Problem
Land Use Issues
EPA Region IX
Involvement Points
litigating Measures
Continuing Involvement
Interceptor sewers and treat-
ment facilities for four sub-
areas in Solano County,
California
Inadequate conveyance and treat-
ment facilities resulting in
deteriorated surface and ground-
water quality
Pressures for increased industrial
and low density residential develop-
ment on or near Suisun Marsh
Pressures for development of
nearby agricultural areas with
resulting air quality and wild- •
life impacts
Review of applicant's final
environmental assessment
Meetings with local officials
directed at ensuring preser-
vation of the Marsh
Step III grant conditioned on
not providing service to new
development on or immediately
adjacent to Suisun Marsh pur-
suant to pending State protection
legislation
The State of California passed
the Suisun Marsh Preservation
Act of 1974 which defined
interim marsh and buffer zone
boundaries and mandated prepara-
tion of a marsh protection plan.
Hearings are presently being
conducted on this plan.
-------
Project Description
The Project:
The project involves,a step III grant for construction of inter-
ceptor/force mains, treatment and disposal facilities for four sub-areas
in Solano County, California. The service area of roughly 100 square
miles is a prime target for future residential and industrial growth by
virtue of low land prices and excellent nearby transportation facilities.
The area encompasses a major military base (Travis Air Force Base), two
cities which support the military base, two undeveloped valleys that are
presently used for agriculture and grazing and Suisun Marsh which is a
major recreational area.
The total bid cost of the project is $45,122,678 of which EPA will
provide $20,316,888, the State of California will provide $3,386,149,
Anheuser-Busch will provide $10,000,000 and the cities and county will
provide $11,419,641. The treatment plant is sized for ten years expected
development (8.85 mgd +1.5 mgd for Anheuser-Busch) and the pipelines
will be sized for twenty years expected growth. The wastewater will be
disposed of in two ways: a portion will be conveyed to the Solano
Irrigation District for reuse via agricultural irrigation and the re-
mainder will be discharged to Boyton slough in Suisun Marsh for flow
augmentation. (The Bureau of Reclamation is conducting a study with a
number of state agencies to determine how the effluent might be used to
benefit marsh wildlife).
The Problem:
The three existing plants serving the cities of Fairfield and
Suisun and Travis Air Force Base were incapable of providing the
treatment necessary (BOD of 10 mg/1, chlorine residual of 0.0) to
protect the waters of Suisun, Honker and Grizzley Bays. Fringe area
development serviced by on-site systems threatened groundwater quality.
Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that the best alternative would
be a regional treatment and disposal system. The regional system
will provide filtration and declorination in addition to secondary
treatment.
-------
-------
Land Use Issues:
Suisun Marsh, which lies above Suisun, Grizzley and Honker Bays
on the San Francisco Bay-estuary complex, encompasses a total of
roughly 84,000 acres. This area consists of about 44,000 acres of
leveed or partially leveed islands and perimeter areas surrounded by
tidal channels, permanent ponds, and other open water areas. It is
the largest contiguous marsh in the continental United States and
represents about 10 percent of the remaining natural wetlands in
California.
The Marsh, which serves as a,principal wintering ground for
migratory birds using the Pacific Coast Flyway, supports as much as
twenty percent of California's winter water fowl population. This
includes a significant resident water fowl population as well as a
wide variety of other aquatic and terrestrial species including many
designated as rare or endangered. About 38,500 acres is maintained
as a water fowl hunting area of which about 28,000 acres are under
the control of private hunting clubs and 10,500 acres are under the
control of the State for game management purposes.
The land use issues concern direct development pressures on the
marsh and its buffer zones, and indirect impacts from continued low
density development of Green and Suisun Valleys. Other concerns
include loss of agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and open space,
and increased air pollution from fringe area commuter traffic.
The service area is in predominately private ownership. It is
mid-way between the major cities of Sacramento and San Francisco but
is beyond commuting distance to either area. The cities of Pittsburg,
Antioch and Concord are located across Suisun Bay to the south. Plans
have been drawn up and set aside periodically for the last twenty years
for a major new bridge which would connect the cities north of the Bay
with those to the south. Such a bridge would have a profound impact
on service area development. Also under consideration have been a
$1 billion chemical plant, a $1/2 billion refinery and a major nuclear
power facility. Thus far, the only major industrial facility to obtain
approval from all regulatory agencies is an Anheuser-Busch brewery under
construction west of Fairfield and adjacent to the treatment site.
Because of stringent discharge requirements, poor soils and high water
tables, new development was dependent on the expansion and construction
of new wastewater facilities. Although much of the service area
was and is zoned for development, local land use plans did not provide
for protection of the marsh or adequately recognize the need for a
protective buffer zone.
-------
EPA Role and Mitigation:
The importance of the Marsh and the need for its protection
under both NEPA and the-Agency's Wetlands Policy was stressed by
EPA staff from the first pre-application meeting in September, 1972.
The applicant's environmental consultants were asked to pay particular
attention to the nature and extent of the secondary impacts of the
proposed facilities.
On May 7, 1973, EPA addressed a letter to the applicant noting
the inadequacy of the environmental assessment and again stressed
the importance of resolving secondary impact questions relating to
the Marsh and air quality. However, on June 11, 1974, the State of
California certified the project to EPA without conditions. Faced
with considerable pressure to correct existing water quality problems
and not delay project construction, EPA offered the construction
grant on August 2, 1974, but with the following condition:
Utilization of sewage treatment capacity in
facilities constructed pursuant to this grant
agreement shall be prohibited to residential,
commercial, and industrial wastewater services
initiated after the execution of this agreement
that are located within the Suisun Marsh
Protection Zone as it may in the future be
defined by the California Legislature in any
legislative enactment designed to protect the
environmental quality of the Suisun Marsh area.
Pending any such definition of the zone
boundaries by the California legislature the
boundaries shall be those as stated by the
California Department of Fish and Game in its
study entitled "A Land Protection Plan for
the Suisun Marsh" dated April 1, 1974.
The "Legislative enactment" referred to in the grant condition
was a reference to the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act pending before
the Califronia State Legislature at the time the grant was issued.
The Regional Office felt that the condition fulfilled EPA's respon-
sibilities under NEPA and EPA's Wetlands Policy to protect the Marsh
from secondary impacts which might be induced by the project.
-------
Continuing Involvement
In late August, 1974., the Governor signed the Suisun Marsh
Preservation Act of 1974. The Act recognized the Marsh as a unique
and irreplaceable resource. It also required that a "Suisun Marsh
Protection Plan" be prepared by December 1, 1976, and placed restric-
tions on incompatible development. The Act also authorized purchase
of critically important fish and wildlife habitat found to be threat-
ened by development or conflicting use.
-------
ilORTH FREEMONT, IDAHO
-------
NORTH FREMONT COUNTY, ISLAND PARK AREA
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
FREMONT COUNTY, IDAHO
PROJECT NUMBER
C-l60186-01
REGIONAL CONTACT: Richard Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
Seattle, Washington
Project Description
Problem
Land Use Issues
EPA Region X
Involvement Points
Mitigating Measures
Continuing Regional
Involvement
Sources
o
o
o
o
Individual collection, interceptor and
treatment facilities for four sub-areas
in North Fremont County, Idaho
Contamination of surface and groundwater
by inadequate on-site septic systems
Pressures for increased recreational
development
Protection of environmentally sensitive
areas for fishing and wildlife management
Pre-application meetings between Region X
and the applicant
Field study review of project's potential
impacts
Preparation of a draft and final Environmental
Impact Statement
Separate facilities for sub-areas built
in phases in lieu of one large Regional
plant with long interceptors
Step II and III grant conditioned on County
compliance with State law requiring develop-
ment of growth controls and a comprehensive
land use plan
Step II grant awarded June 30, 1976
Fremont County accepted grant conditions
and has prepared a draft comprehensive plan
Draft EIS North Freemont County, August, 1975
Final EIS North Freemont County, January, 1976
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project
The proposed project involves a Step II grant for design of
individual collection, interceptor and treatment facilities for each
of four sub-areas in the Island Park area of North Fremont County,
Idaho. The facilities will be located in areas of concentrated
existing or predicted 'future development.
The major use within the service area is recreational. Its
nearby location to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks make
it a popular summer and winter resort area. The proposed service
area is composed of 596,000 acres owned by the U.S. Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management, 1,700 acres are owned by the State
of Idaho, leaving only 2,300 acres in private ownership.
The total cost of the project is estimated at $6,941,500. From
this total cost, EPA will contribute 75% of the eligible cost of Phase
I or $2,102,500, the State of Idaho will finance 15% of the eligible
cost and Fremont County will contribute the remaining balance. Since
the project will be constructed in phases, costs will be spread over
twenty years. The first phase entails the construction of a collection
system, interceptor and treatment facility for the first of four sub-
areas. Similar facilities will be built in later phases for the three
remaining areas. The capacity for each sub-regional system will range
from roughly 50,000 gpd to 250,000 gpd.
The Problem:
Both EPA and County water quality studies have documented
contamination of surface and groundwater from malfunctioning on-
site sewage systems and septic tank discharges of inadequately
treated domestic sewage. Groundwater and domestic well tests
indicate considerable contamination of subsurface water by septic
tank drainfield effluent.
With the exception of a small evaporative lagoon serving the
Forest Ranger Station, all treatment units in the Study. Area are
individual septic tanks with drainage field systems. One major
reason for the malfunction of many of these systems has been attributed
to the high groundwater table found in most of the developed areas.
This figure includes the total cost of all phases of the project
as well as the collection system not funded under the EPA grant.
-------
The existing conditions resulted in levels of fecal coliform
within surface waters including segments of streams and lakes in
excess of State and Federal standards. The State Department of
Fish and Game reported localized trout dieoffs in late winter in ,.
the area's major spbrtfishing lake because trout were forced by
anaerobic (conditions to over-cqncentrate in warmer spring waters.
Nutrients from septic tank fields as well as from natural sources
are presumed to have caused the heavy blooms of blue-green algae
that resulted in the oxygen deficiencies.
Land Use Issues
Northern Fremont County is an environmentally sensitive and
unique area. The geography is that of a high plateau with lakes,
meadows, marshes and timber stands interlaced by high quality creeks
and streams, within the headwaters of the Snake River. Much of the
area can be considered to have the wilderness character of parts of
adjacent Yellowstone and Teton National Parks. Moose, eagles, rare
swan and cranes, wolves, wolverine, and other unique wildlife are
found, and substantially all of the surface waters support highly
desirable sport fisheries.
Significant private and public recreational development have
made this a popular recreation site in summer. Now, with the advent ;
of the snowmobile, it attracts a considerable number of people in the
winter and has prompted seasonal residents to winterize their summer
houses. Pressures for new development have risen in recent years due,
among other things, to the close proximity to two heavily used national
parks, Yellowstone and Teton. Relatively low land values and minimal
zoning or other land use controls have facilitated unplanned, sprawl
development. Unless properly planned and managed, much of the projected
growth for the area will occur on environmentally sensitive lands
with serious adverse impacts on vegetation, wildlife habitats and
degradation of surface and groundwater supplies.
Recently, however, the County Planning Commission passed a sub-
division ordinance requiring State Department of Health approval
of the sewage system for all new subdivision proposals.
Since most of the land in private ownership has a high water
table, making it unsuitable for on-site systems, and since developers
have been reluctant to construct treatment facilities for their sub-
divisions, many developers are awaiting completion of the new public
system. Consequently, the location and size of that system will be
a determinant of where new growth will occur.
-------
CANADA
SruoV AREA
YELLOWSTONE
NATIONAL PARK
SALT LAKE CITY
-------
-------
EPA Role
The need for a thorough environmental assessment was discussed
with the grantee and consultant In pre-application meetings held 1n
the spring of 1974. The possibility of controversy, the nature of
the sensitive environment, the potential for significant land use
changes identified the project from its early stages as a candidate
for an environmental impact statement.
In the fall of 1974 the Regional Office conducted a field study
review, evaluating secondary impacts of the proposed project. The
field study resulted in a recommendation to the Regional Administrator
that an EIS be prepared. After review of the Step I plan, the Regional
Administrator concurred, declaring that the EIS should address the
following concerns:
1. The extent to which continued recreational development
will impact the area resources;
2. The extent to which the availability of sewerage
facilities will facilitate land use changes or growth
rate changes;
3. The absence of local land use planning which might
serve to control development or mitigate adverse
impacts; and
4. Significant adverse secondary effects on the ecosystem
1n general and especially on fish and wildlife habitat.
A Draft EIS was prepared in August, 1975 and the Final was later
issued in January of 1976. The EIS process served as a vehicle to
bring out comments from a number of agencies organizations and con-
cerned Individuals. Concern for adequate mitigation of secondary
land use impacts was voiced in many of the responses to the Draft EIS.
The U.S. Department of the Interior stated in a letter dated
November 11, 1975, commenting on the Draft EIS, "Much of what now
makes the Island Park Area (Fremont County) a scenic, and aesthetic
and recreational attraction would be lost if the sewage system is
constructed and development of further sub-divisions is allowed.
A more detailed discussion of the proposed project's secondary
environmental impacts on the Quality of recreational experiences in
the Island Park Area would aid in project assessment".
-------
The State Department of Health and Welfare recommended in their
November 3, 1975 letter that the Final EIS should address the secon-
dary impacts of induced growth in much greater detail than that given
in the Draft. The letter went on to offer the following comment:
"We must emphasize that to be completely effective the project should
be constructed in conjunction with a comprehensive land use plan for
the area. This would serve to limit growth and development in the
area and insure that the project achieves its objectives of reducing
water pollution".
The State League of Women Voters also indicated a concern about
unplanned sprawl and the secondary land use impacts of the proposed
project. In their October 27, 1975 letter they stated "we do
wonder about the statement that development will tend to be confined
to those areas having a regional system. May we suggest that without
proper countywide planning and zoning, development is going to continue
wherever an enterprising developer believes it is economically feasible".
These and other comments served to highlight to possible secondary
•impacts involved and underlined the need for effective mitigation
measures.
Mitigating Measures
The major secondary impacts were resolved both through changes in
the design and location of the facilities themselves and through condi-
tioning the Step II and Step III grant on the county adopting growth
management measures.
As the first mitigation measure, after early consultation with the
Regional Office, the consultant decided to plan for smaller treatment
systems to serve the problem areas of greatest development activity as
opposed to the originally proposed single regional system with connecting
interceptors. This decision would tend to limit induced growth to areas
previously committed to development rather than encouraging sprawl along
interceptor routes or into environmentally sensitive areas.
The smaller systems would be developed in phases. The construction
of each phase would depend on the severity of the local contamination
problem and the size of the population to be served. The combined design
technique of phased construction and individual facilities with limited
reserve capacity would minimize the problem of induced growth associated
with large facilities with uncommitted excess capacity.
Preliminary cost estimates were prepared for a large regional system
alternative serving all four sub-areas. No formal cost/benefit analysis
-------
was performed on this alternative, however since it was screened from
further consideration during early phases of facility planning. This
was done for several practical reasons. (1) There was considerable
separation and distance between sub-areas with growth being clearly
concentrated in the identified sub-areas. Transmission costs would
be prohibitive and technical problems would result when trying to
move low off peak volumes of sewage long distances. (2) Sub-regional
phasing recognized the practical limits of cost to users. User
charges of a large regional system would have been prohibitive during
early development of service areas with scarce concentration of con-
nections. (3) Sub-regional phasing recognized the reality of the
State of Idaho's priority system, i.e., with limited funds available
to the State for the construction grant program and with the project
serving a developing recreational area, the likelihood of obtaining
priority for full funding of a large regional system was questionable.
Phasing permitted funding over a several year period. (4) In the
absence of land use controls in an area with significant growth
potential, sub-regional phasing permits on-going evaluation of growth
impacts and adjustment of projects for later phases as necessary. This
in itself is a meaningful measure available to mitigate adverse impacts.
If adverse impacts do result and do appear to be unavoidable, later
phases of the project could be reconsidered by both the applicant and
EPA.
The grant condition constituted the second mitigating measure.
It was evident that a certain amount of growth would occur within
the service area of the proposed sub-regional facilities. In the
absence of planning, such growth would predictably occur in a hap-
hazard fashion with adverse environmental impacts. The key component
in managing this growth so as to avoid further environment degradation
was the extent to which Fremont County developed, adopted and imple-
mented an effective comprehensive land use plan with companion zoning
ordinances.
With proper planning and management, EPA felt that the provision
of a sewerage system would help protect environmental quality while
at the same time insure that development occurred in a manner which
would be sensitive to environmental problems. The Regional Office
therefore concluded that the following grant condition was necessary:
Fremont County shall, in accordance with the State of
Idaho Local Planning Act of 1975 (Chapter 65, Title
67, Idaho Code), develop and properly adopt a com-
-------
prehensive land use plan and implementing zoning
ordinances applicable to theproject area. The
comprehensive plan shall include the participatio
of land use managementagencies in its formulation,
implementation, and regular review and evaluation.
Agencies considered for particpation shall include
such agencies as the Idaho State Land Board, the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game; the Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior. This condition shall be applicable to
the Step II design grant and, as the project pro-
gresses, shall be carried over to apply to the
Step III construction grant award. Payment beyond
80% on the Step III construction grant shall be
contingent upon the satisfaction of this condition.
Regional justification for requiring that the county adopt a
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance was based on requirements
in the Idaho Local Planning Act of 1975. The Act calls for each
county planning commission to adopt a comprehensive land use plan.
Section 67-6508 of the Idaho Code specifies that:
"It shall be the duty of the planning or
planning and zoning commission to conduct
a comprehensive planning process designed
to prepare, implement, and review and update
a comprehensive plan " (emphasis added).
In similar language, Section 67-6511 requires each county
governing board to adopt a zoning ordinance:
"Each governing board shall, by ordinance
establish within its jurisdiction one (1)
or more zones or zoning districts where
appropriate. The zoning districts shall
be in accordance with the adopted plan".
(emphasis added).
The Idaho Local Planning Act was unclear, however, about 1)
what actions the State might take in the event that a county did
not develop the required measures or 2) the question of establishing
a timetable for counties with no planning or zoning to comply with
the requirements of the Act. Nonetheless, the Region felt that it
was clearly the intent of the Act to institute comprehensive planning
and zoning at the local level and that the grant condition reinforced
that intent.
-------
Continuing EPA Involvement
Due to heavy consultant workload (and partially due to loss of the
consultants office in. the Teton Dam failure and flooding), the Step II
grant was not awarded until June 30, 1976. The County, State and Federal
agencies accepted the grant conditions as proposed in the Final EIS.
The conditions were therefore included in the Step II grant. Fremont
County has prepared a draft of their comprehensive plan. The County
Planning and Zoning Commission has established community development
goals and has scheduled hearings on the proposed plan for this Fall.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PROTECTION OF NATION'S WETLANDS
Policy Statement
Purpose.—The purpose of this state-
ment is to establish EPA policy to pre-
serve the -wetland ecosystems and to pro-
tect them from destruction through
waste water or nonpoint source dis-
charges and their .treatment or control
or the development and construction of
waste water treatment facilities or by
other physical, chemical, or biological
means.
The wetland resource.—a. Wetlands
represent an ecosystem of unique and
major importance to the citizens of this
Nation and, as a result, they require ex-
traordinary protection. Comparable de-
structive forces would be expected to in-
flict more lasting damage to them than
to other ecosystems. Through this policy
statement, EPA establishes appropriate
safeguards for the preservation and pro-
tection of the wetland resources.
b. The Nation's wetlands, including
marshes, swamps, bogs, and other low-
lying areas, which during some period of
the year will be covered In part by nat-
ural nonflood waters, are a unique, via.
aable, irreplaceable water resource. They
serve as a habitat for important fur,
bearinj* mammals, many species -el fish.
and waterfowl. Such areas moderate ex'.
tcemes in waterflaw, aid In the natural
purification of water, and maintain ana
recharge the ground water resource
They are the nursery areas for a grcav
number of wiltiU'fe and aquatic speciw
and serve at times as the source of val-
uable harvestahle timber. -They art
unique recreational areas, high in aes-
thetic value, that contain delicate aiii
irreplaceable specimens of fauna and
flora and support fishing, as well as wild-
fowl and other hunting.
c. Fresh-water wetlands support the
adjacent or downstream aquatic ecosys-
tem, in addition.to the complex web"of
life that has developed within the wet-
land environment. The relationship of
the fresh-water wetland to the subsur-
face environment is symbiotic, intricate,
and fragile: In the tidal wetland area*
the tides tend to redistribute the nutri-
ents and sediments throughout the tidal
marsh and these in turn form a substrate
for the life supported by the tidal marsh.
These marshes produce large quantities
of plant life that are the source of much
of the organic matter consumed by shell-
fish and other aquatic life in associated
estuaries.
d. Protection of wetland areas requires
the proper placement and management
of any construction activities and con-
trols of nonpouit sources to prevent dis-
turbing significantly the terrain and im-
pairing the quality of the wetland area.
Alteration in quantity or quality of the
natural flew of water; which nourishes
the ecosystem, should be minimized. The
addition of haraful waste waters or
nutrients contained in such waters should
be kept below a level that will alter the
natural, physical, chemical, or biological
Integrity of the wetland area and that
will insure no significant Increase in nui-
sance organisms through biostimulation.
Policy.—a. In its decision processes,!;
shall be the Agency's policy to gi'-'C
particular cognizance and consideration
to any proposal that has the potential to
damage wetlands, to recognize the irre-
placeable value and man's dependence on
them to maintain an environment ac-
ceptable to society, and to preserve and
protect them from damaging misuses.
b. It shall be the Agency's policy to
minimize alterations in the quantity or
quality of the natural flow of water that
nourishes wetlands and to protect wet-
lands from adverse dredging or filUnS
practices, solid waste management prac-
tices, siltatlon or the addition o!
pesticides, salts, or toxic materials arlsli'-
from nonpoint source wastes and throu-.ii
construction activities, and to preve;'-
; violation of applicable water quality
; standards from such environmental
'. insults.
• c. In compliance with the National En-
i vironmental Policy Act of 1969, it shall
be the policy of this Agency not to grant
( Federal funds for the construction of
municipal waste water treatment facul-
i ties or other waste-treatment-associfcttd
! appurtenances which may interfere with
! the existing wetland ecosystem, except
• where no other alternative of lessejf «n-
• vironmental damage is found to be feasi-
ble. In the application for such Federal
funds where there is reason to believe
that wetlands will be damaged, an assess-
ment will be requested from the applicant
that delineates the various alternatives
that have been investigated for the con-
trol or treatment of the waste water. In-
cluding the reasons for rejecting those
alternatives not used. A cost-benefit, ap-
praisal should be included where appro-
priate.
d. To promote the most environmen-
tally protective, measures, it shall be the
EPA policy to advise those applicants wh-j
install waste treatment facilities under a
Federal grant program or as a result of a
Federal permit that the selection of the
most environmentally protective alterna-
tive should be made. The Department of
the Interior and the Department of Com-
merce will be consulted to aid in the
determination of the probable impact of
the pollution abatement program on the
pertinent fish and wildlife resources of
wetlands. In the event of projected
significant adverse environmental Im-
pact, a public hearing on the wetlands is-
sue may be held to aid in the selection of
the most appropriate action, and EPA
may recommend against the issuance of a
section 10 Corps of Engineers permit.
Implementation.—EPA will apply this
policy to the extent of its authorities in
conducting all program activities, includ-
ing regulatory activities, research, devel-
opment and demonstration, technical as-
sistance, control of pollution from Fed-r .
eral institutions, and the administration
of the construction and demonstration
grants. State program grants, and plan-
ning grants programs.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
Administrator.
MARCH 20, 1973.
IS» Doe.78-8579 Filed 6-1-73;8:45 am)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOU 38, NO. 84—WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, WS
-------
Program Requirements Memorandum PRM No. 75-26
. Program Guidance Memo #50
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
... • JUN C 1975
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Purpose
Consideration of Secondary Environmental Effects in
the Construction j&ralrE^ Process
Russell E. Trawi
Administrator
Regional Administrato
Regions I - X
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
This policy statement provides guidance on consideration of secondary
environmental effects during review of plans to construct publicly-owned
treatment works with Federal grants under Title II of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended.
Background
Municipalities are required when planning for construction of
publicly-owned treatment works to evaluate the environmental impacts of ;
the construction and subsequent operation of the treatment works and
prepare an environmental assessment. The Agency reviews the environmental
assessment along with the rest of the facility plan and ultimately either
issues a negative declaration or, if the project is anticipated to have
significant adverse primary or secondary environmental effects or to be
highly controversial, prepares an environmental impact statement.
Primary effects are those 'directly related to construction and
operation of the project. Secondary effects of a project are (1)
indirect or induced changes in population and economic growth and
land .use, and (.2) other environmental effects resulting from these
changes in land use, population, and economic growth. .Secondary effects
can be of great importance to the environment but normally are much more
difficult to predict in advance than primary effects.
This guidance is a;imed at assuring that secondary effects of a
project are analyzed and taken into account during the grafts
process in comparable manner throughout the ten regions.
Evaluation of Secondary Effects
The policy of the Agency is that environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements shall analyze secondary as well as pri-
mary environmental effects, and shall indicate whether such effects may
-------
contravene Federal, State and local environmental laws and regulations,
and plans and standards required by environmental laws or regulations, .
Where such contravention is possible, the best available data and analytical
techniques should be applied to analyzing the likelihood and extent of
such violations.
Projects which have passed through,the initial planning stage but
have not yet received a grant for construction should also be assessed
in accordance with this policy. Particular attention should be given
to large projects to be phased over several years so that the funding of
the current project does not commit EPA to future actions which will
result in significant adverse effects on the environment.
Actions to be Taken Before Grant is Awarded
Where careful analysis leads to the conclusion that the secondary
effects of a project can reasonably be anticipated to contravene an
environmental law or.regulation, or a plan or standard required by an envi-
ronmental law or regulation, the Regional Administrator shall withhold
approval of a Step 2 or Step 3 construction grant until the applicant
revises the plan, initiates steps to mitigate the adverse effects, or agrees
to conditions in the grant document requiring.actions to minimize the
effects.
Secondary effects may. be mitigated by a large variety of actions,
including, but not limited to: .
--phasing and orderly extension of sewer service
--project changes
— Improved land-use planning
—better coordination of planning among communities affected by
the project
—sewer use restrictions
—modification or adoption of environmental programs or plans
such as Air Quality Maintenance Plans
—improved land management controls to protect water quality, such
as sedimentation and erosion control and flood plain management.
Care must be exercised if a condition is to be imposed in the grant
document to assure that the requirements are reasonable and that the
applicant possesses the authority to fulfill the conditions.
The applicant should be required to demonstrate "good faith" and be
clearly moving toward proper mitigative action before the grant is awarded.
Actions to be Taken After Grant is Awarded
The regions should follow-up after a grant is made to ensure that
the applicant continues to make progress on mitigative actions and to
-------
f*~^f
-------
MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 40 • Number 72
PART III
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements
Final Regulations
-------
TKIs 40—Prelection of EnwIronmonS
CHAPTER D—aWIKOKIMEMTAi
PR07EOTOM AGENCV
[FRL 827-81
PART S—PREPARATION OF ENVIROW-
CaEWTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1888 (NEPA). Implemented by
Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970,
and the Council on Environmental
Quality's (CEQ's) Guidelines of Au-
gust 1,1973, requires that all agencies of
the Federal Government prepare de-
tailed environmental Impact statements
on proposals for legislation and other
major Federal'actions significantly af-
fecting the quality of the human en-
vironment. NKPA requires that agencies
include in their decision-making process
an appropriate and careful consideration
of all environmental aspects of proposed
actions, an explanation of potential en-
vironmental effects of proposed actions
and their alternatives for public under-
standing, a discussion of ways to avoid
.or minimize adverse effects of proposed
actions and a discussion of how to re-
store or enhance environmental Duality
as much as possible.
On January 17, 1973, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) pub-
lished & new Part 6 In Interim form in
the FEDERAL REGISTER (38 FR 1696), es-,
tabllshuig EPA policy and procedures for
'the identification and analysis of envi-
ronmental impacts and the preparation
of environmental impact statements
(EIS's) when significant impacts on the
environment are anticipated.
On July 17, 1974, EPA published a no-
tice of. proposed rulemaklng .the FED-
ERAL REGISTER (39 FR 26254). The rule-
making provided detailed procedures for
applying NEPA to EPA's nonregulatory
programs only. A separate nottes of ad-
ministrative procedure published in the
Octoteer 21, 1974, FEDERAL RBGISTEB (39
• FR 37419) gave EPA's procedures for
. voluntarily preparing EIS's on certain
regulatory activities. $18 procedures for
another regulatory activity,. Issuing Na-
tional- Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) discharge permits to
new sources, will appear in 40 CFR 6.
Associated amendments to the NPDES
operating regulations, covering permits
to new sources, will appear in 40 CFR
125. . ,
The proposed regulation on the prep-
aration of EIS's for nonregulatory Pro-
grams was published for public review
and comment. EPA received comments
on this proposed regulation £rom envi-
ronmental groups; Federal, State end
local governmental agencies: industry;
and private individuals. As a result -of
the comments, received, the following
changes have been made:
(1) Coastal zones, wild and scenic
rivers, prime agricultural land and wild-
life ^abltat were included In the criteria
fco be considered during the environmen-
tal review.
The Coastal Zone Management Act
and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are
Intended to protect these environmen-
tal!? eensJfeSTO exesai therefore, EPA
should consider the effects of its projects
on these areas. Protection of prime agri-
cultural lands and wildlife habitat has
become an Important concern as a re-
sult of the need to further Increase food
production from domestic sources as well
as commercial harvesting of-fish and
other wildlife resources and from the
continuing need to preserve the diversity
of natural resources for future genera-
tions. : •
(2) Consideration of the use. of flood-
plains as required by 3xecutive Order
v 11296 was added to the environmental
review process. • .
Executive Order 11296 requires agen-
cies to consider project alternatives
•which will preclude the uneconomic,
hazardous or unnecessary use of flood-
plains to minimize the exposure of fa-
cilities to potential flood damage, lessen •
the need for future Federal expenditures
for flood protection and flood disaster"
relief and preserve the unique and sig-
nificant public value of the floodplain
as an environmental resource.
(3) Statutory definitions of coastal
zones and wild and scenic rivers were
added to S 6.214 (b). /
These statutes define sensitive areas
and require states to designate areas
which must be protected.
(4) The review and comment period
for negative declarations was extended
from 15 days to 15 working days.
Request for negative declarations and
comments on negative declarations- are
-not.acted on during weekends and on
holidays. In addition, mall requests often
take two or three days to reach the ap-
propriate office and several more days, for
action and delivery of response. There-
' fore, the new time frame for review'and
response to a negative declaration Is
more realistic without adding too much
delay to a project.
(5) Requirements for more data in the
negative declaration to clarify the pro-
posed action were added in ! 6.212 Cb). .
Requiring a summary of the impacts
of a project and other data to support
the negative declaration in this docu-
ment improves its usefulness as a tool to
review the decision not to prepare a full
EIS on a project.
(6) The definitions of primary and
secondary Impacts in § 6.304 were clari-
fied. ' .••.-.../
. The definitions ware made more spe-
cific, especially in'the issue areas of in-
duced growth and ammth rates, to reduce
subjectivity in deciding .whether an im-
pact is .primary or secondary.
(7) Procedures for .EPA public hear-
ings in Subpart D were clarified.
Language was added to thfes subpart
to distinguish-EPA public hearings from
'applicant hearings required by statute or
regulation, such "as the-facilities plan
hearings. ' "
(8) The discussion of retroactive ap-
plication (§ 6.504) was clarified aicj
abbreviated.
The new language retains flexibility in
decision making for the Regional Admin-
istrator while eliminaUns the amblcuity
of the langauge In the interim regulation.
(9) The criteria for writing an EIS if
wetlands may be affected were modified
in88.5100>>.
The new language still requires an EIS
on a project which will be located on
wetlands but limits the requirements for
an EIS on secondary wetland effects to
those which are significant and adverse.
(10) A more detailed explanation of
the data required in environmental as-
sessments (8 6.512) was added.
Requiring more specific data in several
areas, including energy production and
consumption as well as land use trends
and population projections, from the ap-
plicant will provide a more complete data
base for the environmental review. Doc-
umentation of the applicant's data will
allow EPA to evaluate the validity of this
data.
(11) Subpart P.. Guidelines for Com-.
pllance with NEPA In Research and De-
velopment Programs and Activities, was
revised.
ORD simplified this. subpart by re-
moving .the internal procedures and as-
signments of responsibility for circula-
tion in internal memoranda. Only the
general application of this regulation to
ORD programs was retained.
(J2) The discussions of responsibilities
and document distribution procedures
were moved to appendices attached to the
regulations.
These sections were removed from the
regulatory language to improve the reed-
ability of the regulation and because
these discussions are more explanatory
fend do opt need to have the legal force
of regulatory language.
' (13) Consideration of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 was Incorporated In-
to the regulation.
EPA recognizes its responsibility to as-
sist with implementing legislation which
will help preserve or Improve our natural
resources.,
The major issues raised on this regula-
tion were On new and proposed criteria
for determining when* to prepare an EIS
and the.retroactive application of tbe
criteria to projects started before July 1,
1975. I h addition' to the new criteria
which were added, CEQ requested the ad-
dition of several quantitative criteria for
which parameters have not been set.
These new criteria are being discussed
with C^Q and may be added to the'regu-
lation at a future date. Changes in the
discussion of retroactive application of v
the criteria are described in item 8 above.
EPA believes that Agency compliance
with the regulations of Part 6 will en-
hance Sate present quality of human life .
without endangering the quality of the "
natural environment for future genera-'
tions. -
Effecttvs'gate: This regulation will be-
'come effecHve April 14, 1975.
Dated: April 3, 1975.
RUSSELL E. TRMH,
A&mtottetreto?.
FEDEQAL QtEGISTEQ, VOL 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APQIL 10, W5
-------
16815
Ctiiport A—Sonorc!
See.
6.100 Purpose and policy.
6.103 Definitions.
6.104 Summery off procsduro for Imple-
menting NEPA.
6.106 Applicability.
6.108 Completion of NEPA procedures be-
. fore start of odmlnlstrotlve action.
6.110 Responsibilities.
SuSportD—Presofisrexi '
6.200 Criteria for determining when to pre-
pare an environmental Impact state-
ment.
6.302 Environmental dyieremout.
6.304 Environmental review.
6.208 Notice of intent.
6.208 Draft environmental Impact state-
ments.
6.210 Final 'environmental impact Btata-
ments.
6.213 Negative declarations end environ-
mental Impact appraisals.
6.214 Additional procedures.
6.2l6 Availability of documents.
StjtJKirt C Content c$ Environmental Impact
6.300 Cover sheet.
6.302 Summary obeet. . .
6.304 Body of atatement.
6.306 Documentation.
Subpnrt D — EPA Public Hearings on Impact
SKotomonAo
3.400 General.
8.402 Public hearing process.
Sufauri E— BuldoHnoa tar Compliance With
. NEPA tn Bio TOlo II Waotawotor Traotmont
t&ortio Construction Qronta Program and Bho
Aroawldo Rfooto Troatmont Monogomon! Plan-
6.500 Purpose.
6.502 Definitions.
6.504 Applicability.
6.506 Completion of NEPA procedures be-
fore otort of administrative actions.
6.510 Criteria for preparation of environ-
mental impact statements.
6.612 Procedures for implementing NEPA.
6.614 Content of environmental Impact
statements.
Subport F— (BuWollrtOT {or Compliance With WEPfl
In Roooorch ond Devoiopmsnt Program!) and
Acttvftlca
6.600 Purpose.
0.603 Definitions.
8.604 Applicability.
8.608 Criteria for determining when to pre-
pare environmental Impact state-
ments.
6.610 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
Support B — Guldollnoo for CompDonco C/rth NEPA
bi Solid KJcoto Monocemont ActlvKloo
6.700 Purpose.
8.702 Criteria for the preparation of envi-
ronmental assessments and ElS'a.
3.704 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
Subtsprt H — Guhtoltnoa for Compllonco CJRh
KGPA tn Construction of Spoclnf Purpooo Ft>
cE3cb and Facility RonovaSlono
3.600 Purpose.
6.CB21 Definitions.
SSKi Applicability.
@£90 Criteria for the preparation of envi-
ronmental assessments and EIS's.
3.310 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
EXHIBITS
1. (SScgo 1.) Notice of Intent Transmlttal
Eianorandum Suggested Format.
3.) Hotlco of Intent Suggested
a. PuCSciGptice ond Hews Release Suggested
8.
4. Environmental Impact Appraisal Sug-
gested Format.
6. Cover Sheet Format Sew Environmental
Impact Statements.
6. Summery Quest Format for Environments!
Impact Statements.
7. Flowchart for Solid Waste Management
Program Operations..
Appendix A—Checklist for Environmental
Reviews.
Appendix B—Responsibilities.
Appendix C—Availability and Distribution
of Documents.
Authority: Sees. 102, 103 of 83 Stat. 854
(42 U.8.C. 4321 at aeq.)
Subport A—-Gcsnaral
§ 6.100 Purpose and policy.
(a) The National Environmental Pol-
icy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Implemented by
Executive Order 11514 and the Council
on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's)
Guidelines of August 1, 1973 (38 FR
20550), requires that all agencies of the
Federal Government prepare detailed en-
vironmental Impact statements on pro-
posals for legislation and other major
Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment.
NEPA requires that agencies Include In
the decision-making process appropriate
and careful consideration of all environ-
mental effects of proposed actions, ex-
plain potential environmental effects of
proposed actions and their aternatlves
for public understanding, avoid or mini-
mize adverse effects of proposed actions
and restore or enhance environmental
quality as much as possible.
(b) This part establishes Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) policy end
procedures for the Identification and
analysis of the environmental impacts of.
EPA nonregulatory actions and the prep-
aration and processing of environmental
impact statements (EIS's) when signifi-
cant Impacts on the environment are
anticipated.
g 6.102 Definitions.
(a) "Environmental assessment" is a
written analysis submitted to EPA by its
grantees or contractors describing the
environmental Impacts of proposed ac-
tions undertaken with the financial sup-
port of EPA. For facilities or section 208
plans as defined in § 6.102 (J) and (k),
the assessment must be an integral,
though Identifiable, part of the plan sub-
mitted to EPA for review.
(b) "Environmental review" is a for-
mal evaluation undertaken by EPA to
determine whether a proposed EPA ac-
tion may have a significant impact on
the environment. The environmental as-
sessment is one of the major sources of
information used in this review.
(c) "Notice of Intent" is a memoran-
dum, prepared after the environmental
review, announcing to Federal, regional,
State, and local agencies, and to Inter-
ested persons, that a draft EIS will be
prepared.
(d) "Environmental Impact state-
ment" is a report, prepared by EPA,
which Identifies and analyzes in detail
the environmental Impacts of a proposed
EPA action and feasible alternatives.
(e) "Negative declaration" is a written
announcement, prepared after the en-
vironmental review, which states that
EPA has decided not to prepare an EIS
and summarizes the environmental Im-
pact appraisal.
(f) "Environmental impact appraisal"
is based on an environmental review and
supports a negative declaration. It de-
scribes a proposed EPA action, its ex-
pected environmental Impact, and the
basis for the conclusion that no signifi-
cant impact is anticipated.
(g) "NEPA-associated documents"
are any one or combination of: notices
of intent, negative declarations, exemp-
tion certifications, environmental impact
appraisals, news releases, EIS's, and en-
vironmental assessments.
(h) "Responsible official" is an Assist-
ant Administrator, Deputy Assistant Ad-
minlstartor, Regional Administrator or
their designee.
(i) "Interested persons" are Indi-
viduals, citizen groups, conservation or-
ganizations, corporations, or other non-
governmental units, including applicants
for EPA contracts or grants, who may
be Interested in, affected by, or techni-
cally competent to comment on the en-
vironmental impacts of the proposed
EPA action.
(J) "Section 208 plan" Is an areawide
waste treatment management plan pre-
pared under section 208 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) ,
as amended, under 40 CFR Part 126 and
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart F.
(k) "Facilities plan" is a preliminary
plan prepared as the basis for construc-
tion of publicly owned waste treatment
works under Title Et of FWPCA,. as
amended, under 40 CFR 35.917.
(1) "Intramural project" is an In-
house project undertaken by EPA
personnel.
(m) "Extramural project" is a project
undertaken .by grant or contract
g 6.104 Summary of procedures for hm-
mtiraG NEPA,
(a) Responsible official. The respon-
sible official shall utilize a systematic, in-
terdisciplinary approach to integrate
natural and social sciences as well as
environmental design arts in planning
programs and making decisions which
are subject to NEPA review. His staff may
be supplemented by professionals from
other agencies, universities or consult-
ants whenever in-house capabilities are
Insufficiently interdisciplinary.
• (b) Environmental assessment. En-
vironmental assessments must be sub-
mitted to EPA by Its grantees and con-
tractors, as required In Subparts E, F, O,
and H of this part. The assessment Is
used by EPA to decide if an EIS is re-
quired end to prepare one if necessary.
(c) Environmental review. Environ-
mental reviews shall be made of pro-
posed and certain ongoing EPA actions
as required in i 6.108(c) . This process
shall consist of a study of the action to
Identify end evaluate the environmental
Impacts of the action. Types of [fronts,
contracts and other actions requiring
study ore listed in the subparts following
FEDEBAl QEGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 72—MONDAY, APBIL 14, 1975
-------
50. fJso-prccess shall Include &
' Btay iasFirajsinentea i
(b)
ocMorao escfefefi. process, yesulSng la'cia El®
a sisscs- • Mve tSsslaKjetaa with
as c, aega-
.any changea coitt to made to &Q .proposed
action to oliBilaafca significant cdverss
EPA Ei£3 oveifcffl responsibility for Oils
review, slthousa its grantees and con-
tractors raJB contribute to file -review
through their environmental assess-
ments.
(d) Notice of intent and EIS's. When
aa environments review Indicates that
a significant omrlstmmeata! impact may
(e) Negative declaration and environ-
mental imptset appraisal. When the en-
vironmental ssvisw Indicates no slgnl-
Semat .Impacts era anticipated or when
(Sso project fa chaasefl 4o eliminate the
oisniScasit adverse impacts, a negative
CselorctSon oholl bs issued. For the ceses
8m ®ubj>art3 S, F, O, and' H of thlo part,'
om eavisazjmentSl Impact appraisal flhall
to 8>sej>ejed which summaries the Im-
pacts, alternatives and reasons an ESS
WC3 no& pttsgtarad. It shall rani&ln on file
cad So evatoble for public Inspection.
• (a) Administrative actions covered.
TJjls part applies to the administrative
' ocHono listed balow. The subpart refer-
' speed with each action lists the detailed
S51SPA procedures associated with the ac-
^on. Administrative, actions ar&r
(1) Development of EPA
proposals; . . •
(3) Davelopment of favorable
to ,w • sSect mattegn trttWa EPA'e prl-
mcsy areas of raapoasiWllfcy; . . •
. (8) For thQ programs under Title n of
FWTFCA. as amonded, those admlnlstra-
MTO ecttosiB in 8 8^04; . •
(4) Efcr tha OSes bf Research end De-
velopment, those adiqinlstr&tive actions
infi8.C04; •'
<5) For the Office of Solid Waste Man-
agement Proorossio, these administrative
oceoas in 0 3.702; . •
(0) Fto ecJKt^ucaoo! of s^ssstol pur-
casfl
(7)
odministe&tive stcftiono in 0 8.C94;
"
osto
BKW3Q
CQ&QO&. tea oUiuJaoted' by mo&lng changes
-1m 'Sie project, & notice of intent snail ba
published, an«S o' draft EBB shall bs pre-,
pared and distributed. After external co-
ordination. &nd evaluation of the com-
mejits received, a final ElS shall be pre-
pared and distributed. -SOS's ' should be
prepared first on these proposed actions
with the most adverse effects which are
scheduled ,fot essiksts implementation
cad on otaer^ promised actions according
to priorities ec^qmed by the responsible
' ~ ' '
to
Ira eSssto o3 c3J. &s 'projects iclll
to projects Exempted la 0 S.304,
end § 8.702. -.." -'i
. (c) /ippKcettoB.. to ongoing,
•This regulation shall apply.to
pleted and continuing EPA aotezo ISsl-
tiatsd bafore t&3 prcoaulgaSJca a£ G^eas
procedures when modifications of e? al-
-tsrnatives to the EPA action are still
.available, except for the Tltls n con-
struction grants program. Specific appli-
cation for the construction grants pro-
gram is hi 9 3.604(c). An EIS shell ba
prepared for.each project found to have
significant environmental effects as de-
scribed in o siaoo.
':(<&) Application, to legislative proyos- •
ate. (1) As noted in paragraphs (&) (1)
and (2) of tills section, EIS's or nesaOvs
declarations ahrill bs prepared for legis-
lative proposEis o? favorable reports re-
la^ng to legislation which may signifi-
cantly "affect the environment. 'BscsusQ
oS the nature of the legislative' prossas,'
EIS's for legislation must be prepared-'
and reviewed according to tap proce-.
dures followed in the dpvelopsaent and
review of the legislative matter. These
prccadures are described In Offloo of
Mftnagemeat and Budget (OMB) Circu-
lar Wo. A-19. '-.'. : .
(2) A working draft EIS shall be pre-
pared by the E3>A cffloa respcjisiblo toS
preparins the legislative propj»a!-C7 re-
port on lesfiajetlon. It Shan ba.prejKtred
ocnouirentlsr with" tho <3ave5cpmeafc. of
the legislative proposal or report aad-
sheJl contain the Information required
in fl a.S(M. The EIS shall ba circulated for
internal EPA review wltJj t&e IscjlsJaQve •
proposal or report and other supporting
documentation. The wosrtdns efcoffc ESS
shell- bs 'isMaSlfled. to owftessuKaA
chaages made In the proposal
during the Intaraa! review.
ternativea developed during the. forsau-
latioa and revfew of the proposaJ cs re-
prat should be retained, ia tha wortdajj
draft MS.'-' " •- '-,
(i) The working draft EIS shall ac-
company the legislative proposal or re-
port' to OMB. 'EPA shall revise the work-
ing draft EIS to respond to comments
from OMB and other Federal agencies.
(ID Upon transmittal of the legisla-
tive proposal' or report to Congress, the
working draft KES will be forwarded to
CBSQ and the Congress as a formal leg-
islative EIS. Copies will, bs distributed
according to procedures described in Ap-
psadlzC. ^ ' •
' (111) Comments received by EPA on
the legislative EIS snail be forwarded to
the appropriate Congressional Commit-
tees. EPA also may respond to flpc±13c
comments and fprward its responses wl^i
the cbmmfints. Escauae legislation under-
soso continuous changes in Congress bs-
yoad the control of EPA, no final BB3
need ba prepared by EPA.
cible official in oslting est&
BO
cVffl to
days after & draft MS hcs bssa
uted or soonsr than ^Urtp (82) calendar
days after the and MS hsa bsaa meda
public. K the final fejcjfe of on SIS is filed
within ninety (£0) days after a draft EJS
has-been circulated fas? co&amentt fur-
nished to CEQ and mafia public, the
tninimiim thirty (30) do^^gylofl oafi &LQ
ninety (GO) day period . may srua coa-
currentiy 8f toey overlap: TJia' raMmum .
periods for review and adwmsso ovaJl-
ablllfcy of ESS's ohall bsgJai .03 .C2-D dote
CEQ publlfihea tho mo^co b£ &£3dg>& of
the EIS in the FBDCtm BnossHCQ-SQ od-
dition, the propoesd ac@o3i 'cSJUJfi to
modified to conform witto 'oBj?-.iBhaEOC3.
SPA consWera necessary beforo Qso final
318 is published.
. (c)
If EPA decides not to
on any action, listed to th!o p3f6 fo?
whlcBi 0 negeave ,fiftslc?oetoa 'wJtla ' sa-
vtoonmental appnii&l aas been prepared,
no -cdmlnlsferoavd &?K»a sh&ffl to tdiea
for at least fiftssa (18) worblna doyo
a&ksr the nasotivQ dstlaroaon So ksued to
allow public revfsw c3 (So CssJaioa. H
significant, envtonmesito!" £0233 ^ra
raised durins the review pertotS, the decS-
aion may be changed and D net? en'slron- .
mental appraisal or an ESS may ba pra-
parod. ••.....
§ 641®
See Appaadto B tor rsopoafllbillttss of
- '
ffoi?
The following general crltazlQ cfeo3 feo -
used when reviewing o prcpaosd E?^,
action to determine if S& t?SB hovo. o •
(a-) Mo adminSsts^tive action ohaffl ba
until tSsQ environmental revtew
(a) Siffwi/lcosj« environmental effects.
(1) An action witte botii bsaaflclci and
detrimBatesl effects sheaM ba clesjfiSGfl
ad having significant ejects oa the en-
vironment, even If EPA teiievea that
the net effect will be beneficial However,
preference should be given to preparing
/EIS's on proposed actions which, on bal-
ance, havo adverse effects.
(2) When determining the signifi-
cance of a proposed action's Impacts,
the responsible official shall - consider
both'Its short term and Ions term effects
as well as its primary and secondary
effects as defined in $ 8.304(0). Particu-
' lar attention should be given to changes
in land use patterns; changes In energy
supply aod demand; increased develop-
ment In floc3plaias; olsa^cant ch&agea
in ambisat ate cad water Quality or aolco
levels; potential vtolatloas of air quality,
w&tsr quality ead notes torol stond&rds;
significant changes in outface or BfoHauS-
water quality E? Quantify; cad encroach-
PGOEOAL QEeiSTEQ. VOL OOi NO. 72—«OMDAV, AKIl 14, 1973
-------
10917
fffyf wfldttfo habitat, opctteny tJbsa
threatened or endangered opcdsa may to
afiacted.
..., (8) Minor cottons which toes eet c
precedent for future major actions with
Hflfl^fn 1*-fiTI v CCiVWrCS 'T^PCiCTS QCT ft 13MTHO3F
of actions with individually Insignificant
' but ctxQEEtil&itToly riflfititfldint cdvorcc fan*
pacts shan be classified as having sig-
nificant environmental impacts. It EPA
to taking a number of minor, environ-
mentally insignificant actions that arc
similar in execution and purpose, during
a limited tuns span and lu the name
general geographic area, the cumulative
environmental impact of aS of these
notions shall be evaluated.
(4) In determining the signfficancqfof
o proposed action'* Impact, the unique
characteristics of the project area should
be>carefully considered.. For M^pi*-,
proximity to historic sites, parklands or
wild and Bccnlc rivers may make the
Impact significant. A project discharging
Into a drinking water aquJfler may matte
the Impact significant.
(5) A proposed EPA action which will
have direct and significant advene ef-
fects on a property .toted In or eligible
for ttsttaff to the If ational Reslster of
Historic Places or will cauco Irrcparablo
loea or destruction of significant etien-
tiflc, prehistoric, historic or nrchaeoJos-
leal dat& shan bo cl&csified ca having
oiffnificant environmental Impacts.
(b) Controoerital cctiont. An KtS
shall be prepared when the environ-
mental impact of & proposed EPA action
is likely to be highly controversial.
(c) Additional criteria far tpedfa
program*. Additional .criteria for vari-
ous EPA programs are in Cabpart B.
(Tltto n Wastewater Treatment Works
Canstruetloa Greats Program), Oubpart
P (Research c&4 Envelopment Ps&-
BTfinu), Bubpart O (Solid Wacla Hen?
asement Proorams) cad Gubjnrt H
(Construction of Special Fadtttha cad
Pocfllty Eonovottoio).
S 6X202
ottclt
fissossmonto must bo -
submitted to 1BPA by tb grantesa and
contractors eo required in Subparts E,
P, Q, and H of this part. The Bcg.?8HinH>$
is to ensure that the BppH"ftnt oonsldsn
the environmental impacts of the pro-
posed action at the earliest possible point
In fri* plannlns process* The
revter. Thb review'shall bo & oontiau-
iisct oiio, cfe£j££&39 c£ ^fo* e&xiiest ff^tyfo
point in the ijerclssiment of tho project
It cfcftll ctiBffra flf p ctudy of tfca pro-
pttad tctica, teutadllag & review of toy.
environmental csscssKacnts received, to
identify «tT"* evaluate *hi» enVlroomentol
Impacts of Use proposed action and feas-
ible alternatives. Tha review wfll deter*
mliw> whether •fCT^*!?'1?1* Irajpacts MU
anticipated from tho nropoaed action,
whether any feasible altemaMvc^ can
be adopted or changes ccn bo mado la
project design to eliminate oteniflcaafc
adverse impacts, and whether an.
RTB or a negative declaration, is re-1 •,
quired. The rcsponelble official eh&H tg process.
(b) SpecUJc actions. The specific ec-
tlons'to be taken by the responsible offi-
cial on notices of intent ore:
(1) When the review process indicates
a sl0Qiflcftnt impact may ocsur aicul tis-
nlflcant adverts impacts cannot bs elim-
infit^d by molCms chanse^-Ui tiy> project*
prepare a notlc? of intent imntsdfatoly
after the environmental review. .
.(7) Distribute copies of the notice of
intent as required in Appendix. C.
(3) Publish in a local newspaper, with
-adequate circulation to cover the erca
affected by the project, a brief pubKo
notice statins that an EES will be pro- .
pared oh a particular project, and the
public may participate hi preparing tho
EIS (Exhibit 2) . News releases alto may
be submitted to other media.
(c) Regional office atsittancc to pro*
• gram offices. Regional offices will provtdo
assistance to program offices in taking.
these specific actions when the EIS, orig-
inates Jn a program office.
fr«£03 Draft ElS-fc
(a) General. (1) The responsible offi-
cial shall assure that a draft EIS is pro-
pared as coon as possible after tba relaaso
of the notice of Intent Before releasina
the droft EK to CEft o-prdimtofley XCT-.
ston may ba circulated ter rsvtew to otter
offices within EPA with i&texo£ to er
technical expertise related to the ccfisra.
Then the draft £33 shfcn ts K»t to C52Q
arid circulated to Ptederol. State, raotonai
KOfl lOCd fiCyTMrtftS Wllli flPi'Clft* ffiHffCTpg^iilE
or juriedtcttan by law. and to Interested
persons. If the responsible cfflobl dstor-
mines that, a public he&rlna on the pro*-.
posed action.Is warranted, ths bearing
win be hefil after the draft EBB is nr>
pared, according to tho regnrementa of
86.402.
(2) Draft EtS*s fihou!4 bs prenorpd at
the earBest possible point in tho project
development If the project Involves'a..
grant applicant or potential contractor^
he must submit »ny data EPA requests
for prepartna; the EH3. Wlnro a p'aa or
program has bsan dsvctepcd-by I3*A or
submitted to EPA for cpprovci, the ra-
lationsblp between tho plan, and fhe.
later, projects eatompassed by Its eta)l
be evaluated to determlno the bsst tte»l
to prepare an EIB. VThenevec pocsSiJas
an EB wjffl be drifted for the total pro-
gram at tho ^oltial pianalm staea. Then.
later component projects insludaS In tits
plan win not rojaJrotatavlsJirJi CpETi.c*»
less they differ Eubstantially fnoa ttos
plan, or unless the overall plan did nc^
provide enough detail to fuBy &e™3
significant Impacts of individual Bmiisstx:
Plans- shall be ntsvaluatcd. by. tba.ro^
sponsible official to monitor thd cumijila^
ttve Impact of tie componot prtxjcsta
and to preclude ibe ptim' obrolccyBao.'
(b> Specf/tc action*.'The cpjdile cc-
tions' to be 'tkken by tim rcspont^bjo o£-
ficlal an draft EIS"* are:
C5rttibute the draft KtQ accotd-
nccdutes to Appent&x C.
ttie agencia to
c£iJ3naco&tl
forty-flro (4
starting:
.the PB>BIUIL Resurrect of listo oft
mmt3 received bj CQQ.Xf«ocammaita
are received durtoif tlej reply period G&d
ahnH ba prcuumad that tlw aczaoy
extcnaiono cf flftsta <18) er mere calca-
dttrdtTO. Tha tbuo Hictb for rtiTlow end
^f^liyf^^ftY^y f07 CSsi(to and Jewel ChSenoic^E'1
State. rqloaaU^ad actrppofltea clctur-
uichot!£C3> cod tntereut^l pfffnrno i
betbaeantgasthoseavellsblol
agencies,
.(3) Publish a Kfttico Sa local sisws-
papers jtrtattea that tto draft OS &
available'for comment cud Mytfa»ff • /t« f^
copied may be obtained (Exhibit^ .and
submit aersB retoaieo to other media.
(4) Include in the draft EIS & nottoo
statino that only ttoow Federal. State.
resionali and local otrenclea and uitcn-
ested persons who wabs substantive ooa-
mehts on the draft EIS or request Reayj
of the final EIS wiH bs esat a copy.
(c) SeffiocGl office ntdstoisoft f& pro-
trram office. If lamested. KgtosMtf <
will provide cartstencs to pjec&cia <
in taking thaepe tpeclfie cctto=» tflea t
yrn "rlglnfytw
fEDSElAL MOISTEB, VOL 40. NO. 7»—ttONDAY, AWIl 14, 1»7S
-------
16818
HIKES AND bfeoULATIONS
Q&S10 ttaalESS'e,
(a) Bool EEB'o ahnfl respond, to cfl
coamavta ratesd tnronah
tto icrtOTT cf tt»o (tocft KD9. Bpsclal oao
should to token to respond !tiUr to com-
mento disagreeing with EPA's position.
.
d>) DietrCrailon and other specific
cotton? tan descrfljGTto Appendix C. IT
there Jo an a&ptycaat, be shall be SOT* a
copy. When the number of comments on
the draft BOB to eo larc® that distribution
of ttio final EDS to au commenting en-
tities .appears impractical. the program
or regional office preparing the ED3
chan consult with OPA, •which will con-
euK with CEQ about alternative arrange^
ments for distribution of the EIS. " ;'
§ 6.212 Negative declaration and en*!-'
Mwaealal impact appipieab. >' ' - - •;
(a) General. When an environmental
review Indicates there wffl be no signifi-
cant Impact or significant adverse Im-
pacts have teen eliminated by making
changes in the project, the responsible
official shall prepare & negative declara-
tion to allow public review of his decision
before It becomes final* The negative
declaration and newn release must state
tbet Interested persons disagreeing with
tbe decision may submit comments for
consideration by EPA. EPA shall not
take administrative action on the proj-
ect for at least fifteen (15) working days
after release of the negative declaration
and may allow more time for response.
The responsible official shall -have an
environmental Impact appraisal sup-
porting the negative declaration avail-
able for public review when the negative
declaration Is released for those cases
given in Subparts E, F. G, and B.
(b) Specific actions. Tbe responsible
official shall take the following specific
actions on those projects for which both
a negative declaration and an impact
appraisal will be prepared :
(1) Negative declaration. (1) Prepare
a negative declaration immediately after -
the environmental review. This docu-
ment shall briefly summarize the purpose
of the project, Its location, the nature
and extent of the land use changes' re-
lated to tbe project, and the major pri-
mary and ^secondary impacts of the
project It shall describe bow the more
detailed environmental Impact appraisal
may be obtained at cost. (See Exhibit S.)
(11) Distribute tile negative declaration
according to procedures In Appendix C.
In addition, submit to local newspapers
and other appropriate media a brief news
release with a negative declaration at-
tached, informing the public that a de-
cision not to prepare an EB3 has been
made and a negative declaration and en-
vironmental impact appraisal1 are avail-
' able for public review and comment (Exi
hmltz).
(2) Environmental impact appraisal.
(1) Prepare an environmental Impact
appraisal concurrently with the negative
declaration. This document shall briefly
describe the proposed action and feasible
alternatives, environmental impacts of
tin proposed action, unavoidable advene
Impacts of too proposed action, the re-
te&kmtbip between cbort term uses of
man's environment and ttio maintenance
ond enhancement of long term produc-
tivity, steps to minimize harm to the en-
vironment, Irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources to implement
the action, comments and consultations
on the project, and reasons for conclud-
ing there win be no significant Impacts.
(See Exhibit 4.)
(11) Distribute the environmental im-
pact appraisal according to procedures
In Appendix C.
86.214 Additional praeedoMO.
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
16310
and scenic riven, fish or wQdUfe may
be affected, the required consultation
may be deferred until the preparation of
thedraftEIB.
8 6.216 Aveflobilitr of document!.
(a) EPA wffl print copies of draft and
final Elfi's for agency and public dis-
tribution. A nominal fee may be charged
for copies requested by the public.
When EPA no longer has copies
of an EIS'to distribute, copies shall be
made available for public Inspection at
regional and headquarters Offices of
Public Affairs. Interested" persons also
should be advised of the availability (at
cost) of the EIS from the Environmental
Law Institute, 1358 Connecticut Avenue
NW, Washington, D.C. 20038.
(c) Ll$ts of EIS's prepared or under
preparation and lists of negative decla-
rations prepared will be available at both
the regional and headquarters Offices
of Public Affairs.
Subpart 0—Content of Environmental
• Impact Statements
6 6.300 Cover cheet.
The cover, sheet shall Indicate the
type of EIS (draft or final), the official
project name and number, the respon-
' slble EPA office, the date, and the sig-
nature of the responsible official. The
format Is shown in Exhibit 5.
8 6.302 Summary sheet. ^ '
The summary sheet shall conform to
the format In Exhibit 6, based on Ap-
pendix I of the August 1, 1973, CEQ
Guidelines, or the latest revision of the
CEQ Guidelines.
66.804 Bod? of EIS.
The body of the EIS shall Identify, de-
velop, and analyze the pertinent issues
discussed in the seven sections below;
each Section need not be a separate
chapter. This analysis should include,
but not be limited to, consideration of
the impacts of the proposed project on
the environmental areas listed in Ap-
pendix A which are relevant to the proj-
ect. The EIS shall serve as a means for
the responsible official and the public to
arrer> the environmental Impacts of a
proposed EPA action, rather than as a
justification for decisions already made.
it shall be prepared using a systematic.
Interdisciplinary approach and shall In-
corporate all relevant analytical dls-
"clpllnesto provide meaningful and fac-
tual data, Information, and analyses.
The presentation of data should be clear
and concise, yet include an facts nec-
essary to permit independent evaluation
and appraisal of the beneficial and ad-
vene environmental effects of alterna-
tive actions. The amount of detail pro-
, vlded should he commensurate with the
extent and expected Impact of the ac-
tion and the amount of Information re-
quired at tho particular level of decision
tnnUng To the extent possible, an EIS
uhaH not be drafted In a style which re-
qnlrta extensive edentifie or technical
expertise to comprehend and evaluate
the environmental impcct of a proposed
SPA action.
(a) Background and description of the
proposed action. The EIB shall describe
the recommended or proposed action, its
purpose, where It Is located and It* time
setting. When a decision has been made
not to favor an alternative until public
comments on a proposed action have
been received, the draft EIS may treat
all feasible alternatives at similar levels
of detail; the final CIS should focus on
the alternative the draft EIS and pub-
lic comments indicate is the best. The
relationship of the proposed action to
other projects and proposals directly Af-
fected by or stemming from it shall be
discussed, Including not only pther EPA'
activities, but also those of other govern-
mental and private organizations. Land
use patterns and population trends in
the project area and the assumptions on
which they are based also shall be In-
cluded. Available maps, photos, and art-
ists' sketches should be Incorporated
when they help depict the environmen-
tal setting.
(b) Alternatives to the proposed ac-
tion. The EIS shall develop, describe,
and objectively weigh feasible alterna^
tives to any proposed action. Including
the options of talcing no action or post-
poning action. The analysis should be
detailed enough to show EPA's compara-
tive evaluation of the environmental im-
pacts, commitments of resources, costs,
and risks of the proposed action and
each feasible alternative. For projects
Involving construction, alternative sites
must be analyzed in enough detail for
reviewers independently' to Judge the rel-
ative desirability of each site. For alter-
natives involrtiig regtonnllzatlon, the
effects of varying-degrees of reglonaliza-
tlon should be addressed. If* cost-bene-
fit analysis is prepared, it should be ap-
pended to the EIS and referenced In the
body of the JBD3, In addition, the reasons
why the proposed action is believed by
EPA to be the best course of action shall
be explained.' '
(c) Environmental impacts of the pro-
posed action. (1) The positive and nega-
tive effects of the proposed action as it
affects both the national and Interna-
tional environment should be assessed.
The attention given to different environ-
mental factors will vary according to
the nature, scale, and location of -pro*
'posed actions. Primary, attention should
be given to those factors -most evidently
affected by the proposed action. The fac-
tors shall Include, where appropriate, the
proposed action's effects on the resource
base, including land, water quality and
quantity, ah- quality, public services and
eneifcy supply. The EIS shall describe
primary and secondary environmental
Impacts, both beneficial and adverse, an-
ticipated from the action. The descrip-
ttyn shall include short.term and long
term Impacts on both the natural and
human environments.
(2) Primary impact* are those that
con be attributed directly to toe pro-
posed action. If the action Is a field ex-
periment, materials introduced into the
environment which might damage cer-
tain plant communities or wildlife species
would be a primary impact If the action
Involves construction of a facility, each
as a sewajje treatment works, on office
building or a laboratory, the primary Im-
pacts of the action would Include the
environmental impacts related' to con-
struction and operation of the facfllty
and land use changes at the facility site.
(3) Secondary Impacts are Indirect or
Induced changes. If the action Jnvcivea
construction of a facility, the eecondory
Impacts would Include the environmental
impacts related to :
(1) induced changes hi the pattern
of land use, population density and re-
lated effects on air and water .quaOty
or other natural resources; • , .
(11) Increased growth at a faster rote
than planned for or above the total level
planned by the existing community. •
(4) A discussion of how soclocconomlc
activities and land use changes related
to the proposed action conform or con-
flict with the goals and objectives of ap-
proved or proposed Federal, regional,
State and local land use plans, policies
and controls for the project area should
be Included in the EIS. If a conflict ap-
pears to be unresolved In the EXS, EPA
should explain why it has decided to
proceed without full recohcfllatida,
(d) Advene impact* which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be. imple-
mented and steps to minimize ~ham,to
the environment. The BIS shall describe
the kinds and. magnitudes of/ndi^rra
impacts which cannot be reduced in ea-
verity or which can te~ reduced to an Ac-
ceptable level but hot eliminated. ifegji
may 'Include water or air pollution, un-
desirable land use' patterns, damage' to
fish and wildlife habttsto, nrban con-
gestion, threats to human health or ottur
consequences adverse to the enviroa-
mental goals in faction 101 (b) of NH?A.
Protective ofed mttisative mecsuro £)
bteleteh at part of .the proposed acttou
shall be ktshtlfled. Thea measures to
reduce or compensate for any nwtetQJ
mentally detrimental ospact of tho pro-
posed action may include those of ERA,
its' contractors and grantees and ot&en
Involved to the action. .... w >•-.
(e) RelaUatuMp bottom tocaJ e&crt
term use* of man'* environment ca& the
maintenance anil enhancement o/ laso
term, prodvcttoitti. The ms ohafl de-
scribe the 'extent, to- which tha pgopcsrsi
action involves iaradeoflfc beteaen eh-a*
term enyiroomeiital vain* at tt» exjtsscs
of lane term gains or TJoo-vwrco and tba
extent to which tike-proposed ectlcs fora-.
closes future option*. Special atten&Kt
shall bo given to eflecta which mrew
the range of future uses of land cad
water resources or pose long term risks
to health or safety. Consideration shotifcf
be given to windfall gains or ctjnifleant
decreases in current property eafcssr
.from implementing the proporad oettou
In addition, the reaomt ,tho prCpoe^T
action Is believed by EPA to ba Justtttefc
now, ro*h-T than reemiair o Jons
option for other
no action, thall be
JrrcvertSKe and frr&rtesaofe com-
mttmentt of resources to the pro&acS
action, thotOd it be implemeatod. Sb*
KIB shall describe the extent to which
FBM3M CEOIITEfi, VOL 40, NO. 73—CONOAY, AKBt 14, VWO
-------
BUIIS AN© BI©ULA?!©WS
the proposed action requires commit-
ment of construction materials, parson-
hours and funds to design and Imple-
ment the project, as well as curtails the
range of future uses of land and water
resources. For example, Induced -growth
in undeveloped areas may curtail alter-
native uses of that land. Also, irreversi-
ble environmental damage can result
from equipment malfunctions or Indus-
trial accidents at the project site. There-
fore, the need for any Irretrievable and
significant commitments of resources
shall be explained fully.
(g) Problems and objections raised by
other Federal, State and local agencies
and by interested persons in the review
process. Final EIS's (and draft ElS's if
appropriate)' shall summarize the com-
ments and suggestions made by review-
ing organizations and shall describe the
disposition of Issues raised, e.g., revisions
to the proposed action to mitigate an-
ticipated impacts or objections. In par-
ticular, the BOS shall address the major
issues raised when the EPA position dif-
fers from most recommendations and
explain the factors of overriding Impor-
tance overruling the adoption of sugges-
tions. Reviewer's statements should be
set forth in a "comment" and discussed
in a "response." In addition, the source
of all comments should be clearly iden-
tified, and. copies of the comments
should be attached to the final EIS.
Summaries of comments should be at-
fached when a response has been excap-
fctozially loner or the same comments were
received from many reviewers.
All boobs, research reports, field study
reports, correspondence and other docu-
ments which provided the data base for
• evaluating the proposed action and al-
ternatives discussed hi the E2S shall be
used as references hi the body of the
E3S and shall be Included hi a bibli-
ography attached to the ELS.
Support E>—EPA Public Hearings on EIS's
While EPA is not required by statute
to hold public hearings on EIS's, the re-
sponsible official should hold & public
hearing on a draft EIS whenever a hear-
ing, may facilitate the resolution of con-
flicts or significant public controversy.
TSiis hearing may bs In addition to public
'hearings held on facilities plans or sec-
tion 209 plans. The responsible official
may take special measures to Involve in-
terested persons through personal con-
tact
(1) Publication of a public notice in a
newspaper which covers the project area,
identifying the project, announcing the
date, time and place of the hearing and
announcing the availability of detailed
information on the proposed action for
public inspection at one or more locations
In the. area in which the project will be
located. "Detailed Information" shall in-
clude a copy of the project application
and the draft EIS.
(2) Notification of appropriate State
and local agencies and appropriate State,
regional and metropolitan clearing-'
houses. • '.
(3) Notification of interested persons.
(b) A written record of the hearing
shall be made. A stenographer may be
used to record the hearing/ As a mini-
mum, the record shall contain a list of
witnesses with the text of each presenta-
tion. A summary of the record, including
the Issues raised, conflicts resolved and
.unresolved, and any other significant
portions of the record, shall be appended"
to the final EIS.
(c-) When a public hearing has been
held by another Federal, State, or local
agency on .an EPA action, additional
hearings are not necessary. The respon-
sible official shall decide if additional
hearings are needed.
(d) When a program office is the origi-
nating office, the appropriate regional
office will provide assistance to the origi-
nating office In holding any public hear-
ing" If assistance is requested.
Subpart E—
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0 &S05 Cootplellon of NEFA proeedurea
bcfero etnrt of administrative actions.
See 1 6.108 and 1 8304.
0 &S10 Crfcerfa f«r preparation of en-
l imp&ct cbiUmiMitt*
In addition to considering the criteria
in 10200, the Regional Administrator
than naure,tfaat an BIS will be prepared
on a treatment works facilities plan, 208
pica or other appropriate water quality
management plan when:
(a) The treatment , works or plan will
induce significant changes (either abso-
lute changes or increases in the rate of
change) in industrial, commercial, agri-
cultural, or residential land use concen-
trations or distributions. Factors that
should be considered in determining if
these changes are significant include but
are not limited to: the vacant land sub-
ject to increased development pressure
as a result of the treatment works; the
increases In population which may be
Induced; the faster rate of change of
population; changes in population den-
sity; the potential for overloading sew-
age treatment works; the extent to which
landowners may benefit from the areas
subject to Increased development; the.
nature, of land use regulations in the af-
fected area and their potential effects
on development; and deleterious changes
in th» availability or demand for energy.
(to) Any major part of the treatment
works win be located on productive wet-
lands or Trill have otgniflcant adverse
effects on wetlands, including secondary
effects,. .
(«) Any major part of the treatment
worto trill be located on or.Bigniftcantiy
affect the habitat of wildlife on the De-
partment of Interior's threatened and
endangered species lists.
(d) Implementation of the treatment
worka or plan may directly cause or In-
duce changes that significantly:
(1) Displace population; '
(2) Deface an existing residential
area; or
(3) Adversely affect significant
amounts of prime agricultural land or
agricultural operations on .this land.
(e) The treatment works or plan will
have dgnlflcant cdverse effects on park-
lands, other public tands or areas of rec-
oonked ecentc, recreational, ar»haeo-;.
toatel or historic value.
(f ) The works or plan may directly or
through, Induced development have a
Arerea.efffct upon local am-
alr Quality, local ambient noise
levels, surface or oroundwater quantity
or quality, flsh, wildlife, and their natu-
ral habitats.
. (0) 1*0 treated effluent is being dis-
charged Into a body of water where the
present classification Is too lenient or la
being challenged as too low to protect
present or recent uses, and the effluent
wlQ not be of sufficient quality to meet
the requirements of these uses.
8 6.512 Procedures for implementing
NEPA.
(a) Environmental atiestment. An
adequate enrlronxesntal aoesement must
be an Integral, thoush identifiable, part
of ally facilities or section 208 plan sub-
mitted to EPA. (See 1 8.203 for a general
description,) The information in ttw fa-
oUttto plan, particularly fee environ-
mental assessment, trlB provide the sub-
stance of an ESS and shall be submitted
by the applicant. The analyses that con-
stitute an adequate environmental as*
mepment shall include:
(1) Description of the existing envi-
ronment without the project. This shall
Include for the delineated planning area
a description of the present environmen-
tal conditions relevant to 'the analysis of
alternatives or determinations of the
environmental Impacts of the proposed
action. The description shall Include, but
not be limited to, discussions of which-
ever areas are applicable to a particular
study: surface and groundwater qual-
ity; water supply and use; general hy-
drology; air quality; noise levels, energy
production and consumption; land use
trends; population projections, wetlands,
floodplains, coastal zones and other en-
vironmentally sensitive areas; historic
and archaeological sites; other related
Federal or State projects in the area; and
plant and animal communities which
may be affected, especially those contain-
ing threatened or endangered epedes.
(2) Description of the future environ-
ment without the project. The future
environmental conditions with the no
project alternative shall be forecast, cov-
ering the same areas listed in f 6.512
(3) Documentation. Sources of Infor-
mation used to describe the existing en-
vironment and to assess future environ-
mental impacts should be documented.
These sources should Include regional,
State and Federal agencies with respon-
sibility or interest in the types of impacts
listed In 5 6.612 (ft) (1) . In particular, the
following agencies should be consulted:
(1) Local and regional land use plan-
ning- agencleo for 'assessments of land
use trends and\ population projections,
especially those affecting size, timing,
and location of facilities, and planning
activities funded under section 701 of
the Houston and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-383) ;
(Ii> The HUD Regional Office if a proj-
ect involves a flood risk area identified
Under the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234) ;
(ill) The State coastal zone manage-
ment agency, if a coastal zone is affected;
(iv) The Secretary of the Interior or
Secretary, of Agriculture, if a wild and
scenic river Is affected;
(v) The Secretary of the Interior or
Secretary of Commerce, if a threatened
or endangered species is affected;
(vi) The Fish and Wildlife Service
{Department of interior), the Depart-
ment of Commerce, and the TJ.8. Army
Corps of oEnglneers, if a wetland is
affected.
(4) Evaluation of alternatives. This
discussion shall Include a comparative
analysis of feasible options and a sys-
tematic development of wastewater
treatment alternatives. The alternatives
shall be screened with respect to capital
and operating costs; significant primary
and secondary environmental t£tcs£r!
physical, learal or institutional coa-
strainte; and whether or not thay netS
regulatory requlranenta. Specie! atten-
tion should be given to Ions term im-
pacts. Irreversible impacts and induced
Impacts such as development. Th4 ro-
sons for rejecting any alternatives chcfl
be presented in addition ft any dffnifl-
cant environmental beneflto precluded
by rejection of an alternative. The anal-
ysis should consider, .when relevant to
the project:
(1? Flow and waste reduction meas-
ures, including Infiltration/inflow reduc-
tion; .
(11) Alternative locations, capacities,
and construction phaeintr of faculties; .
(ill) Alternative waste management
techniques, includlgu treatment and din-
charge, wastewater reuse and land ap-
plication;
(iv) Alternative methods for disposal
of sludge and other residual vcato. in-
cluding process options and final dis-
posal options;'
(v) Improving effluent quality through
more efficient operation and mainte-
nance; ,
(vl) For assessments, associated with
section 208 plans, the analysis of options
shall Include in addition:
(A) Land use-and other regulator/
controls, .fiscal controls, non=polnt sourco
controls, and institutional arrange-
ments; and
(B) I0nd management practices.
(5) Environmental bnpacUof the &ro->
posed action. Primary and secondary
impacts of the proposed action shall be
described, giving special attention to un-
avoidable impacts, steps' to mitigate adr
verse impacts, any irreversible or irre-
trievable commitments of resources to
the project and the relationship between
local short term uses of the environ-
ment and the i*atnttauatr* andi en-
hancement of long term productivity.
See' 86.304 (c), (d),j(e). and for. OR
explanation of these terms and exesrijgej.
The significance of land use impacts
shall be evaluated, .based on current
population of the planning area; da-
sign year population for the serrto-cwo!
percentage of the service area cutvOUy
vacant; and plans for staging fftfjjtfcj.
Special attention should be given to in-
duced changes In population patterns and
growth, particularly if a project Involves
some degree of reglonallcation. In-addi-
tion to these items, the Regional Ad-
ministrator may require that other anal-
yses and data, which he determine?
are heeded to comply with NEPA, bo
included with the facilities or eeetiiaix
208 plan. Such requirements should t»
discussed during preappUcatioa con-
ferences. The Regional Administrator
also may require submission of supple-
mentary information cither before or
after a step 2 grant or before a step
3 grant award if he determines it la
needed for compliance trith NBPA. Re-
quests for supplementary information
•hall bemads in writing.
(6) Stcpt to minimize advene effect*.
\This section shall describe structural and,
FEDERAL MOISTW, VOL 40, NO. 75—MONDAY, ARIL 14, 1975
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
nflostructural measures, if any. In the
fw-WVf £l&n to mitigate or eliminate
slgplficant adverse effects .on the Hm»nm
and natar»J~ environments. Structural
provisions Include changes to facility de-
sign, size, and location; nonstructural
provisions Include staging facilities as
well as developing and enforcing land
use regulations add environmentally
protective regulations. . -
. (b) Public hearing. The applicant shall
hold at least one public hearing before a
facilities plan is adopted, unless waived
by the Regional Administrator before
completion of the facilities plan accord-
Ing to I 35.917-5 of the Title n construc-
tion grants regulations. Hearings should
be held on section 208 plans. A copy of
the environmental assessment should be
available' for public review before the
hearing and at the hearing, since these
hearings provide an opportunity to ac-
cept public Input on Ujie environmental
Issues associated with, the facilities plan
or'the 208 water quality management
strategy. In addition, a Regional Admin-
istrator may. elect to hold an EPA hear-
ing if environmental Issues remain un-
resolved. ' EPA hearings shall be held'
according to procedures in § 6.402.
(c) Environmental review. An envi-
ronmental review of a facilities plan or
section 208 plan shall be conducted
according to the procedures In { 6.204
and applying the criteria of 8 6.510. If
deficiencies exist'In the environmental
assessment, they shall be identified in
writing by the Regional Administrator
and must be corrected before the plan
can b* approved.
(d) Additional procedures. (1) His-
toric and archaeological sites. If a facil-
ities or section 208 plan may affect prop-
erties with historic, architectural,
archaeological or cultural value which
axe listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places or
may cause Irreparable loss or destruction'
of significant scientific, prehistoric, his-
toric or archaeological data, the appli-
cant Shan follow the procedures In
86.214(a>.
(2) If the facilities or section 208 plan
may affect wetlands, floodplalns, coastal
Bones, .wild and scenic rivers, fish or
wOdUfe, the Regional Administrator
shall follow the appropriate procedures
described in !62l4(b>.
Notice of intent. The notice of in-
tent CD a faculties plan or section 208
• plan shall be Issued according to 16.206.
(f) Scope of SIS. It is the Regional
Administrator's responsibility to deter-
mine the scope of the Eis. He should
detennlne-if an EIS should be prepared
on a faculties ptan(s) or section 208 plan
and which environmental areas should
be discussed in greatest detail in the EIS.
Once an EDS has been prepared for the'
designated section 208 area, another
need not be prepared unless the signifi-
cant impacts of individual facilities or
other plan elements jrere not adequately
treated in the EIB. The Regional Ad-
ministrator should document his decision
.not to prepare an EIB on individual
facilities. . .
(g) Negative declaration. A negative
declaration on a faculties plan or sec-
tion 208 plan shall be prepared according
to 16.212. Once a negative declaration
and environmental appraisal have been
prepared for the faculties plan for a cer-
tain area, grant awards may proceed
without preparation of additional nega-
tive declarations! unless the project has
changed significantly from that . de-
scribed in the faculties plan.
§ 6.514 Content of environmental ho-
ped statements.
Effi's for treatment works or plans
•hall be prepared according 'to i 6.304.
KPIRAI umsrn, VOL 40, NO. /a—MONDAY, AFU( 14, \m
OPO B14-282
------- |