EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Regits. i 1
J.F.Kennedy Building
Boston, Mass. 02203
EPA
Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Local Wastewater
Management
Program
N. Branfqrd,
Connecticut
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LOCAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
NORTH BRANFORD, CONNECTICUT
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluates
wastewater collection and treatment alternatives for
North Branford. The major recommendation is for a
limited sewer system to serve the Foxon area of the
community.
Futher information on this statement can be provided by:
Mr. Robert Mendoza
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental and Economic Impact Office
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
617-223-4635
-LEAD AGENCY-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Technical Consultant
Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts
Approved by:
R. Adams, Jr. Final Date by Which
J Regional Administrator Comments on the Draft
Environmental Protection Agency Must Be Received
Region I
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 1.0- SUMMARY
1.1 General Discussion 3
1.2 Federal and State Programs 3
1.21 P.L. 92-500 5
1.22 Construction Grants Program 5
1.23 PRM 78-9 |
1.24 1977 WPCA Amendments 6
1.25 State Program and Responsibilities 7
1.3 Local Involvement 8
1.31 Town Plan of Development 9
1.32 Town Sewer Plans 9
1.33 Environmental Review Process 11
1.4 EIS Work Program I2
1.41 Issues I2
1.42 Public Participation Program 15
1.421 Newsletters 15
1.422 Questionnaire 16
1.423 Workshops 17
1.43 General Data Collection 18
1.44 EIS Field Work i8
1.441 Windshield Surveys 19
1.442 Connecticut DEP Survey 19
1.443 Follow-up Survey 20
1.444 Water Quality Sampling 21
1.5 Overview of Analysis of
Alternatives 25
1.51 General Alternative Concepts 27
1.52 Potential Impacts of
Alternatives 27
1.53 Screening of Alternatives 28
1.54 Conclusions 29
SECTION 2.0- PURPOSE AND NEED
2.1 Precipitating Action 33
2.2 EIS Findings 33
2.3 EIS Recommendations 33
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE
SECTION 3.0- ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED
ACTION
3.1 General Discussion of Alternatives 37
3.2 No Action 37
3.3 On-Site Solutions 37
3.31 Changes in Use of the Existing
Septic Systems 38
3.32 Repairs to Septic Systems 39
3.33 Expansion of Existing Systems 39
3.34 Replacement of the Leaching Field 39
3.35 Site Modification/Curtain Drains 40
3.36 Mounded/Pumped Systems 40
3.37 Summary 41
3.4 Local Sewer Systems 41
3.5 Town-Wide Sewer System 42
3.6 Development of Alternatives for
North Branford 43
3.61 Problem Areas 43
3.62 Alternative Concepts 47
3.63 Foxon Area Alternatives 48
3.631 Foxon Alternative A - Continued
On-Site 49
3.632 Foxon Alternative B - Community
System 49
3.633 Foxon Alternative C - Limited
Sewer System 49
3.634 Foxon Alternative D - Full Sewer
System 49
3.64 Green Acres Area Alternatives 53
3.641 Green Acres Alternative A -
Continued On-Site 53
3.642 Green Acres Alternative B -
Sewer System 53
3.65 White Hollow Area Alternatives 55
3.651 White Hollow Alternative A -
Continued On-Site 55
3.652 White Hollow Alternative B -
Community Systems 55
3.653 White Hollow Alternative C -
Limited Sewer System 55
3.654 White Hollow Alternative D -
Full Sewer System 55
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
3.66
3.661
3.662
3.663
3
3
3
664
665
666
3.667
3
3
,668
,669
3.6610
3.6611
3.6612
3.6613
3.6614
3.6615
3.6616
3.67
3.68
3.7
3.71
3.72
3.73
3.74
3.75
3.76
3.77
3.78
3.79
3.710
PAGE
Potential Impacts of Alternatives 59
Public Health 59
Aesthetics 59
Potential Habitat 59
Future Water Supply 60
Wetlands 60
Existing Habitat 60
Farmland 60
Planned Development 60
Economic Growth 60
Community Character . 60
Cost Effectiveness 60
Conformance with PRM1 s 61
Local Acceptance 61
Future Provisions 61
Ease of Management 61
Individual Expense 61
Cost Effective Analysis 61
Public Attitudes 61
Preferred Alternatives 64
Foxon Alternative A - Continued
On-Site 64
Foxon Alternative B - Community
System 65
Foxon Alternative C - Limited
Sewer System 65
Foxon Alternative D - Full Sewer
System 66
Green Acres Alternative A -
Continued On-Site 66
Green Acres Alternative B -
Limited Sewer System 66
White Hollow Alternative A -
Continued On-Site 67
White Hollow Alternative B -
Community System 67
White Hollow Alternative C -
Limited Sewer System 67
White Hollow Alternative D -
Full Sewer System 67
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE
SECTION 4.0- AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Natural Environment 71
4.11 Topography/Hydrology 71
4.12 Geology/Soils 72
4.13 General Water Quality 79
4.14 Climate 81
4.15 Air Quality 81
4.16 Sensitive Ecological Systems 82
4.2 Human Environment 83
4.21 General Land Use 84
4.211 History 84
4.212 Patterns 85
4.213 EPA Resource Inventory 89
4.22 Land Use Regulation 90
4.221 Water Company Lands 91
4.222 Zoning 92
4.223 Wetland Regulations 96
4.224 Floodplain Regulations 97
4.225 Agricultural Preservation 101
4.3 Growth & Development 103
4.31 Population Projections 103
4.32 Local Plan of Development 105
4.33 Regional Plan 107
4.34 State Plan of Conservation &
Development 110
4.35 Local Perceptions of Growth 113
4.4 Characteristics of Resource Use 114
4.41 Water Supply 114
4.411 General 114
4.412 New Haven Water Company 116
4.413 Water Quality 118
4.42 Wastewater Disposal 121
4.421 Past and Current Practices 121
4.422 Continuing Limitations 122
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE
SECTION 5.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
5.1 General Discussion 125
5.2 No Action 128
5.21 Future Development Scenario 129
5.22 Impacts on Water Resources 131
5.221 Public Health 131
5.222 Future Water Supply 133
5.23 Impacts on Natural Systems 134
5.231 Wetlands 134
5.232 Existing Habitat 134
5.24 Impacts on Human Resources 135
5.241 Farmland 135
5.242 Planned Development 136
5.243 Economic Growth 137
5.244 Community Character 137
5.3 Town Proposal & Concept for
Foxon Area 138
5.31 Impacts on Water Resources 139
5. 311 Public Health 139
5.312 Future Water Supply 140
5.32 Impacts on Natural Systems 141
5.321 Wetlands 141
5.322 Existing Habitat 142
5.33 Impacts on Human Resources 142
5.331 Farmlands 142
5.332 Planned Development 143
5.333 Economic Growth 144
5-334 Community Character 145
5.4 Modified Foxon Proposal 146
5.41 Impacts on Water Resources 147
5.411 Public Health 147
5.412 Future Water Supply 148
5.42 Impacts on Natural Systems 148
5.421 Wetlands 148
5.422 Existing Habitat 149
5.43 Impacts on Human Resources 149
5.431 Farmlands 149
5.432 Planned Development 150
5.433 Economic Growth 150
5.434 Community Character 151
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE
5.5 Green Acres Area Rehabilitation 151
5.51 Impacts on Water Resources 152
5.511 Public Health 152
5.512 Future Water Supply 152
5. 52 Impacts on Natural Systems 152
5.53 Impacts on Human Resources 152
5.531 Farmlands 152
5.532 Planned Development 153
5.533 Economic Growth 153
5.534 Community Character 153
5.6 Green Acres Area Sewer Systems 153
5.61 Impacts on Water Resources 154
5.611 Public Health 154
5.612 Future Water Supply 154
5.62 Impacts on Natural Systems 154
5.621 Wetlands 154
5.622 Existing Habitat 155
5.63 Impacts on Human Resources 155
5.631 Farmland 155
5.632 Planned Development 155
5.633 Economic Growth 155
5. 634 Community Character 156
5.7 White Hollow Area Rehabilitation 156
5.71 Impacts on Water Resources 156
5.711 Public Health 156
5.712 Future Water Supply 157
5.72 Impacts on Natural Systems 157
5.721 Wetlands 157
5.722 Existing Habitat 157
5.73 Impacts on Human Resources 157
5.731 Farmland 157
5.732 Planned Development 157
5.733 Economic Growth 157
5.734 Community Character 158
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
5.8
5.81
5.811
5.812
5.82
5.821
5.822
83
84
5.9
5.91
5.911
5.912
5,
5,
5,
5,
92
921
5.922
5.93
5.931
5.932
5.94
PAGE
White Hollow Area Community Sewer 158
Impacts on Water Resources 158
Public Health 158
Future Water Supply 159
Impacts on Natural Systems 159
Wetlands 159
Existing Habitat 160
Economic Growth 160
Community Character 161
Conclusions 161
Foxon Area 161
Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided 167
Mitigative Measures 168
Green Acres Area 168
Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided 170
Mitigative Measures 170
White Hollow Area 170
Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided 171
Mitigative Measures 171
Areawide 172
SECTION 6.0 - LIST OF PREPARERS
173
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING
DESCRIPTION & ECONOMICS OF ALTERNATIVES
DETERMINATION OF WASTEWATER NEED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
vil
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER PAGE
1-1 Regional Context 4
1-2 Study Area 10
1-3 Original Sewer Proposals 13
1-4 Water Qualtiy Sampling Sites 23
3-1 Problem Areas 45
3-2 Foxon Alternative B 50
3-3 Foxon Alternative C 51
3-4 Foxon Alternative D 52
3-5 Green Acres Alternative B 54
3-6 White Hollow Area Alternative B 56
3-7 White Hollow Area Alternative C 57
3-8 White Hollow Area Alternative D 58
4-1 Wetlands/Topography 73
4-2 General Limitations for Septic
System Use 77
4-3 General Land Use 87
4-4 Zoning 93
4-5 Floodplains 99
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
NUMBER PAGE
4-6 Local Land Use Plan 106
4-7 Regional Land Use Plan 108
4-8 State Land Use Area Classification 112
4-9 Water Service Area 115
5-1 Environmental Impact Profile 162
5-2 Environmental Impact Profile 163
5-3 Foxon Interceptor 165
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER PAGE
1-1 Partial Questionnaire Results 17
1-2 General Water Quality Sampling
Programs 22
1-3 Generalized Water Quality Sampling
Results 26
3-1 Summary of Costs of Alternatives 62
3-2 Overview of Total Impacts 63
4-1 Past Population Data for North
Branford 103
4-2 Population Projections 104
5-1 Available Land & Anticipated
Development 130
5-2 Cost of Modified Foxon Proposal 164
5-3 Cost Estimates For Green Acres
Sewers 169
5-4 Cost Estimates For White Hollow 171
-------
SECTION 1.0
SUMMARY
The objective of the summary is to provide the
reader with all the facts, reasoning, and con-
clusions of the project in one location. In order
to do this, serveral sub-sections were developed.
A brief description of the Federal and State
programs is presented as basic information for the
local citizen/decision maker. North Branford's
involvement in these programs and the reasons that
led to the EIS project provide additional back-
ground. The EIS work program is described in
detail to show the understanding of the local
project, the approach that was taken and actual
work that was done that led to the EIS conclusions,
Finally, the alternatives that were examined are
presented along with the analysis that led to the
ultimate statement of the EIS recommendations.
-------
1.1 General Discussion
North Branford is a Town of about 12,000 people situated
in South Central Connecticut about 5 miles northeast of
the City of New Haven (Figure 1-1). This Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared to
present to interested citizens and decision makers
progress of an on-going project which has been examining
the nature of North Branford"s wastewater disposal
problems. The Town has proposed the construction of
sanitary sewers with Federal and State grant assistance.
The purpose of the DEIS is to inform the public of the
preliminary findings of EPA's project team concerning
the extent of the problem, the availability of alterna-
tive solutions, and the existence of potential environ-
mental impacts that may result.
The EIS has concluded that wastewater disposal and
pollution problems exist in sections of North Branford.
Chronic widespread septic system problems were found in
the Foxon Area in the south, in the Green Acres area in
the northwest, and in the White Hollow area in the
northeast. Smaller areas of localized problems included
Jerz Lane, Miller Road, and Grant Drive in the Middle
Farm River Valley. Elsewhere, where isolated problems
are reported, insufficient population concentrations
exist to warrant a group solution.
The EIS recommends EPA participation in the construction
of the limited sewer project in the Foxon Area. In the
north part of town, in Green Acres and White Hollow, the
conventional sewer concept that has been developed will
require further review by the Town. In Green Acres, the
system would be feasible but expensive. White Hollow
could not be considered for funding of a conventional
sewer system due to its environmental impacts. In both
instances, a neighborhood-scale sewer system or an on-
site rehabilitation program may be feasible, however,
and is worth further study.
The sections that follow present the context in which
the original sewer project developed and the course of
action followed in the preparation of the EIS.
1.2 Federal and State Program
The following Federal and State programs are relevant to
this EIS:
-------
MR!DN
regional context
figure 1-1
north branor uuo/teujoter treatment acilitie/
dote: February 1979
/ource: onderson-nichois&cojnc.
e nvironmentol impoct /tatement environmentol protection ogencv
onoer/on-nichol/ &
-------
1.21 P.L. 92-500
On October 17, 1972, Congress enacted the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-
500). The objective of the Act is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters. Specific goals
of the Act include the elimination of the: discharge
of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985, an
interim goal of water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish
and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on
the water by 1983. To achieve these goals, Title
II of the. Act authorizes the Administration of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assist in
the development and implementation of wastewater
collection and treatment plans.
1.22 Construction Grants Program
Rules and Regulations, required under Section 201
of P.L. 92-500 promulgated by EPA, established what
has become known as "201 Facility Planning".
Facility Planning is a three step process that
usually results in the construction of a wastewater
collection system and treatment facility. The
three steps are:
Step I - General Planning
-- Step II - Design Drawings
& Specifications
Step III - Construction
Through its Municipal Facilities Branch, EPA awards
grants generally on the order of 75% for "eligible"
items of each of these three steps A typical
level of effort for each of these steps at a very
generalized level, is shown in the following
relationship:
-- Step III - Construction, Engineering,
& Administrative Costs
Step II - Design Costs - equal 10%
of Step III
Step I - General Planning Costs -
equal 10% of Step II
-------
By law, the Facility Plan must analyze a number of
alternatives for the solution of water pollution
problems, through a process that includes public
participation, and select the most cost-effective
and environmentally sound alternative. To accom-
plish this end, the facility planner is required to
prepare an environmental impact assessment report
along with the engineering analysis.
1.23 Program Requirements Memoranda
In 1976, an EPA survey of 258 "facility plans" from
49 states reported that 83 of these recommended the
construction of completely new collection and
treatment systens. For small communities, these
new collection and treatment systems represented a
high annual cost to individual homeowners. EPA
responded, through a Program Requirements Memoran-
dum (PRM), which required facility plans to fully
evaluate and ana.lyze:
-- septic tanks;, holding tanks
and package treatment plants
for small clusters of houses.
"honey wagons" and septage
treatment facilities to serve
a group of individual family
systems, and
-- new systems serving only
individual families.
In June 1977, in a further effort to require the
thoughtful planning, EPA Administrator Costle
issued PRM 77-8. This PRM required specific docu-
mentation of health, groundwater and discharge
problems of existing disposal systems and a further
documentation of site: characteristics which re-
strict the use of existing disposal systems. Also,
PRM 76-3 required public disclosure of the costs of
any collection system project including, individual
operation and maintenance changes, individual debt
service changes and estimated connection costs.
1.24 1977 Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
In December 1977, Congress enacted amendments to
P.L. 92-500 producing the: Clean Water Act of 1977
(PL 95-217). One amendment authorizes grants for
-------
the construction of privately owned treatment works
serving one or more principal residences or small
commercial establishments. These amendments made
the selection of alternatives to sewer construction
that were to be analyzed under PRM 77-8 (PRM 77-8
with minor modifications has been reissued as PRM
78-9) eligible for Federal funding. Further, the
Act authorizes states to set aside funds specifi-
cally for the implementation of alternatives to
conventional sewers.
1.25 State Programs and Responsibilities
In carrying out the EPA grants program, the various
states have a signi.ficant role. Because the;
Federal Law provided only certain amounts of money
to be allocated to each state, the states have
functioned as a clearing house for grant applica-
tions and have made decisions which determine which
items in a project are "eligible" items and which
communities have the greatest needs.
In Connecticut, the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) has performed this function in
conjunction with its own grant program under the
Clean Water Act of 1972. This program provides
funding of wastewater management projects of 15% of
the cost of eligible items. When combined with. EPA
funds, as much as 90% of the project costs in a
community may be paid for by State and Federal
Grants.
The: actual funds that may be available to a com-
munity are dependent largely upon the amount of
money that the states has allocated to it in a
particular year and the priority list which the
State estabJished to allocate these funds. Funding
for Connecticut amounts to $49.8 million in 1978
and $55.4 million for fiscal years 1979, 1980, and
1981.
These allocations are the yearly amounts for the
fiscal years 1978-1983 which became available with
the passage of the 1977 Amendments. Similar allo-
cations were made for the period of 1974-1977 under
the original Act.
-------
One aspect of interest is that in 1977 when North
Branford was applying for funding of its projects,
the State had funds from the original Act still
uncommitted as the first funding period ended.
Operating under the belief that these funds might
have to be returned to the Federal Government, the
State in an effort to commit all of its funds,
extended eligibility to the construction of later-
als (local street sewers). Two important results
occurred. First, communities who applied received
eligibility in the form of actual 90% funding for
most costs of their projects. Secondly, the PRM's
re-emphasized the requirement to demonstrate need
based on water quality degradation, in keeping with
the intent of the original legislation that made
funds available.
Each year, the State assigns priority to the
projects in various communities by means of an
elaborate point system which results in a priority
list. The communities are in essence competing for
limited available Federal funds. Despite the EIS
project which is required in the Foxon Area, North
Branford has been given assurances because of their
application that the funds will be reserved for the
action that is ultimately recommended for the area.
The EIS has not, therefore, jeopardized the lateral
funding that was available for the Foxon Area.
1.3 Local Involvement
In the course of developing a background perspective
against which the Town's proposal could be evaluated,
numerous sources were consulted. These included news-
paper clippings, DEP and EPA correspondence files, and
local interviews.
One important aspect is the length of time that the
sewering issue has been under consideration in North
Branford. Correspondence between Town and State offi-
cials dates back well over ten years. It appears that
the community actively sought State aid in the devel-
opment of a sewer system, in part at least, as an
adjunct to its industrial development plans. As has
been frequently stated by the present Mayor, a majority
of each of the elected Town Councils has consistently
supported this pursuit. The Council that is now sit-
ting, in fact, has presented the EIS project with a
written statement in support of sewering. This State-
ment is included in Appendix A.
-------
During this time period, individual values and goals
have undergone significant change. Universal support
for "growth" and its presumed attendant economic bene-
fits has given way, in part, to the emergence of "slow
growth" advocates. Suburban communities like North
Branford have often been the area for conflict between
these opposing points of view.
The funding of sewer programs has often been the issue
that sparks this type of controversy. As sewers are
considered a long term investment, a 50 year planning
period was formerly used in their design. Because of
the environmental impacts of projects based upon this
time dimension, a 20 year design period is now required.
The necessity to forecast the future of a community even
this far into the future still brings out the differ-
ences of the "growth" and "slow growth" philosophies
held by different elements of the community.
1.31 Town Plan of Development
The Town's only expression of its plan for the
future is its 1971 Plan of Development. This
document generally assumed the continued pressure
for residential development to result in an even-
tual population of 25,000 people in the year 2020.
This would represent a doubling of the Town's
present population. The role of sewers as a com-
ponent in the development scenario is described at
a number of places in this report.
1.32 Town Sewer Plans
The Town has basically gone through 4 stages in its
sewer planning effort. Stage 1 was a 1970 report
which concluded that the three natural drainage
basins in the town could be best served by trans-
port of the wastewater to three different treatment
facilities outside the town itself. It was also
assumed that a sewer system would be capable of
ultimately serving most of the land area within
these basins. The basic interceptors would take
wastewater from the North Branford village area
(Area A) south to Branford, from the Foxon Area
(Area B) west to East Haven, and from the small
Muddy River area in the northwestern corner of Town
(Area C) west to North Haven (Figure 1-2). Final-
ly, wastewater in the Upper Farm River Valley also
(Area C) would be collected and pumped to North
Haven. These concepts have been retained through
the present Town sponsored plan. (Figure 1-3)
-------
/tudy area
legend
study area
approved areas
figure 1-2
north branrord w a / t euu a ter treatment racilitie/
oofe: february 1979
/ource:anderson-nichols&co.,inc.
1600 3200
env ironm entol impact /totement environmental protection agency
ander/on-nichol/ & co.,inc.
technical con/ultanf
-------
Stage 2 consisted of a series of special studies
which refined the plan for serving side streets by
lateral sewers. In 1975, the three part town-wide
sewer plan was proposed (with the incorporation of
these special studies and an environmental assess-
ment of each of the three areas) as Stage 3. In
this study, those areas, beyond the initial con-
struction phase which had been originally described
as "long range", were revised to show "Phase 2 and
Phase 3 construction".
In the final plan, Stage 4, in 1976 the initial
sewer construction program (Phase I) was slightly
reduced in response to financing limitations that
were apparently caused by the general delay of the
projects. This Reduced Sewer Program was the
Town's proposal for initial construction for which
it sought funding. This Proposal and the general
Concept are shown on Figure 1-3.
1.33 The Environmental Review Process
In implementing NEPA, EPA adopted a formal review
process as described in the Federal Register of
April 14, 1975. When an action is contemplated,
EPA must review the proposal for potential environ-
mental impact and reach one of two decisions. If
it is decided that a project will have no signifi-
cant environmental impact, EPA issues a written
statement called a Negative Declaration and the
project proceeds. If, on the other hand, it is
concluded, that the action will have significant
environmental impact and/or create controversy,
then a Notice of Intent is issued which announces
that an Environmental Impact Statement must be
prepared.
In the Spring of 1977, the Town applied for Federal
and State grants to construct sewers in Sections A
and C. With the issuance of two Negative-Declara-
tions, the Town obtained EPA's approval to con-
struct these two projects. At the same time, the
proposal to construct sewers in Section B was also
being reviewed. In'the Fall of 1977, EPA issued a
Notice of Intent which outlined its concerns with
this project and announced its intention to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement to assist the
agency in making a final decision.
11
-------
The issues that were identified at that time were:
the demonstration of need for
a sewer project
-- environmental impacts of a
sewer project including change
of community character
costs to the individual
possible indirect water quality
impacts as a result of induced
growth within the Farm River
Valley
The State in turn postponed taking any action on
its order to abate pollution and its grant decision
pending the completion of the EIS process.
1.4 North Branford EIS Work Program
In response to the environmental issues that were
identified in the Notice of Intent, a program for the
North Branford EIS was prepared. In addition to the
general areas of analysis which are required by the
federal EIS guidelines, a number of activities were
contemplated specifically for this project. Included
were a series of newsletters to announce meetings and
inform residents, a town-wide questionnaire to obtain
local citizen inputs, a series of workshops to encourage
the free exchange of information, a water quality
sampling program, and specific engineering field work.
1.41 Issues
As the project progressed, the major local issue
that emerged was the basic question of whether
sewers were needed or not. A large number of
residents related their own experience with septic
system problems, and their lack of faith in the
long term use of septic systems as the basis for
their desire for a sewer project. The opposite
viewpoint was expressed by a smaller group that was
less vocal, awaiting, perhaps, to see the outcome
of the EIS. They also questioned the need for
sewers in light of their perceived environmental
impact and cost.
12
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
An additional local issue of interest to the EIS
team was a public debate and referendum over
implementing the EPA and State approved initial
sewer program in Area C. As a result of the
decision to issue Negative Declarations for the
initial sewer program in Areas A and C, the EIS
project restricted its study area to that shown in
Figure 1-2. Prior to the Town's initiation of
construction in the initial C area, north of
Clintonville Road, a group of residents circulated
a petition calling for a referendum on the question
of funding the local share of this project.
Approximately 1,000 people voted in this referen-
dum, with a 9 to 1 majority objecting to initiation
of the project. A question arose, however, as to
the validity of the vote because of a disagreement
over the actual number of votes cast. Because the
total number is so close to that minimum which
determines the referendum's standing, the question
has been taken to the courts.
As of this writing, the referendum question is
unresolved. There remains, therefore, a group of
citizens who strongly opposed the Section C-l sewer
project on the basis of proof of need and cost.
Considerable press coverage was devoted to the
issue prior to the vote, providing a public forum
where the issue of the benefits of development were
argued. A description of the EIS effort to include
the public in the decision-making process follows.
1.42 Public Participation Process
The process carried out in North Branford included
the following elements:
1.421 Newsletters
A series of three newsletters were prepared
for town-wide mailing for the purpose of
generating and maintaining interest in the EIS
project and to announce impending workshops.
(See Appendix A) They were designed in three
distinct bright colors but with a common
graphic theme in order to attract attention
and develop familiarity with the continuing
project. Newsletter #1 was a bright green
mailing sent in early January 1978 to explain
the scope of the EIS, the participants in the
process, and the issues known at that time.
It also explained the purpose and mechanics of
the first workshop which was held in mid
January.
15
-------
Newsletter #2 was a bright yellow document
mailed in early May, 1978. It contained a
report on the outcome of workshop #1, interim
results of the questionnaire, and reported on
the state of the field work. The time, place,
and agenda of workshop #2 was also announced.
Newsletter #3 was an orange mailing in early
August 1978, which updated the status of the
project, identified the range of alternatives
under consideration, and explained the bene-
fits and liabilities of each concept. The
time, place and purpose of workshop #3 was
also announced.
1.422 Questionnaire
A questionnaire to obtain information from
individual homeowners on the performance of
their septic system, and the issue of sewering
was mailed in early February. The question-
naire was pre-addressed and carried return
postage to facilitate a good return. Arrange-
ments were made to staff a local office for
two days to answer questions that residents
might have during the questionnaire's circu-
lation. This was announced in advance in the
local newspaper.
Despite the blizzard which occurred during the
questionnaire period (which tied up the town
switchboard due to a declared state of emer-
gency) , a respectable return of about 20% was
obtained. In order to give residents an
additional opportunity to complete the ques-
tionnaire, a newspaper article was printed
giving a local telephone listing at which a
second mailing list was compiled.
Some aspects of the questionnaire response are
summarized on the following page in Table 1-1.
The complete questionnaire can be found in
Appendix A. Responses are discussed in
Appendix D.
16
-------
TABLE 1-1
NORTH BRANFORD, CONN. EIS
PARTIAL QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
Question Content Yes No
Your system a problem? 23% 75%
Neighbor's system a problem? 43% 45%
Have system pumped? 64% 22%
Have had system repaired? 35% 63%
Sewers needed in neighborhood? 38% 55%
1.423 Workshops
A series of three workshops was held in North
Branford for the purpose of obtaining input
from the; general public. The basis of a work-
shop format is to provide an informal atmo-
sphere where residents can convey information,
express opinions and ask questions as the
project develops. To accomplish this task,
the typical workshop session consisted of a
short presentation by the EIS team, a group
discussion period, and a general question and
answer segment. The discussions were held
among groups of about eight neighbors to a
table and focused en a set of prepared ques-
tions.
Workshop No, 1 was held at the North Branford
Middle School in January. Its basic purpose
was to obtain information from local residents
about their experiences and perceptions of the
nature and extent of wastewater disposal
problems, both in their neighborhoods and
throughout the town.
Workshop No. 2 was held at the same location
in May for the purpose of reporting on the EIS
project identification of the wastewater
problem and a general discussion of possible
alternative solutions.
17
-------
Workshop #3 was held at the Northford Middle
School in August. At this meeting, specific
alternatives for problem neighborhoods were
identified and the costs, anticipated tax rate
changes, and costs to individuals were pre-
sented.
More information about these workshops can be
found in Appendix A. The workshop concept has
provided the EIS project team with useful
periodic inputs which have become an integral
part of the EIS and its recommendations.
1.43 General Data Collection
When an EIS is conducted in a community, attention
can be focused on specific issues and analyzed to a
greater depth than is the usual engineering prac-
tice in 201 Facility Planning. Quite simply, the
availability of additional time and manpower
provides for a more comprehensive review of a
problem. The project does, however, logically
build on the data base that already exists.
The North Branford EIS team initially collected as
much information as it could from Federal, State,
regional and local agencies. Included were plan-
ning documents from all levels, water quality data,
and sanitary survey results. This information
provided the general data base that is documented
in Section 4.0 against which potential impacts were
identified.
While a sincere attempt has been made to "cover all
the bases", it is always possible that information
has been overlooked. The Draft EIS provides
everyone with the opportunity to call our attention
to any oversights which may affect the ultimate EIS
recommendations.
1.44 EIS Field Work
The EIS project conducted original field research
in a number of areas. These efforts were an
attempt to build on the body of existing knowledge
- a benefit of the EIS process. Because this work
was conducted under a single comprehensive program,
18
-------
it is believed that a more favorable atmosphere for
reasonable judgements was created. It must be
remembered, however, that this information must
also be evaluated in the light of all previous
work. With finite resources, the; EIS work alone
cannot provide all the final answers.
Field work was conducted basically in the areas of
water quality and on-site septic system suitabil-
ity. All of the dozen or so team members visited
the area on a number of occasions not only to
obtain specific facts, but also to develop a sense
of the general atmosphere of the Town and its
neighborhoods. In addition, a continuing sub-
scription to the local nevrspaper has been main-
tained in order to develop a "local" perspective
against which local issues can be evaluated.
1.441 Windshield Surveys
The first windshield survey was made prior to
developing the EIS Scope of Work. Subsequent
visits included preparation for the informa-
tional meeting at the stc.rt of the project,
refining the water quality sampling program,
developing the; engineering field effort, and
for the general purpose of preparing to write
the environmental inventory sections.
All personnel have made several of these
general surveys of the community. On every
visit to the Town or the general area for
specific appointments, time was spent in
slowly and systematically observing neighbor-
hoods and noting such things as lot size,
house size, slope, drainage, and evidence of
wastewater disposal problems. At one time or
another, every street in the community has
been visited once by both the project manager
and princa.pal technical area he-ads. Most
streets have been traversed several times, and
many, especially those in problem areas, have
been examined many times.
1.442 Connecticut PEP Sanitary Surveys
The Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection devotes time and staff, when
possible, for the purpose of locating septic
system problems in communities. The need for
these surveys which identify specific houses
with problems arose from past experiences in
19
-------
which local residents asked for documentation
that their homes or neighborhoods are actually
experiencing problems with their septic
systems. Presently, these teams are used on a
project-by-project basis at the discretion of
the regional engineer when manpower is avail-
able.
During the late spring and early summer period
of 1978, the DEP was able to survey about 500
homes in North Branford in an effort to assist
the; EIS project. The teams were sent to
streets which were suspected of having prob-
lems. They systematically noted those ad-
dresses at which problems were detected.
Their input provided one more data set which
could be integrated with other information to
provide a comprehensive basis on which to
define the "problem areas". The; timeliness of
their survey and the data which they could
amass, d\ie in part to their ease of entry on
private property, provided valuable supportive
information.
1.443 EIS Follow-up Surveys
In addition to the general field work of the
Project Engineer, additional engineering
evaluations were provided by a staff member
specializing in on-lot wastewater disposal.
The problem areas tha.t were identified through
the workshops and the questionnaire were
visited on a street-by-street basis. Home-
owners within these areas were informally
interviewed regarding their experiences with
theJr system's performance and their percep-
tions of wastewater problems and solutions.
Observations were also made as to the probable
cause, excessive slope in some cases, and
possible site problems with respect to rehab-
ilitation. The latter included homes where
inground swiirming pools or unique landscaping
usurped all additional space that might be
needed for a nev.7 expanded septic system.
These surveys were not intended to identify
each and every problem system and the exact
nature of the problem. Rather, they were
intended to develop information at a neigh-
borhood scale. When combined with the ques-
tionnaire results, the DEP surveys, the water
20
-------
quality sampling, and local knowledge acquired
through the v.'orkshops, this survey information
enabled the EJS project team to analyze the
feasibility of various alternatives.
1.444 Water Quality Sampling
Local rivers and streams were systematically
sampled and analyzed as part of a program of
evaluating local water quality. The samples
were taken at 15 locations throughout the
community on four different occasions. The
Sconple locations are shown on Figure 1-4.
Ancilysis was performed for chemical and bio-
logical indicators of septic system pollution.
Some of this information is summarized in
Table 1-2.
The; sampling locations were chosen to provide
wide area coverage and to permit discrimina-
tion of values upstream and downstream of
large developments. The total number of
S6imples and cycles were constrained by budget
consideration. The results, however, provide
the.- community with a unique data set as a by-
product of the EIS project.
The sampling cycles were conducted in the late
spring at about 2-3 week intervals. This was
generally coincident with the period of field
work. Also, it is generally believed that the
wet spring months represent "worst case" con-
ditions - if a septic system is going to hc.ve
problems, it will likely be during this period
of high groundwater.
The results; of this effort indicate that the
water is neither pristine nor grossly pollu-
ted. The; actual data contained in Appendix B
shows that the; water quality varies from place
to place and, from time to time. This is most
likely a function of the two activities that
affect local water quality - septic systems
and agricultural practices.
21
-------
TABLE 1-2
NORTH BRANFORD, CONNECTICUT E.I.S.
GENERAL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING PROGRAM
Number of Sites - 14
Number of Samples per Site - 4
Sampling Period - March, April, May, 1978
Sampling Interval - about 2 weeks
Parameter
Total Coliform
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
Fecal Streptacocci
Bacteria
5^ Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD)
Total Nitrogen
Nitrite-Nitrate
Total Phosphate
Surfactants
Source(s) Purpose
Plants, Animal & Detect possible human contamination
Human Wastes
Animal & Human Wastes Detect possible human contamination
Animal & Human Wastes Detect possible human contamination
Decaying organic
matter
Decaying matter
Measure ecological stress
Measure ecological stress
Animal & Human Wastes, Eutrophication potential possible
Fertilizers human contamination
Animal & Human Wastes, Eutrophication potential possible
Fertilizers long term human pollution
Fertilizers, Deter-
gents
Eutrophication potential
Detect human pollution
Detergents, Background Detect human pollution
Results
some high
some high
some high
very low
very low
high but safe
high but safe
some high
some positive
Source: Anderson-Nichols & Company, Inc., 1978
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Given the large amount of land area and the
intermittent nature of both potential pollu-
tion sources, septic systems and agricultural
practices, it is not surprising that this
variability was found. It should be noted
that the EIS data set was compared with the
USGS data set referenced in Appendix B and is
generally compatible in terms of spatial and
temporal variability and magnitude.
The variability of the bacterial data is
depicted in Table 1-3. The evaluations are
based on the comparison of the sample with the
State's water quality standards for Class A
water. It is important to note that this
comparison is only valid in a very general
sense. In reality, the State standards apply
to a more rigorous sampling procedure and
statistical interpretation of data than that
which was available through the EIS program.
The assumption used in developing Table 1-3 is
that if the values that were measured per-
sisted, then the comparison would be valid.
The conclusions of the EIS water quality
analysis are that the Burrs Brook data in the
Foxon Area and in the Muddy River tributary in
the Green Acres Area indicate pollution from
human sources. Consequently, the highest
pollution level found coincide with these
areas where residents have most frequently
reported problems. More discussion of the
actual data and analysis is found in Section
4.0 and Appendix B.
1-5 Overview of Analysis of Alternatives
The EIS project team reached its recommendation by means
of a two-step evaluation process. First, for those
general areas in which problem areas were found, a
number of alternative concepts were identified. These
concepts were compared in a preliminary analysis in
terms of potential environmental impacts and cost effec-
tiveness. Secondly, the set of alternatives was reduced
to a smaller set which was analyzed in greater depth and
from which the EIS recommendations evolved.
25
-------
TABLE 1-3
NORTH BRANFORD, CONNECTICUT E.I.S
GENERALIZED WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS
Total Coliform Bacteria
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Site #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Class A Standard Exceeded Class A Standard Exceeded
Never Sometimes Always Never Sometimes Always
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
Source: Anderson-Nichols & Company, Inc., 1978
26
-------
1.51 General Alternative Concepts
Where problem areas were identified, a system of
analyzing alternatives from the simple scale to the
more complex was developed. This resulted in the
systematic evaluation of, first, continued on-site
septic system use, second, small neighborhood sewer
systems discharging to local leaching fields,
third, limited-service cross-country sewers, and as
the most complex option - a complete area-wide
sewer system. The geographic areas in North Bran-
ford to which these alternative concepts were
applied were the Town's Area B or Foxon Area and
Area C, the Northford Area, which encompasses the
northern end of Town from Green Acres to White
Hollow. A more detailed description of the alter-
natives is found in Section 3.0.
1.52 Potential Impacts of Alternatives
In the preliminary analysis, consideration was
given both to costs and environmental impacts. In
terms of costs, both total and individual costs
were computed. Under EPA regulations, the total
costs must be used to demonstrate that the project
chosen is the most cost effective. This does not
mean, however, that the EIS recommends the cheapest
solution. The recommended project must also be
environmentally sound - a determination which
includes both direct and indirect impacts. The
impact of the cost of the alternative to the in-
dividual was also considered in addition to the
impacts on natural and biological systems.
On a total cost basis alone, correction of known
problems and continued reliance on on-site septic
system use was the least costly choice. When,
however, consideration of individual expense and
hardship, public acceptability, and long term water
quality protection in chronic problem areas was
made, the final choice of a recommended project
became more difficult. On the other hand, the cost
of a complete area-wide sewer system was always an
expensive solution to a small number of known
problems, and might be accompanied by significant
impacts.
27
-------
1.53 Screening of Alternatives
In the Foxon Area, it was concluded that while the
rehabilitation of septic systems may be theoret-
ically attractive due to low cost, the implemen-
tation of this approach alone in older areas such
as Arthur Court would be impractical due to small
lot size. Elsewhere, in areas such as White Hol-
low, the idea may have merit. Much would depend,
however, on both the availability of limited State
funds for this type of solution and on the enthu-
siasm of local government to initiate and maintain
this type of program.
The concept of small neighborhood sewer systems
with discharge to community leaching fields was
found to be promising in the White Hollow Area.
There, the concept of utilizing small diameter
gravity sewers which would transport the effluent
from individual septic tanks to a common field has
promise. Several potential leach field sites may
be situated along Durham Road. Additional Step I
work would have to be done to determine the ulti-
mate feasibility of this alternative for this area.
In the Foxon Area, the cost effectiveness of this
type of alternative is diminished by the necessity
to use individual pumps at each home due to the
flatness of the area. In isolated small neighbor-
hoods such as Miller/Grant Roads, the individual
costs remain high.
The concept of a limited sewer system which would
serve identified problems only is expensive in both
total and individual costs despite assumed grant
eligibility for the major items. In addition,
potential environmental impacts would exist from
undesired induced development which arises from the
practical problems of limiting sewer capacity
through design.
The evaluation of the concept of area-wide sewer-
ing, which presumably would lower individual costs
by realizing economics of scale and by sharing the
cost among problem homes and "potential problem
homes", did not yield a satisfactory solution for
either Area B or Area C. Individual costs were
reduced only minimally due to the costs of laterals
28
-------
and low population densities. Total costs would be
very high and unwarranted in light of the actual
number of identified problems. Finally, the envi-
ronmental impacts of using Federal and State money
to stimulate sewer development, which in turn would
stimulate a change from present low density devel-
opment, would be significant.
The preliminary screening of alternatives is des-
cribed in detail in Section 3.0 and Appendix C.
This analysis led to recommendations which were
further analyzed in Section 4.0.
1.54 Conclusions
The EIS recommends the use of Federal funds to
assist in the construction of a limited sewer
system in the Foxon Area (Area B) which would
transport wastewater to the East Haven sewer system
for eventual treatment in New Haven. This concept
is a modification of the Town's Proposal for the
area. It is explicitly recommended that no capa-
city beyond that intended to serve the Town's Bl
and B2 areas be provided. The Town's Concept which
would provide for capacity in the Foxon Interceptor
for the Middle Valley Area could not be justified
by existing or projected need and would signifi-
cantly affect the environment.
In the Green Acres Area, the EIS found that a
similar problem of solving present and projected
needs by a large sewer system exists. Although the
Town has not applied for funding at this time, the
conventional system already designed for the Green
Acres Area is assumed to eventually extend into the
lightly developed Upper Valley of the Farm River.
Existing problems were found in the Green Acres
Area that may warrant a sewer system, but the EIS
does not recommend providing extra capacity in the
initial system due to the lack of demonstrated need
and the potential for significant environmental
impact. A limited system to serve only Green Acres
would not adversely affect the environment but
would be expensive. On the basis of cost, the Town
might wish to explore additional alternatives such
as rehabilitation on a house-to-house basis,
through additional Step I work.
29
-------
In the White Hollow Area, rehabilitation of the
existing individual septic systems or the inves-
tigation of a neighborhood sewer system with a
community leaching field are worthy of further
study. With the current interest of the State in
this concept and the possibility of available
funds, a Step I study at this time would be rec-
ommended .
30
-------
SECTION 2.0
PURPOSE AND NEED
The underlying intent of this section is
to set forth, in a simple direct statement,
the whole purpose for the EIS. It provides
the general public with a perspective from
which to viev-- the process and a context in
which to evaluate the results.
31
-------
2.1 Precipitating Action
The EIS was required because of the Town's Proposal to
apply for Federal and State funds for the construction
of a sewer system in the southwestern corner of North
Branford. The proposal to build sewers in the "Foxon"
area, the Town's B-l area, generated significant envi-
ronmental controversy. Before EPA can approve funding,
it must issue a negative declaration indicating that,
based on information that was available, no overriding
environmental considerations remain. Because both EPA
and the State DEP reviewers felt that there were un-
answered questions surrounding the Town's Proposal, it
was decided that an EIS should be prepared to study the
problem and resolve the issues.
2.2 EIS Findings
This EIS project concludes that there are chronic waste-
water disposal problems in the Foxon area, the Green
Acres area, the White Hollow area, and in the smaller
areas of Dorie Drive, Jerz Lane, Miller/Grant Road, and
Surrey Drive.
This EIS also finds that the Town's Proposal for the
Foxon area would basically relieve the existing waste-
water disposal problems in the Foxon area but would have
the potential for long-term adverse environmental impact
in the general area of the Middle Farm River Valley if
the Proposal ultimately led to the Town's Concept for
sewering there. There is no present justification for
sewers in that area nor is any anticipated.
Analysis of the Town's Concept for sewering elsewhere in
town, in the areas of Northford Village and the Upper
Farm River Valley led to similar conclusions - construc-
tion of sewers cannot be justified due to lack of demon-
strated need and/or significant environmental impact.
2.3 EIS Recommendations
The EIS recommends:
A modified sewer proposal for the Foxon
area. The recommended plan would call
for Federal participation in the basic
interceptor to solve demonstrated
chronic problem areas such as Arthur
Court, Brook Lane, and Dorie Drive.
33
-------
The EIS does not endorse the construc-
tion of the oversized portion of the
interceptor which was previously de-
signed for eventual sewer extensions
into the Middle Valley area. Also,
on the basis of known problems, the
EIS proposal differs from the Town's
Proposal in terms of Federal partici-
pation in the funding of certain local
collector sewers within the Foxon area.
The EIS favors the immediate construc-
tion on certain streets over earlier
recommendations.
Further study on the feasibility of on-
site rehabilitation in the Green Acres
area before proceeding with sewer
construction due to the EIS findings on
total and individual costs. In addition,
to the conventional sewer concept, a
pressure sewer system discharging to the
Clintonville Road interceptor should be
explored. This work could be done as
extended Step I action.
Additional engineering studies as Step
I work to determine the feasibility of
on-site rehabilitation and/or community
septic systems in the White Hollow area.
These concepts appear favorable in terms
of feasibility and environmental impact.
Elsewhere in the study area, the EIS
recommends continued reliance on septic
system use on a long term basis.
34
-------
SECTION 3.0
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
In this portion of the EIS, the alternatives
that were analyzed to solve the local waste-
water problem are discussed. First, the
general framework from which specific North
Branford alternative concepts were developed
are described. Thus preliminary alternatives
for each problem sub-area are identified and
the criteria used in their formulation,
including cost-effectiveness, are acknowledged,
The preliminary analysis include:
project compatibility with known
existing need and anticipated need
costs including total, local and
individual shares
ultimate feasibility and likelihood
of implementation, including con-
sideration of funding availability
and local Town and individual accep-
tance of various types of solutions.
35
-------
3.1 General Discussion of Alternatives
Federal legislation and guidelines for the preparation
of a statement require a number of alternatives be
seriously considered before selecting a recommended
project. Also, a range of alternatives varying from the
simple to the complex must be considered. The: alter-
natives that are developed to solve the: actual demon-
strated local wastewater problems may consist not only
of different types of solutions but also be focused on
different geographical areas and different time frames.
Consequently, a number of steps must be taken to clearly
define equivalent alternatives which can be compared.
In order to find true differences in cost of various
projects, alternative projects must be; similar in terms
of geographical area and in terms of the time frame
under consideration. Essentially, apples must be com-
pared with apples. Also, the alternatives formulated
for comparison purposes in the impact statement may vary
from those projects with which people have identified
earlier. A method must be developed however to incor-
porate in all these alternatives some basis in reality.
A preliminary discussion of alternatives follows.
3.2 No-Action
One concept that must be evaluated by law is the idea of
doing nothing to chc.nge wastewater management practices
in the community. This approach has been called the
"No-Action Alternative." To some residents who have had
long-term problems, such a consideration may seem
ridiculous. Nonetheless, the required exercise of
identifying the long term environmental impacts of this
alternative may help to clarify the magnitude of the
local problem. There is always the possibility that the
problem is extremely localized or limited to a few
individuals. In such special cases, it may be most
appropriate to concentrate on solving these few problems
without involving the whole community.
3.3 On-Site Alternatives
For the most part, a range of alternatives is defined by
the simplest repair of the existing septic system on one
hand, to the installation of a town-wide sev;er system on
the other. In addition, in special situations, unusual
37
-------
or innovative approaches must be used to alleviate
specific pollution problems. In past practice, however,
where wastewater disposal problems have been identified,
a sevrer system has cften been the only alternative that
has really been considered by the Town. This, in part,
has been probably due to requirements of previous
Federal legislation which excluded the solution of
problems on individual house lots from federal funding
eligibility.
The 1977 FWPCA Amendments have now made the consider-
ation of other alternatives practical at the local level
by including on-site alternatives within the framework
of grant eligibility. More specifically, the amendments
require that it be demonstrated that on-site disposal
will not work before recommending a complete sewer
project. In the final analysis, however, it is the
availability of funds at the State level which deter-
mines those projects which will be funded first. Con-
sequently, small scale projects may well find themselves
ranked low on a particular State priority list at this
time. Because of the newness of this legislation, it is
likely that the merit of this type of alternative
approach to wastevrater management en a community-wide
level will be evaluated on e. case-by-case basis. A
discussion of some of the approaches that might be used
by an individual or by the Town follows.
3.31 Changes in Use of the Existing Septic System
Some wastewater disposal problems can be solved by
education of homeowners as to the proper use of
septic systems. Septic system overloading is
probably the most common problem, especially in
older homes where young families using modern
appliances are generating wastewater flows far in
excess of whet the system may have been intended
for. A conscious attempt on the part of a home-
owner to reduce overall water consumption may help
relieve the cause of the problem. New plumbing
devices are widely available to help attain the
goal of efficient water usage. Homeowners should
first examine water records when trying to deter-
mine the cause of a septic system failure. Rule of
thumb estimates allow for 60-80 gals/day as a
design value for sewage that is generated by each
person. In some cases where problems have occur-
red, conscious management of water use can allow
the homeowner to continue using his existing system
with no other repair.
38
-------
Other practices which may aggrevate problems where
the system is marginal include the casual disposal
of oil, grease, and chemicals. Both this type of
abuse and the hydraulic overloading might be
averted in communities by the periodic publication
of guidelines on septic system use.
3.32 Repairs to Septic Systems
In some instances, septic system failures have been
due to broken pipes, broken or clogged distribution
boxes, or erosion of cover material at the edge of
the leaching bed. All that may be needed to
correct the problem is the simple repair after its
cause has been determined. In order to make such
an evaluation, the individual homesite must be
visited by a trained person, a sanitarian or an
engineer, who has access to accurate records as to
the nature and location of the system.
The identification of this type of problem is often
complicated by the homeowner's ignorance concerning
his system and his concern over possible expenses
that he may incur in making his problem known. The
local health agent, the East Shore Sanitary Dis-
trict, headquartered in Branford, will recommend
several levels of repair which reflect different
cost levels and levels of confidence in performance
which are available to the troubled homeowner.
3.33 Expansion of Existing Systems
Changes in water consumption patterns over time and
in the number of occupants in a building may neces-
sitate expansion of the system. For this reason,
many health agencies require a re-evaluation of the
existing system when the change in use is signifi-
cant. In many communities, new systems are deli-
berately required to be oversized in order to avoid
this type of problem.
3.34 Replacement of Leaching Field
In some cases, complete replacement of a leaching
field may be required. It is possible the home-
owner may wish to construct the new field in an
entirely different location so as to save the old
field as a measure of insurance against future
unknown failure. The Connecticut Code for new
construction requires that an expansion area be
designated on any new plan for septic system con-
struction and that this expansion area be tested
for soil capability and reserved for future use.
39
-------
3.35 Site Modifications/Curtain Drains
Some repairs to systems may be more expensive due
to the inherent site limitations of the soils and
the: combination of steep slopes and high ground-
water. It may be necessary to divert the natural
flow of groundwater ty the construction of so-
called curtain drains up-slope of the leaching
field. The drain consists of a trench dug uphill
of the leaching field and filled with stone. The.
water is intercepted by the trench and diverted
from the field.
In many of the probJem areas of North Branford,
such as Sky Lark Drive and Brook Lane, the homes
are built on steep slopes which contribute to the
wastewater disposal problem. In other areas where
one lot has been cut into the slope above another,
in step-like fashion, often the drainage of one lot
interferes with the leach field of the lot below
it. Curtain drains may help in these circumstances.
3.36 Mounded/Pumped Systems
Inherently thin soil or unfavorable slope condi-
tions may necessitate the construction of the
leaching field in a mound system. A mound consists
of an elevated leaching field where the sub-soil
and soil are brought in from another site so as to
attain the proper thickness and consistency for a
correct percolation and wastewater treatment.
This approach is expensive because the field must
be built-up. Where a pump is required to bring the
effluent up from the septic te.nk to the leaching
field for final disposal, more frequent maintenance
and the payment of operating expenses is required.
For all these reasons, the use of the mounded
system is often the last resort. In high ground-
water a.reas, such as Arthur Court, mounding may be
the only method of rehabilitation with any promise.
Even then, on many residential properties, the
appearance of the mound may be aesthetically un-
acceptable.
40
-------
3.37 Summary
The general types of on-site solutions described
above reflect a dilemma which exists when evalu-
ating this type of solution. While at first
glance, the notion of modification of existing
systems seems inherently more simple and less
expensive than the concept of a sewer system, the
actual implementation of this type of program on a
town-wide basis becomes far more difficult than
anticipated. Very specific information on a house-
by-house basis is required, which may not be avail-
able. Water consumption, for example, is not known
where private wells are used. In older develop-
ments, the size and location of the septic system
may not be known. Even where engineered plans have
accompanied septic system permits, the actual field
may well have been modified when problems were
encountered during construction and "as built"
sketches were prepared which are frequently infer-
ior. The effort which is required to even attempt
to acquire this information by means of house-to-
house survey is both expensive (about $150 per
house) and does not guarantee that it will be
successful enough to allow a town to proceed to
Step II, the design phase, of a normal Facility
Plan.
In this EIS, the evaluation of on-site rehabilita-
tion as a funded area-wide approach is of necessity
a preliminary effort. While it may be possible to
make some judgements as to the feasibility of this
approach where area-wide physical conditions are
clearly constraints, many "grey areas" are possible
which would require additional Step I engineering
effort.
3.4 Local Sewer Systems
Where homes with wastewater problems cannot be repaired
by on-site rehabilitation of septic systems, and the
area is remote from any existing sewer system, the
alternative of a small localized sewer system should be
explored. In concept, such a system may serve a dozen
homes, and treatment and disposal of effluent would be
local. Because of its simplicity and economy, treatment
by septic tank would be the likely treatment mode with
ultimate discharge to sub-surface leaching fields.
41
-------
In general, consideration of this alternative requires
certain local conditions. A sufficient concentration of
problem houses must exist, and a suitable disposal site
must be; located. Also, a decision must be made on how
to treat houses that fall within the problem area but do
not have problems themselves. Even a small system of
conventionally designed sewers is expensive and must be
used by a large group to reduce the costs per unit to a
tolerable amount.
In specific neighborhoods, various modifications of
conventional sewer design may be feasible which reduce
the cost of the system significantly. A system of small
diameter gravity pipe may be desirable in newer neigh-
borhoods where adequate septic tanks already exist and
can be utilized for separation of the sewage prior to
conveyance through the system for ultimate disposal. It
is necessary that the. maintenance of the tanks be
assumed by e public management system in order to insure
the integrity of the: sewer and leach field design.
In areas of hilly terrain or shallow be;drock, another
variation of small system design that may be justified
is the pressure sever. It, too, shares the advantage of
low cost installation of pipe as well as a certain
independence from slope. The system requires individual
pumps, however, which requires continued maintenance.
Most community systems also require that a suitable
leaching field site be found within reasonable proximity
to the problem area. The site shell have certain char-
acteristics, including suitable soils, sufficient size,
compatibility with surrounding land uses and preferably
be down gradient of the service area. The cost of this
land becomes a factor in evaluating this alternative.
The local sewer alternative is worthy of consideration
in problem areas such as White Hollow which has been
referred to as a chronic problem area, yet is remote
from any existing sewer.
3.5 Town-wide Sewer System
In many communities, such c.s North Branford, the sev*er
concept that was developed a decade age assumed that the
system would eventually serve the whole Town It was
generally assumed that septic systems were a temporary
42
-------
solution only and that it would be to the Town's benefit
to get as large a project as possible while grant money
was available. Encouraged by older EPA planning period
guidelines of 50 years, concepts were developed that
included large trunk systems which would handle all of
the flow within a drainage basin under saturation occu-
pation. With some modifications, this is the type of
concept that has been developed for North Branford.
Since these early plans, a number of questions have been
brought up nationwide which necessitate taking a second
look at this concept. Included are the questions of
national economic efficiency (cost-effectiveness), and
potential environmental impact. The allocation of the
national and State wealth must be evaluated within
several frameworks aside from local advantage. The
local benefits should be more clearly identified since
local residents are asked to pay for a significant
portion of the system. Also, the local impacts that a
large sewer system may have, such as direct impact on
natural systems and indirect impacts, such as stimu-
lation of development, which may be viewed by some as
undesirable, have prompted a review of this type of
system. EPA's response to these concerns was demon-
strated in relatively recent program memoranda, PRM 77-8
and 78-9, in which the necessity to demonstrate the
basis of the need for a sewer project was more clearly
specified. In addition, public comments received during
the environmental review process of project proposals
have shown increasing public interest and familiarity
with environmental impacts, particularly in the socio-
economic sphere.
Reaction to large sewer systems planned for long plan-
ning periods has highlighted the difficulty that people
have in perceiving the future and the divergence of
views of community objectives. As a result, the re-
commendations that ultimately are often implemented
consist of significantly reduced systems with limited
capacity for future service.
3.6 Development of Alternatives for North Branford
3.61 Problem Areas
The type of alternatives that may be selected in a
community to solve water pollution and wastewater
disposal problems will depend on the type and
location of the problems that are found. The EIS
project had a number of sources of information
which were used to identify actual problem areas.
These included:
43
-------
Previous engineering reports
Records of East Shore Health
District
Watershed sanitary surveys
Previous DEP sanitary surveys
The town-wide EIS questionnaire
EIS workshops
The EIS/DEP sanitary survey
EIS field work
From the total data set that these items comprise,
the EIS team identified those areas of significant
problems. These included the following areas:
(Figure 3-1)
Dorie Lane
Arthur Court
Sunset Lane/Brook Lane
Jerz Lane
Miller Drive/Grant Road
-- Surrey Drive
Green Acres
-- Walnut Lane
In these areas, evidence of septic system problems
was found frequently enough, that in the judgement
of the EIS team, the most appropriate solution
might require a community sponsored program rather
than independent individual efforts. In some
instances, these areas are the same as those pre-
viously identified by the Town for which sewers
were recommended. Such is the case in the Arthur
Court area. Other areas, such as Surrey Drive,
Jerz Lane, Miller/Grant Roads were not previously
identified. A full explanation of the determin-
ation of these "problem areas" is included as
Appendix D.
44
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
In order to provide continuity and permit compar-
isons of the alternative approaches, the problem
areas which were identified were grouped. The
grouping had its basis in part in the sewer areas
of the Town's Proposal & Concept. The groups used
here are:
-- Foxon area - includes Foxon
Road, the Arthur Court area,
Sunset Lane, Brook Drive -
the Town's Area B.
Green Acres - includes Venta
Drive, Ruta Drive, Palanga
Drive.
-- White Hollow - includes Walnut
Lane area, Sky Lark Drive.
3.62 Alternative Concepts
With the identification of the problem areas, the
task of developing feasible alternative methods of
problem solving was initiated. For each problem
area, a set of alternatives was developed which
appeared technically feasible at the first level of
analysis. One important aspect of this process
which should be noted is the requirement that each
alternative for a specific sub-area be equal in
terms of the land area it covers and the time
period under consideration. This is necessary in
order to compare the costs of various alternatives.
Another aspect of this preliminary phase of the
evaluation of alternatives that is noteworthy is
the framework within which costs are compared. The
first level evaluation requires that total costs be
used for comparison purposes before local advan-
tages, that funding permits, are considered.
The lowest cost project is not necessarily the one
that will be chosen. To begin with, cost-effective
analysis is a general level of analysis for which
only a certain amount of accuracy can be assumed.
For example, if the costs of two alternatives were
to fall within 10% of each other, the lowest would
not automatically be selected because the total
cost figures are not absolutely accurate. Other
factors may sway the choice in one direction or
another.
47
-------
Environmental impact is the major consideration
that is used in addition to cost. This area
includes:
the physical environment -
that is the land, air, and
water
the biological environment
- plants, animals, and
habitat
-- the socio-economic environ-
ment
Also considered are short term versus long term
impacts and direct versus indirect impact. Conse-
quently, the economic impact on the individual and
the general "character of the community" are legi-
timate environmental issues.
Finally, alternative solutions that may be tech-
nically and economically feasible must still be
evaluated for their social acceptability. Since it
is the local people who must live with the alter-
native, its long-term integrity can only be assured
if they believe in the project.
For each of the three sub-areas where significant
problem areas were found, a set of conceptual
alternatives was developed. The alternatives and
the basis for their selection follow.
3.63 Foxon Area Alternatives
In the Foxon Area (Town's Area B) a number of
specific problem areas were identified. These
included the Arthur Court, Dorie Lane, Sunset
Road/Brook Lane, Jerz Lane, and Miller/Grant Roads
area. The alternatives were tailored to solve the
basic problems in these areas and to address the
long term wastewater treatment needs of the general
area as well.
48
-------
3.631 Foxon Alternative A - Continued On-Site
This alternative consisted of the continued
long term use of septic systems throughout
this area. Where failures had been noted, it
was assumed that rehabilitation of the system
would be done and that a small number of
systems would require substantial repairs
every year. Also, a cost was estimated for
the pumping of everyone's septic tank every
two years.
3.632 Foxon Alternative B - Community System
This concept involves constructing several
small sewer systems in the problem areas with
eventual disposal of the wastewater in a sub-
surface leaching field in the area. (Figure
3-2) Elsewhere within the Foxon Area, it is
assumed that septic systems will be used, a
small number will be repaired each year, and
all will be pumped every two years.
3.633 Foxon Alternative C - Limited Sewer System
This solution would involve construction of a
sewer system to carry wastewater from the
problem areas to the existing sewer system in
East Haven. (Figure 3-3) As in the case of
the other alternatives, the remaining homes
would rely on on-site disposal.
3.634 Foxon Alternative D - Full Sewer System
This project would include construction of a
sewer system to solve the problems that had
been identified as well as provide service to
all residents. (Figure 3-4)
49
-------
legend
LOCAL SEWER
held POTENTIAL
LEACHING SITE
foxon alternative-b
figure 3-2
north bronford wa/tewater treatment Facilities
dote: february 1979
/ource: anderson-nichols
O 1600 3200
e rw ironm entol impact /totement environmental protection agency
onder/on-nichol/ & co.,inc.
technical con/ultont
-------
foxon alternative-c
legend
LOCAL SEWER
figure 3-3
north branford aiQ/teuuotcr treatment facilities
dote: february 1979
/ource: anderson-nichols
O 1600 3200
environmentol impact /totement environmental protection agency
ander/on-nichol/ Ł> co., inc.
technical con/ultant
-------
legend
LOCAL SEWER
foxon alternative-d
figure 3-4
north branford uua/tewater treatment facilities
dote: february 1979
/ource: anderson-nichols
0 1600 3200
e nv ironm entol impact /tatement environmental protection agency
ander/on-nichol/ & co., inc.
technical con/ultant
-------
3.64 Green Acres Area Alternative
In the Green Acres Area (Town's Area C-2), two
basic alternatives were examined for this problem
area and nearby Surrey Drive.
3.641 Green Acres Alternative A - Continued On-Site
This alternative calculates the cost of re-
habilitation of the problem systems within the
area and the costs of anticipated repairs and
a continuing maintenance program.
3.642 Green Acres Alternative B - Sewer System
This approach would connect the two problem
areas of Green Acres and Surrey Drive to the
Muddy River Interceptor in North Haven.
(Figure 3-5)
53
-------
CONNECTIONS FOP
WHITE' HOLLOW
ALTERNATES C & D
legend
LOCAL SEWER
CONNECTIONS
green acres alternative-b
figure 3-5
north bronford wa/teuuater treatment facilitie/
date:february 1979
/ource anderson-nichols
0 1600 3100
environmental impoct /totement environmental protection agency
ander/on -nichol/ & co.. inc.
technical con/ultant
-------
3.65 White Hollow Area Alternatives
Within the Northern Farm River Valley area, two
extensive problem areas were identified in the
White Hollow and Walnut Lane areas. These areas
are contained within the Town's C-3 area. The
alternatives include:
3.651 White Hollow Alternative A - Continued On-Site
With this alternative, the costs are estimated
for rehabilitating failed systems, a certain
number of repairs each year, and a continued
maintenance program thoughout the area.
3.652 White Hollow Alternative B - Community Systems
This concept was based on transport of waste-
water from the White Hollow and Walnut Lane
areas by gravity to a common leaching field
near the intersection of Durham Road and Reeds
Gap Road. (Figure 3-6) Elsewhere within the
Upper Valley, residents would continue to rely
on their septic system and pay the costs
associated with their use under proper manage-
ment. A possible variation on this alterna-
tive would be to utilize two fields, one for
each area.
3.653 White Hollow Alternative C - Limited Sewer
System
This alternative would have the wastewater
generated by the two problem areas transported
down the valley to Northford and pumped west
over to the existing North Haven sewer system.
(Figure 3-7) On-site systems would continue
to be used for non-problem areas.
55
-------
legend
_^ť LOCAL SEWER
FIELD POTENTIAL
LEACHING SITE
uuhite hollouu alternative ~b
figure 3-6
north branford wa/teuuater treatment focilitie/
dote february 1979
/ource. anderson-nichols
0 1600 3200
environmental impact /tatement environmental protection agency
onHer/on -nichol/ & CO., inc.
technical con/ultant
-------
white hollow alternative ~c
figure 3-7
north branford wa/tewater treatment facilitie/
date: february 1979
/ource: anderson-nichols
0 I600 3200
environmental impact /tatement environmental protection agency
ander/on-nichol/ & co., inc.
technical con/ultant
-------
legend
LOCAL SEWER
white hollow olternotive-d
figure 3-8
north branford wa/teuuater treatment facilitie/
dote: february 1979
/ource anderson-nichols
O 1600 3200
environmental impact /tatement environmental protection agency
ander/on-nichol/ u CO., inc.
technical con/ultant
-------
3.654 White Hollow Alternative D - Full Sewer System
The installation of a sewer system to serve
both existing problem areas and all other
homes within the Northern Valley Area was the
solution that was analyzed. (Figure 3-8)
3.66 Potential Impacts of Alternatives
The alternative concepts were analyzed in a pre-
liminary effort to determine if any would create
significant environmental impacts. This step was
viewed as a first-pass in attempting to define a
set of alternatives that might be seriously con-
sidered to solve the problems of a specific sub-
area. The impact summary (Table 3-2) is not
exhaustive but rather focuses on those positive (+)
impacts and negative impacts (-) which relate
primarily to the relationship of the proposal to
the identified wastewater problem, the benefits to
the Town and the individual, and general indirect
effects.
Within each environmental sub-area, the following
considerations were used in determining the direc-
tion and magnitude of the impact assessments.
3.661 Public Health
Elimination of known overflows from failing
septic systems was the basis for a positive
impact.
3.662 Aesthetic Factors
Elimination of known nuisances associated with
septic system overflows, grey water discharges
on the surface, and malodorous standing water
was the basis for a positive impact.
3.663 Habitat Potential
Elimination of raw water discharges which
impose pollution loadings on natural water
courses was the basis of a positive impact.
59
-------
3.664 Future Water Supply
Sprawl development or uncontrolled stimulated
development which might result in long-term
degradation of water quality was the basis of
a negative impact. Limited controlled devel-
opment was the basis of a positive impact.
3.665 Wetlands
Construction impacts were the basis of a
negative impact.
3.666 Existing Habitat
Conversion of undeveloped or agricultural land
to more intensive use either through land
consuming sprawl development or sewer stimu-
lated development was the basis of a negative
impact.
3.667 Farmland
Conversion of farmland to more intensive use
was the basis of a negative impact.
3.668 Planned Development
Potential for accommodating development and
retaining land use contrast within the com-
munity was the basis of a positive impact.
3.669 Economic Growth
Potential to encourage development of desig-
nated industrial and commercial land was the
basis of a positive impact.
3.6610 Community Character
Retaining land use diversity was the basis of
a positive impact.
3.6611 Cost Effectiveness
Lowest total cost was the basis of a positive
assessment.
60
-------
3.6612 Conformance with PRM's
Demonstrated need was the basis of a positive
assessment.
3.6613 Local Acceptance
Conformance with local views expressed during
EIS project was the basis for a positive
assessment.
3.6614 Future Provisions
Capability of serving future wastewater needs
was the basis of a positive assessment.
3.6615 Ease of Management
Centralized decision making and conventional
technology was the basis of a positive assess-
ment.
3.6616 Individual Expense
Local estimated homeowner costs were the basis
of this assessment.
3.67 Cost Effective Analysis
Following the rules that are required for cost-
effective analysis, total project costs were
developed for the alternatives. It should be
remembered that they are based on concepts of time
and areas that permit the comparison of equals (of
apples and apples so to speak). It is required
that some of these artificial concepts depart
significantly from what the Town is now proposing.
This information is useful, however, in exploring
basic types of questions that people may have
concerning available options. The total costs are
shown in Table 3-1.
3.68 Public Attitudes
A key element in the North Branford decision making
process is the way in which the individual citizen
views the issues of the wastewater problem and its
solution. Decisions can be effected by simple
"yes" or "no" votes as much as by arguments of
economics or environmental impacts.
61
-------
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF COST OF ALTERNATIVES
Total Present Worth
Foxon Area
Alternative A - See Note
Alternative B $2,740,860
Alternative C $3,627,400
Alternative D $8,815,250
Green Acres Area
Alternative A $ 66,687
Alternative B $ 605,470
White Hollow Area
Alternative A $ 946,313
Alternative B $2,375,340
Alternative C $3,764,180
Alternative D $8,413,280
NOTE- Present worth costs v/ere not computed when
alternative proved infeasible. See Section 3.7
Source; Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc., 1978 See Appendix C
62
-------
CO
TABLE 3-2
OVERVIEW OF TOTAL IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH ALTERNATIVES
+ indicates positive impact
indicates negative impact
0 indicates significant impact
Foxon Alternatives
On-Site
Community System
Limited Sewer
Full Sewer
Green Acres Alternatives
On-Site
Limited Sewer
White Hollow Alternative
On-Site
Community System
Limited Sewer
Full Sewer
t-i
&
w
g
%
§
AFFECTED ENVI
CO
OJ
Water Resourc
-P
Public Heal
Š
e
e
Š
+
+
Š
Š
e
Š
CO
n
o
-P
0
fd
Aesthetic F
Ž
Š
Š
Š
+
+
+
+
+
+
rH
rd
H
4*
C
(U
Habitat Pot
_
-
>i
a,
%
CO
>-)
Future Wate
e
e
CO
e
Natural Syste
Wetlands
_
_
-
Floodplains
-P
m
-P
H
XI
Existing Ha
e
_
_
e
CO
0)
Human Resourc
Farmland
_
e
_
e
e
-P
0)
e
PI
o
rH
5
Economic Gr
+
+
_^
+
5-1
ill
-P
O
rri
H
fd
Community C
+
f
9
_
e
en
fl
rH
-P
rd
^
0)
T3
Funding Consi
CO
CO
a)
-------
The input that was received through the workshops
and questionnaire showed that residents of areas
that had been identified as problems were less
confident in the use of septic systems and more
convinced theit sewering is the best answer. The
role that this attitude would have in the process
of actually implementing an alternative must be
taken into account. The importance of attitude in
the consideration of decentralized systems as
workable alternatives is especially relevant since
the success of these systems is dependent en the
conscious conmitment of individual decision makers.
3.7 Preferred Alternatives
Based on the preliminary evaluation of the alternative
concepts, an effort was made to reduce the possibilities
in order to study further those options which seemed
most appropriate for each sub-area. Both total costs
and environmental impacts were used in determining which
alternatives should be retained. An overview of these
factors is shown in Table 3-2. This interim screening
resulted in the following conclusions.
3.71 Foxon Alternative A - Continued On-Site
When this alternative was scrutinized at a closer
level, the difficulties of implementing the concept
became more obvious. In the Arthur Court area, it
would be necessary to build up many of the leaching
fields in mounds in order to obtain proper separ-
ation from groundwater. In some instances, lot
sizes are prohibitive. Under the 1970 Connecticut
Public Health Code, an area of 4,500 sq. ft. would
be necessary for the active and reserve fields. Of
the 67 homes in this area, 33 hc.ve lots less than
10,000 sq. ft. With normal setbacks, driveways and
separation distances, it would not be possible to
provide adequate space on these lots for a standard
leaching field. The problem of applying an area-
wide program of uniform design criteria in the face
of unique individualistic problems is significant.
In light of the nature of the physical cause of the
problem in this area, and the rea.l problems of
implementation in these circumstances, this alter-
native was eliifiincited from further study.
64
-------
3.72 Foxon Alternative B - Community Systems
In the preliminary analyses, certain aspects of
feasibility were determined. The first requirement
is that a leaching site be available in the area.
The most promising areas are found along Foxon Road
west of the Arthur Court a.rea. There, several
large holdings, vacant cr only lightly developed,
containing good-soils, were found. Because of the
location of the problem areas adjacent to Burrs
Brook and at different elevations themselves,
pumping to the leaching field would be necessary.
As documented in Appendix B, this alternative,
while initially attractive in terms of assumed lew
total cost, was ultimately eliminated .from con-
sideration because of a more preferable and less
costly approach. Because individual costs were so
high for the isolated areas such as Miller/Grant
Roads or Jerz Lane, the analysis disaggregated the
Foxcn Area and treated the southern portion near
Arthvir Court independently from the remote areas.
3.73 Foxon Alternative C - Limited Sewer System
This concept is of interest because it approaches
the solution of existing problems with a. low keyed
conventional solution. The. distances between the
problem areas, however, are not small and a long
interceptor would be required. In order to focus
on the; main problem area of Arthur Court, this
alternative too was disaggregated. The result was
a project for the southern part of Foxon thcit was
cost-effective and implementable. While the
concept basically calls for installing a pipe to
solve known or anticipated problems, additional
factors require scrutiny. Normal design criteria
would not physically restrict a pipe to serve only
a specified number of users. While the elements of
design must be spelled out in the Facility Plan,
various factors that are used are only averages.
In practice, the Town could depart somewhat from
its original plan when constructing local sewers.
The reasons for this concern about system capacity
grow out of past objections to sewering in this
area by the State Department of Health and Office
of Policy and Management. The basis of their
objections was their belief that the sewering that
was proposed violated the intent cf the State Land
Use Policy by encouraging development within a
watershed area. While this alternative appears in
scale with the problem, further analysis of its
potential impact is necessary.
65
-------
3.74 Foxon Alternative D - Full Sewer System
This alternative was carried through the analysis
for two reasons. Both relate to the fact that the
Town's Proposal for the Initial Foxon System is
based ultimately on town-wide sewering. Conse-
quently, the potential costs and environmental
impacts of this concept should be known when
evaluating the Town's Proposal.
3.75 Green Acres Alternative A - Continued On-Site
The problem of high groundwater in this area could
be overcome by building up the leaching fields.
Lot sizes are probably sufficient to accommodate e
standard designed system. Given the general
openess of the area, the mounds would have an
aesthetic impact in that they would be visible as a
modification on the previous surface which in this
area would be a lawn. This alternative, because of
low cost, is worthy of further consideration.
3.76 Green Acres Alternative B - Limited Sewer
Because of this area's proximity to a nearby
interceptor in North Hc.ven and chronic problems
with the local use of septic systems, the Town has
developed a plan to sewer the area. This alter-
native vras evaluated in terms of cost and found to
be considerably more expensive to users than in the
B Area. This is due to large lot size and differ-
ences in grant eligibility. This project was,
however, backed by the; Town Council/Sewer Authority
in their statement at the third workshop. In light
of the uncertainties of the on-site alternative and
the general interest in sewering that has been
expressed for this area, this alternative, along
with modifications, will be further analyzed.
3.77 White Hollow Alternative A - Continued On-Site
From the general observation of the EIS fie3d en-
gineers, it would appear that many of the problems
in this area could be rehabilitated. In many
instances, the original fields were constructed on
terraces which may only have to be extended.
Because an area-wide rehabilitation program may be
feasible under the new direction of the grant
program, an option not available in the past, this
alternative should be studied further.
66
-------
3.78 White Hollow Alternative B - Community System
The general feasibility of this alternative was
determined by first locating potential leachfield
area. In two locations along Durham Road, large
holdings of open land with suitable soils exist.
Potential sites exist immediately to the: south,
west of the Durham Road/Reeds Gap Road intersection
and to the north, east of the White Hollow Road/
Durham Road intersection, large enough to provide
either a single leaching field or a pair of fields.
In both instances, the problem areas (Sky Lark
Drive Area and Walnut Lane Area) could be served by
means of a gravity sewer. This alternative war-
rants further study.
3.79 White Hollow Alternative C - Limited Sewer
Systems
This concept solved the problem of the: failing
septic systems by extending a sewer system from the
Green Acres along the Farm River to the White
Hollow Area. While it was felt that this approach
would be; expensive, the costs were developed none-
theless to provide a basis for comparison when
evaluating alternatives. The alternative itself
was dropped from furthe-r analysis due to high total
and individual costs and environmental impacts.
The basic issue of the stimulation of development
within the Farm River watershed is described in
detail in the evaluation of impacts on the lower
valley under the; Foxon Concept.
3.710 White Hollow Alternative D - Full Sewer System
This alternative was analyzed to determine how the
costs of a complete system might affect individual
costs. It was found that the individual costs
remained high in addition to the high overall
costs. Costs combined with environmental impacts
eliminated this alternative from further consid-
eration.
67
-------
SECTION 4.0
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The information that the EIS project team has
collected concerning the environment of North
Branford is condensed in this section. This
is the data base which served as the reference
from which the environmental impacts were
identified and evaluated. It is basically an
information source containing summaries and
interpretations of reports, studies, and
interviews which constitute the body of knowl-
edge acquired in the course of the EIS project.
It is possible that additional information
recently has been developed or that older
historical perspectives have been overlooked.
The public review period after the publication
of the Draft EIS will provide for an opportunity
for expanding this data base to include any
omissions.
-------
4.1 Natural Environment
In this section the basic environmental inventory
relating to physical conditions in North Branford has
been developed. The purpose in including this section
is not to list all the facts that are known about the
local environment, but rather to point out those aspects
of the physical setting which appear to relate to waste-
water disposal. Both current practices using on-site
treatment by septic system and the likely range of
alternatives were considered when this section was
developed.
4.11 Topography/Hydrology
The topography in North Branford is very hilly,
with elevations varying from about 40 ft. above sea
level in the river valley to over 550 ft. above sea
level in the Totoket Mountain Range around Lake
Gaillard. (Figure 4-1) The most striking natural
features of the landscape are the ridges which
generally run in a northeast to southwest direc-
tion. It was the damming of a stream between two
of these ridges that formed the bowl which is now
occupied by Lake Gaillard. This bowl-like appear-
ance is strengthened by the fact that the western
slopes of these ridges are much steeper than those
in the east. Consequently, the "edge" of the bowl
as seen from Forest Road is sharply defined.
The Farm River Valley, which is widest in the
southwest part at North Branford near Route 80,
extends northward through Northford Village, and
then curves eastward, gradually narrowing, until it
ends near the Guilford Town Line in the White
Hollow area. These two elements, the lake basin
and its ridges, coupled with the Farm River Valley
form the most conspicuous natural formations.
The ridges form several drainage basins which are
important to this study. In addition to the Farm
River just described, these basins include the
northwest corner of Town which drains into North
Haven through the Muddy River, and the southeast
portion of Town around North Branford center, which
drains southward into Branford through the Branford
River (Figure 1-4).
71
-------
The topography and drainage pattern has had a role
in North Branford's wastewater disposal problems
and in the solution of those problems. Development
has occurred frequently on extremely steep slopes
where the proper construction of septic systems is
difficult. Under these circumstances, a level
field, set back from the slope is necessary but
difficult to obtain without considerable effort.
The problems frequently encountered include drown-
ing of the field by drainage from the uphill lot or
break-out of the wastewater on the down hill edge
of the leachbed when cover is thin. These types of
problems were evident in the Brook Lane, Walnut
Lane, and Sky Lark Drive areas.
Another problem created by the development on hill-
sides involves the disturbance of natural soil. In
an effort to level the overall lot, the builder
often cuts into the hill behind the house and fills
in front, creating a small terrace. Often the
disturbed soil, or sub-soil that is brought in as
fill, has not been chosen for its ability to accept
wastewater for the leaching field.
The recent revision of North Branford's zoning
reflects concern for developing land on steep
slopes. Most of the steepest slope areas have been
zoned for two acre lot sizes. This should give the
builder more opportunities to develop a properly
operating leach field. Under the No Action alter-
native and under the alternative of Continued On-
Site Treatment where sewers are not planned for,
new septic system designs will continue to come
under the review of the East Shore Health District.
While these factors should reduce the effect that
topography has had in creating local wastewater
disposal problems in the past, alone they do not
guarantee elimination of any future problems. Site
design review is most often limited to the actual
leachfield itself with minimal consideration of the
general landscape of the area. Thus, washout of
the field from up-slope drainage may continue.
4.12 Geology/Soils
The bedrock geology of the area consists of two
distinct types. A major fault, the triassic border
fault, runs through Cedar Pond, the village area of
North Branford and along Hunger Brook. Northwest
72
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
of this fault, the bedrock consists of sedimentary
rocks (sandstones, shales) which are evident in the
distinctive red and brown sands that are seen
everywhere. South of the fault, itietamorphic rocks,
granites and gneisses, more typical of the New
England area are found. The bedrock geology of the
area is of significance to the EIS because of itŁ
effect on the general topography and also its
possible influence on the characteristics of local
groundwater.
The prominant ridges of North Branford are the
tilted beds of sedimentary rock. They are commonly
called traprock ridges because of the resistant
basalt (traprock) that occurs between layers of
sandstone. The most significant effect of bedrock
for this project is the steep slope that is pro-
duced on the western side of Totoket Mountain.
When the factor of this slope is combined with the
typical cover material, described below, severe
development restrictions may be present.
Two types of material remain as cover material
(overburden) since the glacial ages, over the
bedrock. Over the hilly areas, till, the unsorted
mixture of sands, stones, and fine clay-like parti-
cles, occurs in varying thickness. This material
is usually not well drained. In the valleys,
particularly the; Farm River Valley, layered sandy
material, stratified drift, is found. While this
particular material (ice-contact stratified drift)
varies considerably from place to place, it is
usually well drained.
The effects of the combination of bedrcck and over-
burden on wastewater disposal are illustrated by
the fact that on steep slopes, water remains near
or at the surface as it drains to the valley below.
When this physical limitation is combined with
common hillside development patterns seen in North
Branford, wastewater disposal problems can be wide-
spread. Problems in the White Hollow area and the
newer section of Brook Lane appear to have these
conditions as their cause.
75
-------
More detailed information is available through the
soils data that has been developed for the area.
General soiJ types have been mapped by the Soil
Conservation Service for North Branford. This
information is available in two formats from the
agency's Wallingfcrd Office. The two forms are 2
large Town maps dated 1969 and a more recent set of
photo-maps. The former can be used to obtain a
general picture of soils throughout North Branford
but is lacking in reference points which could be
used tc find specific locaticns. The photos,
though only available in Xerox form, show street
patterns and homes and enable the user to find soil
types at mere exact locations. (The: reader should
be Ł;ware of the general nature of these maps and
the;ir limited utility when applied to small areas.)
The SCS also has a number of interpretive guides to
soil types and their uses. One category is that of
septic system limitation. Individual soils have
be:en evaluated in terms of the presence of factors
such es groundwater, bedrock and permeability to
arrive at general assessments of these limitations
for the use of septic systems. This general class-
ification of North Branford's soils is shown here
as Figure 4-2. One immediate limitation that
should be apparent is that large areas of parti-
cular interest have been left unclassified. In
areas of extensive residential siibdivision, where
the: original soil cover has been altered by earth
moving, the SCS has assigned the designation of
"built land". Thus, the SCS mapping is more
applicable as a planning guide for future devel-
opment rather than an explanation of existing
septic system problems in developed areas.
In general, the SCS map shows that the better soils
are located in the river valley (except for lower
wetlands) while those soils on the slopes have been
classified as limited. The level lowland soils are
generally the sandy soils that developed over the
glacial sand described earlier. In the uplands,
several types of problems including shallow bed-
rock, shallow groundwater, and the presence of clay
classification
76
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
While this map is of general interest in describing
the area, its application is limited both by the
nature of the data on which it is based, and on the
generalized method of interpretation of limitation
that is used. In Appendix D in this report, the
specific factors that may limit septic system use
are broken out as Figures D-l through D-5. This
detailed information was used as part of the
analysis in determining or verifying the cause of
wastewater problems, and in the selection of
feasible alternatives for the identified problem
areas. For the purposes of the EIS, land was
considered undevelopable for use with septic sys-
tems only where two of the individual constraints,
mapped in Appendix D, appear together on the same
lot. It was assumed that a lot with a single con-
straint could ultimately be developed using an
engineered septic system.
4.13 General Water Quality
In general, the water quality appears to be of
mixed quality. Both the major streams, the Farm
and Branford Rivers, have significant portions
where the hilly terrain maintains good velocity and
the water appears clear and odorless. Fish are
found well upstream in both areas. In these areas,
the water maintains good aeration capabilities and
consequently good assimilative capacity for waste
material. In most areas of North Branford, the
dissolved oxygen content of the streams was at or
near saturation. (USGS data set) During the EIS
field survey, the values that were found for BOD (a
measure of decomposing material requiring oxygen)
were so low the testing was changed to measure COD
(a measure of all potential material needing de-
composition) . Low COD values were also found
indicating low waste volumes in the water. This
may be due to dilution effects, assimilative
effects, the chance nature of sampling, or a com-
bination of all these. One noticeable problem,
however, in the Farm River especially, is the
significant clouding and sedimentation that occurs
after heavy rainfall. This problem is not evident
in the Branford River due to the different geology
and soils.
79
-------
In the flatter sections of the streams where water
movement is slow, the appearance of the water
changes. While algae and swamp conditions may
naturally change the water's appearance and odor,
the coincidence of densely settled subdivisions
such as those along Burrs Brook south of Route 80
have raised suspicion that the quality of the water
is being adversely affected by development. This
opinion has also been expressed by the Town and its
consultants during previous sewer need evaluations
where high bacterial measures were recorded.
As part of the EIS, an extensive effort was conduc-
ted to compile a water quality data base from
existing information and from actual field data
collection in order to document the extent of
pollution that may be occurring from these sources.
The complete data set and site specific analysis
are contained in Appendix B.
The basic findings (briefly discussed in Section
1.444) were that at any given time, high bacterial
counts were found almost everywhere. This may be,
however, a limitation of the tests which do not
conclusively discriminate between animal and human
wastes. The chemical analysis for nutrients,
nitrates and phosphates, are also unclear as to
specific cause. First, the actual values for these
two substances are not in violation of any standard
or law. Phosphate values are very low, in fact.
The nitrate values, while not in violation of any
standard, were somewhat higher than expected. A
second look at the data revealed that the spatial
pattern of values found in the surface waters,
which might reflect septic system contamination,
were similar to the spatial distribution of deep
well water samples which are less likely to be
affected by short term or surface contamination.
The spatial distribution revealed that the nitrates
in the Farm River Valley were higher than those
found in the Branford River area. These two areas
vary significantly in their basic geology. Also,
much more farming activity (a potential source of
nitrates) occurs in the Farm River Valley. The
conclusions were that the highest values (whether
a standard was violated or not) were found in those
places where problems with septic systems were
reported. (See Appendix B)
80
-------
4.14 Climate
The climate of the area is described as humid
continental. What this simply means is that
precipitation, rain and snow, is fairly ample and
evenly distributed throughout the year, and summers
are warm and winters cool. Hidden, of course, in
this type of description is the day-to-day vari-
ability - the droughts, the "monsoons", the bliz-
zards - which most people tend to remember.
The most significant climatic factor, for this
study, is precipitation. During the spring, when
the ground is frozen, the rapid melting of snow
cover, coupled with prolonged period of rainfall,
creates an abundance of surface and sub-surface
water which aggravates the performance of many
septic systems. Similar conditions can also occur
in the fall when tropical storms may travel through
the area.
In order to protect public health, most testing of
site conditions of septic systems such as percola-
tion testing or inspection of the operation of
existing systems is now done in the spring. The
belief is that if on-site disposal operates during
the worst conditions, it will work throughout the
year. The problem of issuing permits for septic
systems during exceptionally dry years remains
however. If the groundwater observation made
during the dry year is low enough, the possibility
exists that in some instances the leach field may
fail. Limitations of the permit process are des-
cribed in Section 4.42.
4.15 Air Quality
In response to the Federal Clean Air Act of 1972,
the State Department of Environmental Protection
has established four Air Quality Control Regions
and adopted standards for six pollutants within
these areas. North Branford falls within the
Hartford-New Haven-Springfield Interstate AQCR and
must meet primary (health) and secondary (welfare)
standards for particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrogen
dioxide, photochemical oxidants (ozone), hydro-
carbons, and carbon monoxide. Because, in part, of
the location of densely populated areas and indus-
try, the region has often been in violation of many
of the standards. Because of North Branford's
location with respect to New Haven, it is expected
that values in Town are lower than those in the
city, but high, nonetheless, when air flows from
the southwest as it tends to do in the summer.
81
-------
In suburban towns like North Branford, the chief
concern is usually with ozone which is derived from
automobile-exhaust and contributes to smog condi-
tions. It has been assumed that intense develop-
ment will create worse conditions. It should be
noted that air quality problems may be due to dirty
air that blows in from neighboring states. This
issue has recently resulted in a suit by three
Connecticut groups against the implementation of
Clean Air Standards. Because of this "down wind"
effect, it is contended that well over half of the
pollutants measured locally are from out-of-state.
It is argued that efforts to limit local develop-
ment to attempt to meet the standards will not only
economically handicap the area, but also will be
futile in terms of air quality goals.
The air quality issue has not been considered as
central to this EIS for several reasons. No direct
impact is expected because no new treatment faci-
lity is planned. Because of the general regional
conditions of existing background conditions just
described, no effort will be made to analyze
possible secondary effects of induced development.
The only conceivable air quality issue that might
be discussed is that of odor which has been lumped
into the aesthetic category in this study.
4.16 Sensitive Ecological Systems
Vegetation varies with climate, geology, and soil
type. Since it is both the immediate or the
ultimate source of all food and most of the shelter
required by wildlife, the type of vegetation
present in an area is closely related to types of
wildlife likely to be present. Food, shelter, and
water, the essential needs of wildlife are plenti-
fully available in North Branford.
Connecticut has been divided into eleven major
ecoregions reflecting climate, vegetation com-
position and pattern, soils, and the presence or
absence of indicator species and species groups.
The majority of North Branford is in the southeast
corner of the South-Central lowlands ecoregion.
82
-------
Within this ecoregion, the major forest vegetation
is Central Hardwoods-Hemlock, and is typical of the
Oak-Hickory or Oak-Yellow Poplar forest zones of
eastern United States. Prevailing trees include
White, Red, and Black Oaks, various Hickories,
Poplar, Black Birch, White Ash and Hemlock. Old-
field succession is dominated by Red Cedar, rather
than White Pine.
Rare or unusual plant species and communities are
found on traprock ridges which are the most sig-
nificant habitat types found in North Branford.
Many of the states rare species are found only on
the ridges. The associated talus slopes once
supported diverse flora. Cliff-nesting birds such
as the Peregrine Falcon once inhabited the area.
Currently, wide-ranging animals can roam freely
with little disturbance on the steep slopes.
Northern copperheads and timber rattlesnakes may
also be present on the ridges. Rare plants include
mountain sandwort, yellow corydalis, wild comfrey,
and small-flowered leafcup. The five-lined skink
is a rare vertebrate of the region but is not
listed as a rare or endangered species by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Within the Town, most of the ridge ecosystem
remains beyond the reach of development. Much of
it falls within the protected area of the Water
Company lands or is too steep for any development.
Some exceptions do exist in the White Hollow area.
In the past, some development has occurred on the
slope of the ridge. Under today's climate of
greater concern for proper septic system func-
tioning, it is unlikely that the same steep slopes
could be developed. Recently, however, some
development has actually occurred on the ridge.
The difficulty of developing this area of thin
soils has been reflected in the new two acre zone,
that is found there, and may act as a retardent to
extensive development. In any case, those areas
lie well beyond the areas of anticipated develop-
ment that is of concern to the EIS.
4.2 Human Environment
In addition to these areas of the "natural envi-
ronment" just described, the EIS is required to
evaluate the impacts of alternatives on the general
socio-economic environment as well. Often the
83
-------
impacts in this area are of more interest because
they affect the personal every day life of resi-
dents. Taxes, utility bills, and changes in the
neighborhood are areas of universal concern. In
the sub-sections that follow, emphasis has been
placed on land use, land use plans, and resource
use.
4.21 General Land Use
4.211 History
New Haven has been the central city of the
region in which North Branford is located
since early in the 17th Century. Downtown New
Haven is currently a fifteen minute drive from
North Branford. For several centuries, what
is now North Branford was an outlying agri-
cultural district. The Town was incorporated
as a separate entity from Branford in 1931.
It is approximately 25 square miles in extent
or 17,152 acres.
Because regional industry located elsewhere,
near rivers first, and later along major modes
of transportation, an agricultural and rural
character persisted longer in North Branford
than in more diversified neighborhoods. A
major exception was extraction of traprock
from Totoket Mountain for which a special rail
line was built directly to the coast. The New
Haven Trap Rock Company currently has holdings
of about 735 acres adjacent to water company
land. The railroad continues to serve the
quarry and is also available to several indus-
trial sites.
Significant farm abandonment occurred in North
Branford during the 19th Century as it did all
over in New England. The poorest land for
agricultural purposes reverted to forest
earliest. Large tracts of former farmland
became available. The New Haven Water Company
purchased Lake Gaillard and approximately
6,000 acres of surrounding watershed lands.
To the present day, one third of the area of
the Town is committed to this single land use
category.
84
-------
The subsequent land use pattern has evolved
from conversion of remaining agricultural and
forested land. The largest tracts of remain-
ing agricultural land are located in the Farm
River Valley. However, several subdivisions
have made incursions into the valley in the
last 20 years.
Major subdivision development has occurred in
the south end north. Subdivisions are located
south and southeast of Lake Gaillard and north
and northwest of Lake Gaillard in the Farm
River Valley. Thus, two distinct centers have
emerged separated by water company land and
farmlands in the valley. Northford is the
northern and more historic center. North
Branford is the southern and more recently
developed center. Route 22 (Forest Road) and
Totoket Road connect the two centers. The
fccus of the Northford Center is the Route 22
and 17 crossroads where several stores, public
buildings and churches are located. The North
Branford Center is in the vicinity of where
Route 80, 22 and .139 meet.
Four ?tate highway routes traverse North Bran-
fcrd, but there is not direct access to the
primary transportation routes of the region,
Interstate 91 to the west and Interstate 95 to
the; south. Of the four, Route 80 is most used
because it is an important transportation
route paralleling shore routes to the south.
Route 80 provides access to the majority of
commercial and industrial establishments in
Town.
4.212 Patterns
The land use trend of the past 20 years has
been one of gradual suburbanization. The
general pattern of growth has been development
of subdivisions on converted agricultural
land, followed by commercial uses and insti-
tutional services along main routes (Figure 4-
3).
85
-------
The primary form of residential growth has
been the subdivision. Single family homes
have been built en 1/4, 1/2, or 1 acre lots.
New zoning regulations do not include a small
lot category but does include a 2 acre cate-
gory. Development is concentrated in the
northern and southern sections, but several
subdivisions have encroached on the open
farmlands in the central part of the Farm
River Valley. Homes are also located along
many of the roads in Town including older
structures dating from the 18th and 19th
Centuries. A trailer park is located near
Route 80 and Totoket Road. A small amount of
multi-family housing exists primarily as
garden apartments in the Bianford and North-
ford village areas.
Commercial development is not concentrated in
a Town center, but exists in strip form at a
modest level in each of the two centers of
Town. Some are located in Northford espe-
cially at the Route 17 and 22 crossroads while
the majority has located along Route 80 (Foxon
Road) in North Branford. Commercial develop-
ment has followed, and tends to be dependent
upon, residential growth. No major shopping
center has been developed; regional shopping
facilities are located elsewhere.
Although North Branford is primarily residen-
tial in character, some industrial land-uses
are present. Among the uses are light manu-
facturing, trucking, and construction.
Locations are scattered around Town but more
are in the southern section. A large amount
of land in the southern section i.s zoned for
industry, but remains undeveloped. A major
extractive operation has long been located on
Totoket Mountain. The New Haven Trap Rock
Company produces crushed stone for road beds.
86
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Institutional land uses include Town build-
ings, schools, churches and cemeteries.
Because the Town has two centers, many Town
services are provided in both, such as schools
and libraries. They are clustered at the
Route 17 and 22 crossroads in Northford and at
the Route 80 and 139 intersection in North
Branford. Town offices are located in the
southern section. There are no State or
Federal institutions located in the Town.
The extent of active farmland has diminished
significantly in the last 20 years due to
conversion to other uses. However, hundreds
of acres remain in dairy, poultry, vegetable
farms and orchard. Farmland is scattered
throughout the Town but the largest tracts are
in the central section of the Farm River
Valley.
Open space in North Branford is both plentiful
and scarce. One third of the Town is unde-
veloped open space owned by the New Haven
Water Company. However, it is not accessible
for recreational purposes, and, due to ob-
structing ridge-lines, views of the lake are
not possible. Little open space is publicly
owned. One relatively large tract of approx-
imately 75 acres was recently purchased by the
Town along the Branford River.
4.213 EPA Environmental Resource Inventory
During the course of the EIS study, the Region
I Office of Environmental and Economic Impact
was able to utilize the technical capabilities
of the Office of Research and Development,
Remote Sensing Operations Branch in a valuable
opportunity for collection of land use infor-
mation in North Branford. In July 1978,
during two overflights at 6,500 and 3,500 feet
above ground level, color photography of the
entire area was required. This information
has been reproduced as two sets of color
prints at a scale of 1:13,000, showing land
use and drainage. An additional set of photos
shows the Farm River and possible non-point
pollution sources at a scale of 1:7,000.
89
-------
This information has proven to be a valuable
up-to-date complement to local mapping and
maps prepared during the course of the EIS
project. One example is the use of this
resource in the evaluation of impacts on
agricultural land. While the Town already has
an inventory of farmlands that are partici-
pating in the use value assessment program
(those mapped on Figure 4-3), and considerable
information about specific farm properties in
the Fellows study (Section 4.255), the EPA
photo inventory provides fresh information on
actual utilization of farmland at the moment.
4.22 Land Use Regulation
The land use patterns seen in North Branford today
(and particularly those which will emerge over the
course of the 20 years planning period) are, in
part, a result of governmental regulation at
different levels. It is particularly important
that residents be aware of the rules which may have
influenced land development in the past and the
mechanisms that are available to help guide local
growth in the future.
The administrative and regulatory control of land
use has itself been subject to growth in North
Branford. Along with rapid growth during the last
20 years, has come professional, full-time admin-
istrators involved with planning and more compre-
hensive zoning regulations have been promulgated.
New land regulatory systems such as streambelt
protection, wetland protection, and preferential
tax assessments for agricultural land, forests, and
open space, have emerged. Undeveloped land has
been purchased as open space both by the Town and a
private land trust. Non-legal restraints that
influence land use include the Town plan of devel-
opment, the comprehensive plan of the regional
planning agency, and the State plan of conservation
and development.
State controls include: the inland and coastal
wetlands program, the stream encroachment program,
health codes, solid waste management requirements
and water council protection criteria. New regu-
lations pertaining to use of public water supply
watershed lands will soon be promulgated by the
State Department of Health.
90
-------
Some of the areas of land use regulations that are
of importance to the EIS are highlighted in the
following sections.
4.221 Water Company Lands
A look at the land use map (Figure 4-3)
quickly conveys the importance of these lands
to the Town of North Branford. About 1/3 of
the total land area of the Town is in New
Haven Water Company ownership. The status of
the private water company and its lands has
been the subject of local press coverage for
at least the past year. The major issues of
concern to North Branford have been the owner-
ship of the company and the possible sale of
its lands.
Over the past year, the City of New Haven has
expressed an interest in exercising its option
to purchase the company. At the same time, a
regional entity representing basically the
towns whose lands are owned by the water com-
pany has been formed and has been bidding for
the purchase of the utility. Local concerns
have been expressed regarding the likely
impact of ultimate ownership. At this time,
the property owned by the New Haven Water
Company comprises about 14% of North Bran-
ford's grand list for taxation purposes. In
addition, the possible disposition of a
portion of the water company's lands could
raise concerns with respect to the overall
orderly development of the community.
State legislation directed the Connecticut
Council on Water Company Lands to develop a
comprehensive state policy on the disposition
of water utility lands. A report was pub-
lished in 1977 which examines the historic and
current status of State regulatory programs
and the purpose of further State involvement.
Water company lands have only recently become
an issue of concern. The level of State
involvement in the sale approval process
increased as some of the utilities began to
advocate extensive land sales. A trend toward
higher levels of treatment in addition to
increased pressure for multiple use of water-
shed land induced proposals for sale of some
91
-------
utility lands. In response, both the State
and individual towns were granted a purchase
option and additional time to establish
financing. A moratorium statute on water
utility land sales was passed, to be in effect
until June 1979, as a maximum, or until adop-
tion of new regulatJons by the Department of
Health as a minimum.
One of the questions raised concerning water-
shed land management is based on 1977 drinking
water standards. If expanded treatment
processes ere required, the water companies
argued that there may be less need for con-
tinued land use controls on watershed land.
The council report, however, concluded that
continued v/ater utility ownership of critical
lands was necessary even where complete
trecttment facilities would be utilized.
Watershed lands tributary to water supply
reservoirs were divided into categories based
on physical features and relationship to water
quality. Class I lancls cannot be sold, and
cannot be developed. Class II lands can be
developed, but regulations are stringent; the
State Health Department will review projects
in terms of performance guidelines now being
developed. Class III land is located outside
of the watershed and can be sold and devel-
oped. Most of the land owned by the; New Haven
Water Company in North Branfcrd is Class II.
Regulations have been drafted for, but are not
yet approved by, the Connecticut Department of
Health to use in approving the sale of utility
company lands. In the EIS study, it was
assumed that the water company lands would
remain essentially undeveloped.
4.222 Zonincr
Local government in Connecticut exercises the
greatest control over land use through zoning,
subdivision regulations, and the permitting of
activities in wetlands. Zoning is the primary
way that physical development is managed. The
five-member North Branford Planning and Zoninq
Commission and staff reviews applications and"
grants-required permits. The Zoning Board of
Appeal hears and decides Zoning regulations
appeals.
92
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
By the early 1970's, the existing zoning
ordinance had become burdensome to apply in
the face of growing Town concern with land use
decisions. Planning began for a new ordinance
in 1972. Final acceptance by the Town was in
August 1977. The new regulations include four
new special districts which reflect expanded
objectives in land-use control. They are a
planned residence district, streambelt protec-
tion district, water supply district and town
design district. The new categories overlap
one or more of the underlying districts.
The new regulations include performance
standards pertaining to environmental quality,
stricter sign control measures and cluster
development in one acre zones if the project
is greater than twenty-five acres.
The new zoning map, (Figure 4-4) developed
concurrently, incorporates soil and slope
characteristics into designation of districts.
Areas with problem soils or slopes correspond
with the new large lot category of two acres.
Two examples of change are land west of
Totoket Road with steep slopes and land south
of West Pond Road with high water table which
have been shifted from a one to two acre
classification.
A substantial change occurred in the southeast
portion of Town where the previous zoning was
predominantly one acre residential and it is
now allocated primarily an industrial zone and
two acre residential. This land is within the
A area in which sewer construction has begun.
Much of it, however, would not be within the
service area of the initial construction. The
total acreage zoned industrial is 1,379 acres
or 8% of the Town's total acreage.
Business zones along highways have generally
been reduced. Business acreage now amounts to
247 acres or 1.4% of the total land.
Residence categories have expanded from three
to four, from one, and one and a half, and
garden apartments to one and two acre lots,
garden apartments and the new special district
applicable to projects over 25 acres, which
allows cluster development.
95
-------
4.223 Wetland Regulations
In Connecticut, the inland wetlands are de-
fined by the Soil Conservation Service as
those soil types that are classified as poorly
drained, very poorly drained, floodplain, and
alluvial. In North Branford, all rivers,
streams, brooks, waterways, lakes, ponds,
marshes, swamps, and bogs come under the
jurisdiction of the Town under Public Act 73-
571. Regulations based on a state-prepared
model were made effective in North Branford in
1974. The local Inland Wetland Agency issues,
or issues with modifications, or denies
permits for all regulated activities affecting
such land in Town. Regulated activities are
those which involve removal or deposition of
material, or any obstruction, construction,
alteration or pollution of a wetland or
watercourse. If the Agency finds that the
proposed project involves a significant
activity, the applicant may be required to
submit specific information, such as a bio-
logical review or an analysis of future cost/
benefit differentials of the project. Strong
public opinion can influence the agency to
decide that an activity is significant. A
public hearing is required on all applications
involving a significant activity.
The majority of regulated areas in Town are
related to streams or ponds (Figure 4-1). In
the southeast section, designated areas are
Notch Hill Brook, Branford River, Hunger
Brook, and adjacent parcels of land. Desig-
nated wetland surrounds Cedar Pond. In the
southwest, land around Burrs Brook and that
segment of Farm River are wetlands. Wetlands
border the Farm River for its entire length
through North Branford and comprise the
largest entity in area. Wetlands in the
northwest are the small streams and several
swamps which drain to the Muddy River in North
Haven. On the west side of North Branford
there are two large designated wetlands, one
is east of Village Road near Foot Hill Road,
the other is further south and on the east
side of Village Road. They are two of only a
few wetlands in Town not in a linear, stream-
related form.
96
-------
Prior to the adoption of local wetland regu-
lation, some development had occurred in North
Branford in wetland. In the Arthur Court area
in the southwest and in the northwest corner
of Town, both north and south of Clintonville
Road, development occurred on soils that were
basically wetland types. In both these
instances, widespread problems with septic
systems have developed.
At the Federal level, Executive Order No.
11990 mandates the avoidance of wetlands,
unless there is no practicable alternative,
for all construction funded by the government.
Unlike the State classification which is based
solely on soil groups for wetlands identi-
fication, the Federal definition relies on
vegetation too as an indicator of wetland.
Because of the considerable interest that has
arisen concerning wetlands, both the regula-
tions governing them and the classification
systems that are used to identify them are in
a state of revision and development. In the
interim, the assessment of the wetland re-
source and the impacts related to it require
site-specific judgements based on the full
range of wetland values including flood
storage, habitat, and water supply.
4.224 Flood Plain Regulation
Flooding in North Branford generally results
from rapid accumulation or runoff of surface
water due to hurricanes, high intensity storms
such as thunderstorms, and rainfall occurring
over larger areas.
Some development has taken place within flood-
plain areas. Farm related uses or forest
occupy most floodplains. Reasons for con-
trolling land uses on floodplains include:
reduction of flood hazards and losses, pro-
tection of water quality and other hydrologic
functions, soil conservation and preservation
of fish and wildlife habitat.
97
-------
The Farm River creates a flooding problem in
North Branford and East Haven. "The Conser-
vation Plan for North Branford", prepared in
1970, gives top priority to formation of an
open space corridor along the Farm River to
protect and develop its natural resources.
"The North Branford Plan of Development",
prepared in 1971, also recommends a general
open space system the length of the Farm
River. The Soil Conservation Service has
completed preliminary plans for a dam to
control flood waters. A 30 foot earthen dam
is proposed, 3,000 feet long running east-west
near Jerz Lane and is designed to flood 140
acres from Page Mill Pond to Totoket Park.
During the past year, discussions of this
proposal have centered around the question of
whether the dam should be built to retain a
permanent pool, which would have multiple use
potentials for recreation, or leave the area
dry for emergency storage only. At this time,
the outcome of the project is still uncertain.
The former zoning regulations contained a
streambelt protection district as an overlay
district. It was an interim ordinance written
into the regulations in anticipation of North
Branford's compliance with the HUD flood
insurance program. The National Flood Insur-
ance Act provides government sponsored flood
insurance for buildings in flood prone areas
when communities are in compliance with HUD
requirements. Flood insurance rate maps show
the boundaries and elevations of the 100 year
and 500 year flood plains (Figure 4-5). The
flood insurance study has been completed and
was adopted into the Zoning By-Law late in
1978.
Executive Order 11988 mandates that no feder-
ally financed activities can be constructed in
a floodplain unless no practicable alternative
exists. Interest in the floodplain arises
from concerns over damage to existing prop-
erty, changes in the natural flood regime that
may increase flood risks, and assurances that
future development will not be encouraged in
these areas.
98
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
4.225 Agricultural Preservati
on
Traditionally, North Branford has been a rural
agricultural area with many dairy, poultry,
and vegetable farms. The number of farms
decreased significantly in the last 20 years.
By the early sixties, conversion of farmland
was a noticeable trend.
North Branford was the subject of a research
project conducted by Dr. Irving Fellows of the
University of Connecticut, entitled "Rural
Land Use Policy in an Urbanizing Society". As
a research subject, the Town served as a
typical suburbanizing community in the study
of the social and economic feasibility of an
easement purchase program.
Farmland, as shown in Figure 4-3, was derived
from maps developed for the Fellows project.
On this map, farmland includes all farms and
forestland utilizing the preferential tax
assessment program in North Branford in 1974.
The research project further differentiates
between viable and non-viable farmland based
on soil and size criteria. Not all of the
farmland in Figure 4-3 is considered "viable"
for the purposes of the research study.
Active farmland is in every part of North
Branford, but tends to be concentrated in the
Farm River Valley. Most operations are
between 50 and 130 acres and include forested
portions. While farming is no longer the
dominant activity in North Branford, the farm
economy is still significant. In addition,
open farmland provides indirect environmental
benefits of open space and rural character.
Policies and legislation exist at the Federal,
State and local level for the purpose of
protection and maintenance of agricultural
land resources. At the Federal level, a
policy was established within the National
Environmental Policy Act aimed at preserving
and maintaining wherever possible important
historical, cultural, and natural features
including highly productive or unique farm-
lands. Prime farmlands can generally be
considered those on Class I soils. There are
no unique farmlands, that is, those with
particular qualities for specialty crops in
North Branford.
101
-------
At the State level, Connecticut tax law,
Public Act 490, provides for the preservation
of farm, forest, and open space land through
use value assessment. Known as the Open Space
Act, it is enabling legislation; actual
implementation and record keeping has been
delegated to the local government.
Preferential assessment began in 1969 in North
Branford. The local assessor determines if
specific qualifications have been met to
obtain use value assessment. In addition to
farmland, forest land and open space are
eligible. Forest land must consist of 25
acres or more and be certified by a State
Forester. There are ten of these parcels in
North Branford. An open space designation
application goes before the Planning and
Zoning Board. There are currently fifteen
such parcels throughout the Town.
P.A. 490, promulgated in 1963, has not assured
non-development of farmland in Connecticut.
It has been a stop-gap action in the land
development process. In North Branford where
almost all eligible landowners are under P.A.
490, the pace of land being sold for devel-
opment has not been slowed. Nor has the
conveyance tax (P.A. 152) associated with
preferential assessment proved to be a con-
straint.
In 1978, the State legislature passed P.A.
5051, an Act for the Preservation of Connec-
ticut Agricultural Lands, which provides for
purchase of development rights. Purchase of
development rights, in most states with
similar programs, is the responsibility of
local government which also retains the
development rights. In Connecticut, as a
pilot program at first, funding will be 5
million dollars for 2 years. The state will
pay 100% of the cost and retain title to the
development rights.
102
-------
"The Connecticut Proposed Conservation e.nd
Development Policies Plan", Revision of 1979,
includes 10 broad areas of concern, one of
which is food production. Under this cate-
gory, a major policy is "to avoid actions
which directly or indirectly support the
conversion of key agricultural lands to urban
uses". Provision of public sewer service is
cited as an example of such an action.
4. 3 Growth and Development
An important component in the v/hole decision making
process for wastewat.er management projects is the
element of the- future. Because most projects involve
the use of government grants which are assumed to be
only available for the: short term, and also because wise
municipal investment dictates long term considerations,
many parties in the process ere required to develop
visions of the future. In this section, the "best
guesses" of a number cf different levels of government.
will be discussed.
4.3] Population Projections
According to the 1970 Census, the population of
North Branford was 10,778. The current 1978
population is estimated by the Connecticut Depart-
ment of Health at 11,600. Previous population data
is shown below in Table 4-1.
TABLE 4-1
Past Population Data for North Branfcrd
1930 1,329
194C 1,438
1950 2,017
1960 6,771
1970 10,778
Source: South Central Connecticut Regional
Planning Agency
103
-------
Much of the: Town's growth occurred in the 50's and
60's in c. typical post-war suburban development
scenario. It is also evident from the most recent
fiaure that the rate of growth has also typically
slowed down. The current projections for future
population growth show a fundamental change in the
rate of future growth that is anticipated. The
basis for this slowdown is, in part, a reflection
of the State end national trend toward smaller
families. In addition, the regional planning
agency believes that the thrust of new development
will be along the Route 91 corridor away from North
Branford.
The early sewer studies for the Town were conceived
during the earlier period of rapid growth. At the
time the population estimate that was assumed was
30,000 by the year 2020. Any development of future
growth scenarios must take the more recent growth
assumptions into consideration. Within the plan-
ning period now specified by EPA, for grant pur-
poses 20 years, the population is expected to
increase by 2,600 people.
TABLE 4-2
Population Projections for North Eranford
and Neighboring Communities
1980 1990 2000
New Haven 129,750 129,100 130,450
East Haven 25,225 21,300 27,340
North Raven 23,350 24,475 25,150
Wallingford 38,100 41,000 43,400
Branfcrd 22,100 23,700 25,325
North Branford 12,650 14,000 15,250
Guilford 15,960 18,700 20,400
Source: South Central Connecticut Fegional Planning
Agency
104
-------
4.32 Local Plan of Development
The North Branford Planning and Zoning Commission
had a local plan prepared in 1971 with funds from
the Connecticut Department of Community Affairs.
The plan outlined the future growth that the com-
munity anticipated and the steps which it should
take to guide that growth.
The cornerstone of the plan was an anticipated
population of 25,000 by the year 2000. The plan
sought to reconcile this growth with other com-
munity objectives such as preservation of rural
character and open space. Throughout the plan,
sewers and public water supply were seen as nec-
essary for the development of industry and the
provision of variety in housing stock (20% of the
housing stock needed was identified as multi-
family) .
Major items of interest include:
New Haven Company lands will be
retained for water supply purposes.
Central water system should be
extended to all built up areas
with density of one family or
more per acre and industrial and
commercial land.
Sewers should be available to
areas having 5 or more persons
per acre including residential
areas having 2 or more families
per acre.
A central sanitary sewer system
is essential to compete for new
commercial and industrial devel-
opment .
New residences in now vacant areas
should be at a density of not more
than one family per acre due to
lack of central water and sewer
systems.
New zoning should be based on slope
and soil conditions. Where there
is water and sewer access, provision
should be made for 1/2 acre zoning,
garden apartments and town houses.
105
-------
;
ť*ťť
legend
water reserve
quarry
7^1 residential
business
industrial
local land use plan
NaurŠ 4-6
north branford wa/tewater treatment facilitie/
aate: februorv 1979
/ounce: planning & zoning commission
1600 3300
environmental impact /tatement environmental protection agency
onder/on-nichol/ & co.. inc.
technical con/ultanf
-------
The main factor that should be kept in mind when
consulting the plan is the atmosphere in which it
was developed. Drafted at a time when rapid
development was occurring, the plan assumed the
trend would continue. The slow-down that occurred
shortly thereafter, and continues in effect has now
been widely accepted as the trend for the foresee-
able future. The development pattern which the
plan supports is shown on Figure 4-6.
Since the development of the plan, the zoning has
been revised and the one acre lot is the minimum.
Also sewer service is now available in the southern
section (Area A) where most industrial land is
found. Also sewer construction is pending in the
area north of Clintonville Road. In this light,
attention is called to the seeming conflicts that
exist between the Town's general plan and the
theory behind the Town's Concept for sewering.
Where development is occurring on one and two acre
lots, future sewering is highly unlikely.
With a better grasp of the Federal and State parti-
cipation in this project, over the planning period
(20 years), the Town should move towards refining
its plan. Specifically, it could now address the
concepts of concentration in core areas, and pre-
servation of the rural environment in others.
Maintenance of open lands and farmlands in the Farm
River Valley would complement those objectives.
4.33 Regional Plan
In this planning sphere too, the dramatic changes
in development trends of the past few years are
only now being reflected in the published planning
documents. The South Central Regional Planning
Agency prepared a Regional Plan released in Feb-
ruary 1978. Changed conditions since the preceding
report of 1968 include construction of Interstate
Highway 91 to Hartford and a slowing down of the
growth rate. A map, "Proposed Land-Use Plan-2000",
published in 1968 is retained in the 1978 Regional
Plan (Figure 4-7).
107
-------
I I under 1 family /acre residentia
E53 1-2 family/acre residential
DEI service employment area
productive employment area
open space
regional land u/e plan
figure 4-7
north branford w a / t etu a te r treatment facilities
oo fe: februorv 1979 0 ,600
/ounce: south central regional planning agency
environmental impact /tatement environmental protection agency
onder/on-nichol/ & co., inc.
technical con/ultont
-------
The Quinnipiac Valley corridor continues to absorb
the manufacturing and commercial expansion of the
region as it has since the 1950's. Earlier, the
railroad and currently the Interstate Highway have
reinforced this development pattern. Residential
development has been in surrounding upland towns as
well as in the corridor. The Regional Plan refers
to this pattern of development as "inescapable".
The plan states that over 80% of the projected
population in the year 2000 will live in the
corridor, and it will be the location of 90% of all
manufacturing and service businesses. Estimated
regional population for the year 2000 in the 1978
plan is down to 580,000 from over 800,000 in the
1968 plan.
North Branford was characterized as having limited
development potential in the past because of poor
soil conditions, steep slopes, and rock outcrops.
The Plan projects that towns outside the Quinnipiac
Valley, such as North Branford, will continue to
develop, but at low densities. Several reasons are
cited for this assumption:
local zoning regulations showed
preference for low density,
the economic infeasibility of
installing public sewers,
high initial cost of providing
a public water supply.
Because of the existing development pattern, the
Plan recommended that towns such as North Branford
rezone for other uses some of the land currently
zoned for commercial and industrial purposes.
Several factors are cited including; a lack of
public utilities and means of treating industrial
wastes, a lack of water supply, and transportation
disadvantages. If North Branford does rezone
sections from industrial to residential use, there
is potential for residential growth near areas
where sewers are now proposed.
109
-------
Two goals of the plan, pertaining to land use,
specifically mention sewers. General cooperation
is solicited in development of water and sewer
systems because of repercussions on future dis-
tribution of land-use and population in the region.
The goal is to strengthen existing centers and
avoid fragmentation of public services. The other
related goal is the coordination of regional
services"including solid waste disposal and oper-
ation of wastewater facilities.
The Proposed Land-Use Plan-2000 reflects this
thinking by showing concentration of development in
areas where development now exists.. Like the
Town's plan, however, it does not show anything but
low density residential land use in the Middle Farm
River Valley. It does not therefore take any
positive step in recommending local preservation
policy. It does, on the other hand, show areas of
less than one acre development in the southern part
of the valley. While this is as much a reflection
of existing development as anything else, it may
also accommodate a filling-in by similar types of
developments.
A comparison of the regional and the local plan
shows that they are largely in agreement as to
general land use. Some differences that are
noticeable are evidence of slightly different
objectives for the two different levels of plan-
ning. The local plan and local zoning show more
industrial and commercial development than the
regional plan. Allowing for differences in graphic
scales and planning precision, the: local plan still
shows greater levels of development in the southern
portions of Town in both Areas A and B.
4.34 State Plan of Conservation and Development
A Conservation and Development Policies Plan, pre-
pared by the Office of Policy & Management, will be
presented to the General Assembly in February 1979.
It differs from the Conservation and Development
Plan of 1974 in that emphasis has shifted from
setting forth land and water resource policies and
recommendations to an expanded field of issues
including transportation, energy and air quality.
110
-------
The principle purpose of the new plan is to in-
crease the effectiveness of State capital invest-
ment wherever Federal-State pass-through money or
State funds are involved.
The Plan is organized around 10 broad areas of
concern and their relationship to development and
conservation. Among the issues impacting the 1979
Plan are the dramatic decline in recent population
growth, the continuing shift of manufacturing and
office employment from cities to suburbs, and the
rise in the incidence of health concerns, parti-
cularly from chemical pollution, and the recent
establishment of more stringent Federal standards
applying to drinking water.
An. important theme of the Plan is to concentrate
development and encourage growth where existing
infrastructure can be utilized. Within this con-
text, the rural Farm River Valley is portrayed with
no projected urban development. The State's policy
with regard to sewering in watershed areas has not
essentially changed in the Revised Plan. Consid-
eration of alternative ways to abate pollution in
such areas ss the Farm River Valley is encouraged,
but the use of sewers is not ruled out in order to
solve an existing problem. Capacity for increased
growth is discouraged.
Several differences between the State's Plan end
the local planning expressions can be found.
(Figure 4-8) Basically, the local plan and zoning
show greater levels of development in certain
areas. Specifically, the southern part of Area A
has much more potential for industrial development
under local plans. Also, existing and future
development along the Middle Town Road in the
northwest a.re not indicated in the State Plan.
Existing and potential industrial development along
Foxon Road is also not indicated in the State Plan.
The area that is of most concern for the study is
the Farm River Valley. On the Land Area Classifi-
cation Map that accompanies the report, this land
is referred to as Conservation Areas. The expla-
nation of this category is that these are areas
where State strategies and priorities should avoid
encouragement or support of structural development
111
-------
legend
urban growth areas
preservation areas
conservation areas
rural areas
(~\ rural town centers
/tote landu/e area clarification
figure 4-8
north branford uua/teuuater treatment facilitie/
ao te: February 1979
/ounce: conn. dept.of planning S energy policu
1600 3100
environmental impact /tatement environmental protection agency
ander/on-nichol/ & co., inc.
technical con/ultant
-------
which cannot insure that site planning and design
and secondary effects are compatible with the
identified conservation values of the site envi-
rons. This classification is presumably based on
the use of these lands as watersheds. As such, the
Plan would seek to avoid sewer systems which
encourage increased development and the threat of
non-point pollutants.
In the case of the Foxon Area, however, it has been
concluded that a limited sewer system is the only
cost-effective and environmentally sound solution
to the wastewater disposal problems that are found
with existing development. This approach was des-
cribed in the Modified Foxon System.
It was concluded that the Town's Proposal & Concept
would also encourage development within the Middle
Farm River Valley. This development would intro-
duce the risk of long term water quality degrada-
tion basically due to the decentralized control and
diminished landowner consciousness that would
accompany the development of these lands. While it
was pointed out that the existing agricultural
development is no assurance of clean water, it can
be more easily managed in terms of water pollution
than residential development. The No Action alter-
native would share similar uncertainty as to its
impacts on water quality as would the area-wide
sewer proposals.
4.35 Local Perceptions of Growth
In the course of the EIS project, two perspectives
on the future of North Branford emerged. One view-
point saw a trend of continuing growth as almost
inevitable. This group also supported industrial
and commercial development as a mear3 to offset
expected rises in taxes. The sewer program was
seen as a tool to implement this development, as
much as to eliminate pollution. This group is
probably responding to the growth scenario which
they themselves took part in during North Bran-
ford "s period of growth over the past two decades.
Since they have witnessed changes - new homes, new
schools, higher taxes - they fully expect more and
hope to make the best of the situation.
113
-------
The other seemingly opposite view characterizes
North Branford as a small town and cites rural
amenities as one of the main reasons for living
there. These people tend to see the sewer program
as too large an undertaking. While not speci-
fically addressing the issue of growth, their
preference clearly lies in maintaining the status
quo-
The thinking of the professional planners reflected
in the recent State and regional plans lies some-
where between these popular local views. While the
growth mechanisms of the fifties and sixties has
definitely slowed down, some continued growth is to
be expected. The challenge is also clear. If the
values of small town living are to be retained,
that growth must be shaped. The two groups can
best meet their objectives by planning for rea-
sonable growth.
4.4 Characteristics of Resource Use
The areas of resource use of most concern in North
Branford are water supply and wastewater disposal.
4.41 Water Supply
4.411 General
North Branford residents obtain their water
from three sources: a central water supply
system (New Haven Water Company), group wells
(2 or more homes from a single source), or
individual wells. Areas served by the central
water system consist primarily of established
development in the southern part of the Town
and limited service in the northwest (Figure
4-9). Under the new definition of group
system (above) about 50 such systems have been
inventoried by the East Shore Health District.
Many of these only serve two families. Larger
community systems are found in the White
Hollow area. Elsewhere dependence is upon
individual wells.
114
-------
water /ervice area
figure 4-9
north branforcl wa/teuuater treatment facilitie/
oate: February 1979
/ource: new haven water co.
0 1600 3100
environmental impact /totement environmental protection agency
-------
Concern for water supply in North Branford has
several distinct dimensions. Where reliance
is on both on-site water supply and wastewater
disposal, proper septic system operation must
be maintained. This aspect of water supply
receives attention through the permit process
at the time of building - both a well and
septic system permit must be obtained prior to
occupancy through the East Shore Health
District.
4.412 New Haven Water Company
The New Haven Water Company system is a more
complex problem- As noted elsewhere, the very
issue of owne.-rship is currently in question
with the now private ownership possibly con-
verting to public ownership either under the
City of New Haven or a regional authority.
The water company land disposition issue is a
statewide issue of particular local signifi-
cance because of the large holdings of the
utility within North Branford. Also, the land
disposition issue has been tied to the new
drinking water treatment requirements of
Federal law. Finally, the question of land
use on privately owned land and its relation-
ship to water quality has arisen in the course
of the North Branford sewer project because
the use of State funds may stimulate land
development within the watershed.
Two portions of the New Haven Water Company
system are of interest here. Within North
Branford, the Lcke Gaillard Reservoir receives
its water both from surface runoff from
protected water company lands within its
watershed and from three diversions of surface
streams. Water is diverted from the Menveka-
tuck Reservoir to the west via an aquaduct and
tunnel system. Water is also diverted from
Gulf Erook in the Northford Village section of
North Branford southeast through a tunnel to
the reservoir. This intake is located east of
Tommy's Path on water company land and receives
its flow from the undeveloped Gulf Erook
watershed to the: northeast which is also owned
and protecte.d by the water company. The third
116
-------
diversion to Lc.ke Gaillard is of particular
interest tecause it receives flow largely from
private lands. The Northford diversion is
located on the Farm River about one half mile
downstream of Feeds Gap Road in the northeast
corner of Town. The land upstream of this
intake comprises approximately 20% of the
reservoir's source and is substantially de-
veloped, including within it, the White Hollow
problem area.
The Lake Gaillard reservoir is regarded as sn
exceptionally good source of high quality
water. It's safe yield of approximately 28
mgd is about 45% of the total safe yield of
the water company's supplies. The only
treatment presently required is chlorination
prior to delivery into the system through
either gravity flow or a pumping option.
The Farm River watershed within North Branford
also supplies the Lake Saltonstall Reservoir
through a diversion. This intake is located
in East Haven, about one half mile west of the
North Branford Town Line. It's potential
importance to this portion of the systen is
reflected in the fact that the Farm River
watershed comprises about 70% of the whole
watershed of this reservoir. All the water is
not diverted, however, at this time. A fil-
tration plant, constructed within the last few
years, provides treatment to the water prior
to chlorination and delivery to the distribu-
tion system.
The operation of the water system is a product
of experience and judgement more than one of
standard procedures. The quantities that are
diverted, for example, are not exactly known
nor is their regulation a function cf a pre-
scribed management system. Record keeping at
the Saltonstall intake consists of recording
the number of revolutions that a hand-turned
valve is open and closed during a certain time
period. While the flexibility exists to allow
117
-------
potentially polluted flood peaks to be by-
passed, no specific policy of monitoring
determines this practice. In addition,
decisions are made on routing of either
Saltonstall or Gaillard water to the dis-
tribution system on the basis of the economics
of providing more costly treated Saltonstall
water versus the more naturally occurring
Gaillard water. The options of gravity or
pumped flow from Gaillard adds an additional
dimension to the water system's complexity.
Because of the multi-variable nature of the
system, no further quantification of its use
of Farm River flows was attempted. When the
physical unknowns are combined with the water
quality variables, that are noted in the
following sub-sections, any meaningful quan-
tification becomes impractical.
4.413 Water Quality
Available water quality data indicates that
the waters of both reservoirs are generally
free of any evidence of bacterial contami-
nation prior to receiving any treatment. This
is in contrast to the often high measurements
that have been recorded in the Farm River that
partially supplies both reservoirs. Factors
that could account for this difference include
attrition due to distance from source, compe-
tition with other organisms, and dilution by
uncontaminated water. As mentioned elsewhere
in this report, the other measures of gross
human pollution are not high enough even in
the streams to be of any immediate concern.
These findings do not, however, entirely
eliminate concern over the impacts of devel-
opment on water supply. The possibility
exists that other more subtle effects, such as
metals or pesticides may be present but un-
reflected by the scope of past monitoring
requirements. Further insight into this issue
will be provided this year when the more
stringent requirements of the Federal drinking
water standards go into effect.
118
-------
In the past, overall purity of the water
supply has been maintained by the single
technique of minimizing man's activities in
water supply watersheds. In the northeast
United States in particular, this has given
rise to the single purpose water company land
holdings from which the public has been pro-
hibited. The threat to water supply was seen
primarily in direct contamination by human
feces which historically had been responsible
for the transmission of numerous diseases.
More recently, especially in the west, the
trend had been toward multiple use of reser-
voirs and watershed lands acknowledging,
perhaps, that both natural buffering condi-
tions and management practices such as dis-
infection were sufficient to safeguard the
public.
Most recently, attention has come to be
focused on trace materials, such as metals and
synthetic organics which have increased slowly
but persistently for long periods of time and
require more treatment for their removal.
Because their presence has most commonly been
identified with more intensive urban develop-
ment, the trend toward maintaining low levels
of development has been reinforced. At the
same time, the increased concern of regulatory
agencies for achieving high quality finished
water by higher treatment requirements has led
the water companies to argue that greater
treatment should permit some relaxation of
their land management practices. The net
result of this in Connecticut has been the
watershed classification program which will
permit the sale of some lands by the water
companies. At the same time, the State Land
Policy Plan has discouraged State actions
which will encourage development of watershed
lands and seeks to have this policy extended
to watersheds, such as the Farm River, that
are privately owned.
119
-------
The issue of minimizing possible pollution by
restricting development is not straight
forward however. While conversion of land
from forest cover to residential use will
increase all pollutant loadings, the presence
of extensive agricultural lands in the Farm
River Valley complicates this issue. On an
acre-by-acre basis, farmland loadings can
exceed residential loadings in the categories
of bacteria, oxygen demand, and nutrients by a
factor of 10 (animal feedlots contribute
significantly more). Also, the risk of chem-
ical contamination from agricultural use of
pesticides and herbicides is a significant
potential source of pollution. In some
instances, the conversion of farmland to
residential use could actually result in a
decrease in the pollutant load. Not all resi-
dential development is the same either;
planned development of mixed housing stock can
reduce pollutants by as much as 50% from that
of typical suburban development through reduc-
ing impervious surfaces which significantly
contribute to the pollution load per acre.
Too many other variable factors, such as the
fate of these pollutants in soil and vegeta-
tion are present to accurately estimate the
overall pollutant levels that may occur from a
combination of possible land use scenarios.
Mismanagement of either agricultural or
suburban land use through indiscriminate waste
disposal or increasing runoff can increase the
pollution potential. Even suburban subdivi-
sion increases the possibility of pollution
through the de-centralizing of decision making
and management of the land. While maintenance
of the status quo may appear to be the cau-
tious conservative route appropriate to the
long term protection of public health, the
forces that control the current development
process are largely beyond regulation. Modest
planned development which minimizes the
wholesale change of land use typified by
sprawl is the most reasonable course of action.
120
-------
4.42 Wastewater Disposal
4.421 Past & Current Practices
Pre-1974 development in North Branford occur-
red without the benefit of full time profes-
sional services in the regulation of on-site
disposal systems. As was the rule in small
towns, various individuals functioned in the
role of health officer or sanitarian and
attempted to carry out the intent of the State
code subject to their own personal training,
energies, and available time. The record
keeping that exists indicates that the town
shares in the experience of most towns of
learning by trial and error. Because the
suburban phenomenon was relatively new, the
long term magnitude of the on-site disposal
problem was not foreseen. Only in the inter-
vening years has the attention of professional
soil scientists and engineers come to research
the use of septic systems and develop a data
base of their experiences that can be shared.
Many early developments have since evidenced
common problems with on-site disposal. These
problems include:
Small lot size that limits rehab-
ilitation options
Development on filled or stripped
land with inherent high groundwater
problems or poor percolation
capabilities
Cut and fill development on hill-
sides where disturbed soil was used
for leaching fields and the uphill
lot drains to the downhill lot.
Even in the newer developments, with larger
lot sizes, septic systems have been built
where uphill drainage floods the leach field
or inadequate down-slopes soil cover permits
breakout.
121
-------
4.422 Continuing Limitations
As noted elsewhere, the overall problem of
managing septic systems includes proper
design, inspection of construction, and proper
use. Also, accurate record keeping is a
necessity if the analysis of long t:rm perfor-
mance is to benefit future management. Since
the utilization of the East Shore Health Dis-
trict Office, as agent for North Branford on
septic system regulator, these areas are now
under more consistent control. Experience
elsewhere suggests that the role of this
agency will have to grow in the future if long
term reliability of on-site disposal is to be
assured. Because so much in this area depends
upon individual decisions and actions, the
continuing education of the homeowner must be
pursued. This is especially true in the case
of North Branford where so many residents have
misgivings, or in some cases, lack of con-
fidence in the use of on-site wastewater
disposal.
122
-------
SECTION 5.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This Section documents the environmental impacts
of the alternatives that remain after the initial
screening process. In keeping v
-------
5.1 General Discussion of Impacts of Alternatives
In this section, the environmental consequences or
impacts of various feasible alternatives are explored in
greater depth. The alternatives that are examined here
are the product cf the screening that took place in
Chapter 2.0. A number of considerations must be kept in
mind when identifying impacts.
Direct impacts are the environmental
consequences which are caused by the
action and generally occur at the
same time and place as the action.
Indirect impacts are environmental
consequences which may be caused, in
part, by the action. In this analysis
they are linn ted to those which are
reasonably foreseeable. They are
generally removed from the action in
time and/or distance.
Significant impacts may be direct or
indirect environmental consequences
of an action which violate laws or
governmental standards, policies, or
plans, or create unknov/n risks to the
general environment or injury to a
unique environment.
Minor impacts 5re those environmental
consequences which are readily iden-
tifiable, but do not weigh heavily in
the selection of an action.
Moderate impacts are environmental
consequences of an action that are
of concern in decision making, but
are of less importance than signi-
ficant ones.
The nost readily identifiable are those direct impacts
which occur at the time of an action which can be fairly
accurately predicted. Other impacts which may be more
difficult to predict are those indirect environmental
125
-------
consequences of an action which may occur, more often
than not, seme time in the future or over an elapsed
period of time. The identification of the impact does
not, however, complete the process. Assigning signi-
ficance to the impact involves another level of judge-
ment. These considerations are briefly discussed in the
sections that follow.
Examples of direct impacts of implementing wastewater
treatment alternatives are fairly easy to recognize.
Sewering an area of chronic septic system problems,
whose causes are basic physical site limitations, can
logically be seen as a positive local water quality
improvement. The. construction activity that accompanies
installation of the sewers, such as the digging of the
roadway or laying of pipe through undeveloped woodland,
is typically a negative impact which may be short lived
if proper precautions are taken.
Indirect environmental consequences or impacts are
generally more difficult to pinpoint. For example,
opponents of sewers will argue that the sever system
will lower local groundwater. While this may seem a
logical consequence, determining actual heights for the
water table, and more importantly, the significance of
the impact is more speculative. Lowering the v-ater
table and eliminating s. history of flooded basements may
be: seen as a real improvement to some homeowners. To
the purist, however, any change in the environment may
be seen as a violation of the natural order of things.
This example serves to illustrate the point that even
the direction of an impact, positive or negative, is not
necessarily a fixed, given fact. The evaluation of an
impact must te linked to an identified environmental
value.
The identification and evaluation of indirect conse-
quences is even more difficult in the area of non-
physical impacts. Many times, the prediction of the
impact depends upon imperfectly known processes, future
public decisions, and a sort of concensus politics. The
area of land development consequences of alternatives tc
wastewater management is a good example. The potential
impact of sewer construction upon land development has
caught the public attention recently. The phenomenon
126
-------
that has been identified in different parts of the
country is that sewer construction "feeds" rapid de-
velopment, which in turn, increases taxes. While this
general relationship may occur frequently enough to
warrant caution by concerned citizens, its importance is
great enough to warrant a closer look. At the local
level, the importance of the individual components of
growth must be evaluated. Included are the overall
growth of the region, the cost of land and housing,
access to major roadways, amenities and prestige of
individual communities, and local zoning and growth
policy.
In evaluating the environmental consequences of the
alternatives under consideration, the direction of the
impact and its significance will be identified and the
basis upon which the judgement was made will be dis-
cussed. In keeping with the intent of the new CEQ
regulations, the analysis focuses on those areas of
impact which have been determined to be most relevant to
this study.
In the previous section, general concepts were analyzed
in terms of their feasibility and potential impact.
Some of those concepts were judged to be inappropriate
on the basis of technical feasibility, overall costs, or
significant impact. In this section, the remaining
alternative concepts are sharpened to fit the reality of
the problems that were identified. The alternatives are
then analyzed for their overall environmental impact.
No Action is considered to be the
continuation of present practices
of wastewater disposal in the study
area of North Branford.
Town's Proposal &_Cgncept for Foxon
is the plan for sewering that was
basically identified in the 1975
Environmental Assessment Report.
In the EIS analysis, the Town's
Proposal is the. Reduced Sewer
Program that is identified in the
Town's 1976 engineering report.
This is the sewer system fcr which
the Town is in the process of
applying for Federal and State funds
127
-------
for immediate construction. In this
section, the Town's Proposal is also
identified with the Town's Concept
for this general area. This linkage
is necessary in order to analyze the
future impacts of the current proposal.
The Foxon Interceptor has been designed
to be large enough to eventually carry
wastewater from the area of the Farm
River Valley north almost to Tommy's
Path. Since it is the intent of the
Town to build the initial 1,000 feet
of interceptor with this existing
capacity now, an evaluation of the
Proposal and the whole Concept is
appropriate.
-- Modified Foxon Proposal is an outgrowth
of the preliminary analysis of Limited
System and Full System concepts in
Section 3.0- Because of the significant
differences in the cost of these con-
cepts and the potential environmental
consequences of the Full System, it was
concluded that the concept of a limited
sewer system to serve primarily existing
problems was a course of action worthy
of further consideration.
Green Acres Alternatives consist of the
possible on-site rehabilitation or a
local sewer discharging to North Haven.
White Hollow Alternatives consist of the
two options that are available for this
area - on-site rehabilitation or local
sewering with a community leaching field.
Both the cross country limited sewer and
full sewering concepts were eliminated
in Section 3.0.
5.2 No Action
Under this alternative, the Town is assumed to continue
with its current wastewater disposal practices. Under
this management system, all new septic systems are
designed to fit the requirements of the Connecticut
State Department of Health under the direction of the
East Shore District Health Department.
128
-------
In addition, the ESDHD also oversees the repairs of
older systems. Under current practice, the agency
recommends differing levels of repair at different
levels of cost, and, presumably, at different levels of
long term effectiveness.
The basic approach of utilizing a regional agency is
commendable in that full-time, objective, professionals
can affect a more systematic, consistent, and vigorous
approach to a town-wide management system. Some poten-
tial wastewater problems still remain, however, under
this alternative. Older systems which may have been
designed to standards less rigorous than those now in
effect will continue to fail periodically. Some sys-
tems, new and old, will also fail under misuse.
5.21 Future Development Scenario
The future conditions in North Branford as they
relate to wastewater problems and issues are
summarized in the No Action scenario. With the
information that is presently available, it is
expected that the population of the Town will
expand from 12,650 estimated in 1980 to 15,250
people by the year 2000. These are the estimates
of the Regional Plan and seem responsive to con-
ditions as they exist now. The most important
question for this study is how this new development
will affect water quality. Also, questions of how
the continuation of current wastewater management
practices, assumed under the No Action alternative,
will affect the general environment are to be
considered.
It is assumed that the increase of 2,600 people
will be accommodated in the following way. As
presumed in the Town Plan, about 20% of the housing
starts that will be built in the period will be
some form of multi-family. It was assumed that
this development would most likely be provided in
Area A where a sewer system was recently construc-
ted. Using guides of 3.5 people per single family
unit and 2.65 people per multi-family unit, the new
development to be expected by the year 2000 amounts
to 645 single family units.
129
-------
Examination of post 1960 development patterns in
Nc.rth Branford shows that this development has been
fairly evenly distributed among the Town's Areas A,
B, and C. An analysis of remaining undeveloped
residential land, and areas of significant envi-
ronmental constraint shown in Table 5-1, however,
shows thc.t remaining vacant land is not evenly
distributed. The allocation of new single family
housing is projected in Table 5-1 based on future
development in proportion to the amount of vacant
residential land remaining.
Within the; two areas of most concern to the EIS
study, Areas E s.nd C, the actual development poten-
tial of the vacant site was assessed. As a conse-
quence, it was concluded that in Area B, the Foxon
Area, that about half of the available land has
good development potential (large, contiguous
holdings in "open" areas - hillsides or valley).
The potential for the 297 units under the No Action
alternative would comprise about 40% of the "good
land" within Area B. This land is generally found
north of Mill Road. For purposes of comparison,
this amount of development would equal about 20 or
10 developments the size of Miller/Grant Roads.
TABLE 5-1
AVAILABLE LAND & ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT
(in single family units)
Area A Area B Area C Total
Residential Capacity
(Zoning) 554 1,418 1,253 3,225
Residential Capacity &
Environmental Constraints (a) 436 1,276 1,059 2,771
Anticipated Development
under NO ACTION 103 297 245 645
Source; Anderson-Nichols & Company, Inc. 1978
a. The environmental constraint concept is
discussed in Section 4.12
130
-------
In Area C, the projected development would consist
of 245 units. While most of the recent development
has been in the Upper Farm River Valley, Area C-3,
the fact that the C-l area, in and around Carlen
Drive, is proposed fcr sewering, would have an
effect on the future distribution of new housing.
While the remaining capacity of the C-l area, under
zoning is about 195 units and that of C-3 is about
743 units, the presence of a sewer system in the C-
1 area should stimulate some in-filling of that
area to a greater degree than its proportionate
share of vacant land v/ould indicate. In addition,
of the ^43 units that are possible in terms of
vacant land, only about 50% of the land has been
classified as having "high development potential".
Consequently, the apportionment of the anticipated
growth in housing units was designated as 35% in
the C-l area and 65% in the C-2/C-3 areas. This
has the effect of giving double weight to the
potential for development in the C-l area due to
the presence of the sewers.
The number cf new housing units in the; Farm River
Valley portion of this sub-area would be about 160
homes. Most of these would be built in the Upper
Valley and would utilize about 50% of the land with
good development potential in the sub-area. This
would be the equivalent of about 5 subdivisions the
size of Holly Mar Hill Road.
5.22 Impacts on Water Resources of No Action
5.221 Public Health
Nature of Impact
-- significant
direct
negative
-- long term
Basis of Evaluation
The determination was made because raw sewage
is being discharged into water that is ulti-
mately used for water supply. This chronic
problem in the lower Farm River Valley has
131
-------
been substantiated by the admissions of local
residents (Appendix A), by EIS field surveys,
and other previous field work (Appendix D).
The problem has also been confirmed by water
quality data (Appendix B). Site 9 in the
Arthur Court Area consistently had the highest
bacteriological measurements of the whole
Town. While the measures are only indicative
of the presence of human waste, and are not
necessarily harmful in themselves, they
indicate that a potential pathway for the
transmission of disease exists. While the
actual probability of a disease outbreak is
unknown, the existence of this threat is
enough to warrant an evaluation as a signi-
ficant impact.
The public health may be affected in two
areas. Within the residential neighborhoods,
the risk remains that children in particular
could come in contact with, or ingest disease
bearing water. The entire area is served with
public water, however, reducing the risk of
wide-spread infection. The long term com-
plication arises from the fact that one of the
sources of the public water supply of the New
Haven Water Company is this watershed. As
noted in Section 4.41, water is diverted
directly from the Farm River, at a point about.
two Fiiles downstream from this developed area.
The actual magnitude of this risk to the
neighborhoods and the general water supply is
difficult to assess. Actual documentation of
serious disease outbreak among children play-
ing in such areas is lacking. Bacterial
measures from the Lake Saltonstall Reservoir
to which Farm River water is diverted, are
well witbin safe limits prior to disinfection.
This is not surprising considering dilution
effects and probable attrition of bacteria.
Ultimately, due to many unknowns, the appli-
cation of a conservative public health type
criterion seems most appropriate. Present
practice of yearly streambelt surveys for the
specific purpose of detecting failed septic
systems highlights the concern over the long
132
-------
term risk. While the indicator bacteria them-
selves may be in low concentration at the
reservoir, the risk of transmitting disease
causing bacteria and viruses remains.
5.222 Future Water Supply
Nature of Impact
moderate
indirect
-- negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
Because it is assumed that construction of new
septic systems will be more reliable than that
of older homes, the risk of bacterial contami-
nation would remain at present levels. The
risk of long term chemical contamination from
the many so-called "non-point sources" that
accompany development in general would in-
crease when compared to undeveloped land. The
reasoning that leads to this conclusion is
based on generally accepted "average or typi-
cal" values for runoff which show parameters,
such as bacteria, sediment, and nutrients to
exist at higher levels where higher densities
of land use are found. The rather obvious
extension of these findings is the conclusion
that a higher likelihood exists that more
complex substances, such as asbestos, lead,
petroleum products, and other materials in
house use, such as solvents and cleansers will
reach the waterways in areas of greater popu-
lation densities. The risk element is the
unknown and ultimately determines the signi-
ficance of this impact. While it is likely
that this impact would only be evident after a
long period of time, and even then only at
trace levels, if at all, the impact was
assigned a moderate rating because of the un-
known but low probability.
133
-------
One dilemma that should be recognized in
evaluating the water quality impacts of new
development is the potential impacts that farm
use in the area presents. On an acre-by-acre
basis, farming often introduces more bacteria,
BOD, and nutrients than does even high density
residential land use. Farm management tech-
niques can be implemented which will signifi-
cantly reduce these pollutants.
5.23 Impacts on Natural Systems of No Action
5.231 Wetlands
Nature of Impact
-- minor
indirect
-- negative
-- long term
Basis of Evaluation
North Eiranford now exercises control over wet-
lands under Connecticut law. The wetlands map
was adopted by the Town in 1974. While older
development, such s.s Arthur Court, did direct-
ly infringe on wetland areas (with resultant
wastewater disposal problems), all new devel-
opment comes under the review of the local
conservation commission. Most of the: newer
development has not been in these areas.
Where proposed development borders on wetland,
the conservation commission exercises the
power to minimize the environmental impact.
5.232 Existing Habitat
Nature of Impact
moderate
indirect
negative
long term
134
-------
Basis of Evaluation
The utilization of undeveloped land on or
along the: margins of farm land in the Farm
River Valley will result in the: loss of pro-
ductive habitat for small birds snd mammals.
Based upon total acreage within Areas B and C,
the ereas where most development will occur,
the anticipated development would utilize
approximately 500 acres of existing animal
habitat. From past experience, much of this
would consist of development in open fields.
5.24 Impact? on Human Resources of No Action
5.241 Farmland
Nature of Impact
-- moderate
indirect
negative
-- long term
Basis of Evaluation
The basis for this conclusion is the inter-
action of the process of anticipated resi-
dential growth and presence and location of
the farmland resource which is described in
Section 4.225. The anticipated development of
297 units in Area B, most likely within the
Middle Farm River Valley, would create pres-
sure to convert some of this farmland for home
sites. In the past, the land has been par-
tially protected by the economic viability and
stability of large holdings. Small develop-
ments have occurred within and on the margins
of these large holdings with only a few large
scale developments being built. This relative
stability has also been aided by the special
tax status that applies to much of this land.
Several factors have changed which increase
the possibility that farm land may come under
pressure to develop. In the past, the hill-
side areas were frequently developed where the
cost of land was less. Often, however, these
lots were not well suited for septic systems.
135
-------
With increased local concern about more
rigorous regulation of on-site systems and
with recent down-zoning, the valley areas may
come under increased pressure for development.
If all of the development in the E area
occurred on agricultural land, the 297 units
would occupy almost 1/3 of the 1,085 acres of
existing farmland in the middle part of the
valley. In the C Area, the impact will be
less in terms of acreage (about 160 acres.) ,
but the relative inpact on farmland could be
great due to the tendency to develop cleared
land first.
5.242 Planned Development
Nature of Impact
-- moderate
indirect
negative
-- long term
Basis of Evaluation
Whj.le the anticipated residential development
identified in the preceding section would be
generslly in agreement with local plans and
zoning, the form that it would be likely to
take would not be: in concert with general
contemporary planning objectives. If the Town
has as general goals of encouragement of
economic development, greater diversity in
housing stock, and preservation of its "char-
acter" , then the anticipated development is
not likely to serve these coals under this
alternative. The single family residential
development will occur en one acre minimum
size lots in the valley on good soils. While
industrial development on remaining vacant
industrial land is possible utilizing septic
systems, the absence of public sewers does
restrict the range of possible uses that ir.ay
be made of this land. While the new zoning
may permit special uses, such as planned unit
development in R 40 areas, it is questionable
that such a use vrould materialize where sewers
were not available.
136
-------
5.243 Economic Growth
Nature of Impact
minor
direct
negative
short term
Basis of Evaluation
About 150 acres of vacant industrial land
remain within the B and C areas. While it is
possible to develop the land utilizing only
on-site waste disposal systems under this
alternative, the range of uses of the site are
significantly reduced. Also, the economic
gains of any industrial development, could
easily be offset by the low density single
family development, that has the potential to
generate more municipal costs to service than
tax revenue. On a town-wide basis, the signi-
ficance of this impact is lessened by the fact
that there is available vacant industrial land
in Area A which will have sewer service.
5.244 Community Character
Nature of Impact
-- moderate
indirect
-- negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
This determination was made because of local
public input. Residents who live in the lower
Farm River Valley in particular have com-
plained of the problem of overflows and odor.
These views have been expressed repeatedly at
the EIS workshops (Appendix A) . At one public
meeting of the Sewer Authority, the EIS team
was presented with a petition signed by
numerous residents of the area who were com-
plaining about the magnitude of septic system
problems in the Arthur Court area.
137
-------
In addition to the extent that the No Action
alternative will result in continued growth
without incorporating specific community
goals, the character of the community will be
affected. Presently, both growth and no-
growth advocate positions have been taken by
local groups v.-ith no attempt to reconcile
their differences in a positive planning
approach.
5.3 Town Proposal and Concept for Foxon Area
This alternative is the actual project for which the
Town was prepared to make a grant application for con-
struction funding. This is the project which was the
subject at a preliminary review by the Connecticut DPW
and was cited for a number of environmental questions
which ultimately led to the EIS.
The: Proposal called for the immediate construction of a
gravity interceptor along Burrs Brook to the Middle
School area (Figure 1-3) which would serve the Arthur
Court and Sunset Lane problem areas (B-l area). In the
most recent description of the Proposal, (Reduced Sewer
Program) it was also intended to immediately connect
Merrimack Drive and Katherine Street which were also
described in the report as "problem areas". Provision
was also made to serve Judson Drive and the nearby
Pioneer Drive and Williams Road areas which are referred
to as the B-2 area.
An additional aspect of this Proposal includes the
provision in the Burrs Brook interceptor to accommodate
future flows from a contiguous area at the Farm River
Valley drainage north of Foxon Road. This aspect of the
Town's Proposal has been referred to here as the Town's
Concept since the immediate Proposal is designed with
the idea of ultimately including flows from the Middle
Farm River Valley area. This area which we will call
the Middle Valley includes portions of East Haven and
would contribute 78.5% of the total flow that would
ultimately be carried to Ee.st Haven. The design of the
interceptor, and its relationship to growth, for this
future flow was the major point which the Connecticut
DEP environmental review noted.
138
-------
The Town's Proposal alone does not, however,
completely remove the risk of a public health
hazard to the Farm River watershed. The pro-
posed sewer system itself could be subject to
malfunction which conceivably could result in
overflow of sewage to the waterway. Because,
however, the proposed system is a gravity
system of modern design including sealed man-
holes in the vicinity of flood plains and cast
iron construction throughout, the likelihood
of such an accident is remote. By comparison,
the continued malfunction of antiquated
marginal on-lot systems in the Foxon area has
a much greater threat of occurrence.
5.312 Future Water Supply
Nature of Impact
moderate
indirect
-- negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
The Town's Proposal to provide sewers in the
southern portion of Area B to relieve existing
malfunctioning septic systems will permit and
encourage new development of residential land
use in areas that are largely either vacant
woodland, brushland or cropland. Conversion
from woodland/brushland to residential land
use will result in increases in most pollu-
tants (bacteria, solids, BOD, COD, nutrients,
metals, pesticides and herbicides). Conver-
sion of cropland may, however, result in
reductions in existing pollutant loads. On
the balance, given the larger amount of vacant
woodland and idle farmland in the southern
part of the valley, a net increase in the
overall pollutant loads to the local waterways
should be expected.
139
-------
The basic question that surrounds this reserve capacity
is the assumption that the whole Middle Valley will
eventually require sewering. Though several large sub-
divisions exist in this area, no evidence was advanced
during the EIS project to support the argument that on-
site disposal is unsuitable there. In fact, it has been
pointed out that good soils generally exist in this
area. It would appear that the primary basis for this
aspect of the overall plan was the common engineering
practice of planning for the eventual expansion of
sewers within a natural drainage area.
5.31 Impacts on Water Resources of Town Proposal
and Concept
5.311 Public Health
Nature of Impact
-- significant/minor
-- direct
positive
long term
Basis of Evaluation
The implementation of the Town's Proposal
would have the direct beneficial impact of
protecting water supply. Quantifying this
benefit is not possible, however, since the
present risk is unknown. It is known that the
vast majority of chronically failing and over-
flowing septic systems which constitute the
health threat occur in the areas to be served
by the present Town's Proposal for the Foxon
area.
Extending this evaluation of the Town's ulti-
mate concept for the Middle Valley, extension
of the sewer system, from Foxon does not
result in a proportionate gain in benefits.
There are far fewer homes with chronic prob-
lems in this area. The homes with problems
are farther away from the streams and the Lake
Saltonstall intake, thereby decreasing the
actual health threat of these areas.
140
-------
The Town's Concept to eventually extend sewer-
ing throughout the Middle Valley would also
have a negative impact on preserving the
"purity" of the surface water for future water
supply. On first glance, it would appear that
conversion of much of the open farmland to
residential use would result in significant
negative changes in water quality due to
"urban" types of non-point pollutants (solids,
road salt, metals, oils). However, much of
this land is in active farming and has itself
the potential for significant pollution. The
resolution of the question as to which form of
land use, residential or agricultural, is
preferable cannot be practically resolved (See
Section 5.42). On the balance, however, the
decentralization of land use control that
would accompany subdivision of the area, and
the loss of future management options that
entrenchment by residential land use would
create, leads to the conclusion that the over-
all impact of the Town's Concept for area-wide
sewers on future water supply would be nega-
tive.
5.32 Impacts on Natural Systems of Town Proposal
and Concept
5.321 Wetlands
minor/moderate
direct
negative
short/long term
Basis of Evaluation
The sewer routing for both areas is along the
natural drainage course to obtain the benefit
of gravity flow. In the area of the Town s
Proposal, the problem areas are located in
close proximity to Burrs Brook and the route
of the pipe is the most logical choice. Here
the narrow wetlands will be subject to disrup-
tion during construction both by the digging
of the pipe trench and by the movement of
construction equipment. The impacts would be
in the areas of disruption of vegetation.
Flood storage capabilities of these wetlands
should remain the same.
141
-------
In the area of the Town's Concept, the impacts
are seen as more significant. There the
present concept would locate the interceptor
close to the Farm River throughout its course
transversing wetlands along the route. Unlike
the Arthur Court area, the Farm River wetlands
are continuous and situated in undeveloped
land providing potential animal habitat.
5.322 Existing Habitat
Nature of Impact
minor/moderate
-- indirect
negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
The Town's Proposal will result in the fill-
ing-in of now undeveloped forest/brushland and
cropland by induced residential development.
These lands now provide habitat for birds and
small mammals of the area. The impact of the
Town's Concept is considerably more signifi-
cant because it assumes that most of the
Middle Valley will be developed as residences.
Providing sewer service to undeveloped land
can create speculative forces that can tip the
balance of normal market forces and make
growth predictions self-fulfilling (See Sec-
tion 4.3). Much of the land to be served by
the Town's Concept both in North Branford and
in East Haven is now in an undeveloped or an
agricultural state. The value of this land as
habitat would be lost if typical suburban
development proceeds in the area.
5.33 Impacts on Human Resources of Town Proposal
and Concept
5.331 Farmlands
Nature of Impact
minor/significant
indirect
negative
long term
142
-------
Basis of Evaluation
In the Foxon area of the Town's Proposal,
there are a number of large agricultural hold-
ings along Route 80 that might be expected to
readily convert to other uses. Many of these
parcels are not covered by the Use Value Land
Assessment Program of Connecticut, Act 490,
and may be land that is being held for specu-
lation. Of the two large parcels that are
under the program, only one is actual farmland
and this has recently been re-zoned for indus-
trial use. For these reasons, it is believed
that the Town's Proposal will act as the
catalyst which hastens the development of
these lands.
The Town's Concept poses a much more signifi-
cant threat to the loss of land in the Middle
Valley. As shown in the past on the General
Land Use Map (Figure 4-3), large acreages of
farmland can still be found. Additional
acreage of actual farmland also exist which is
not shown on this map (map includes only those
holdings under Act 490). In this area, the
prospect of sewers could seriously affect the
long term integrity of this unique physical,
economic, and cultural resource.
5.332 Planned Growth
Nature of Impact
-- minor/moderate
indirect
positive/negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
The Town's Proposal alone would have a ten-
dency to encourage concentration of anti-
cipated development on the southern part of
the Farm River. In addition, the provision of
sewer service could result in a move toward
more innovative housing types permitted under
present zoning. There is no assurance, how-
ever, that a positive step would be taken
under the Town's Proposal to implement this
type of planning objective.
143
-------
The Town's Concept, on the other hand, has the
potential for the perpetuation of sprawl type
development which has been characterized as
both inefficient and unattractive. The Town's
Concept of ultimately sewering most of the
Middle Valley is in fact in conflict with the
recent zoning revision which has its basis in
guiding development by the physical constraints
that may exist for on-site disposal.
5.333 Economic Growth
Nature of Impact
-- moderate/minor
indirect
positive/negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
Sewering of the Foxon area along Route 80
would encourage development of the remaining
industrially zoned land in the area. The
presence of sewers would serve as an induce-
ment for development particularly of the
industrial zone south of the Middle School
where soil limitations for on-site septic
systems are indicated. The degree to which
the development will materialize depends on
many factors, such as the marginal benefits
that a firm may derive from locating in North
Branford as opposed to another town. In
addition, the benefits to be derived by the
Town will vary depending on the type of busi-
ness .
The residential development that will be stim-
ulated by the construction of a sewer system
will have equally uncertain benefits. If
development proceeded strictly as the zoning
indicates, much would consist of one acre
residential. It is unlikely that this devel-
opment will result in economic benefit to the
community. The costs of Town services re-
quired by a young family typically exceeds the
tax revenue that the property generates. If,
however, the presence of the sewer system
results in the development of some alternative
housing, such as a PUD development, then po-
tential would exist for the economic benefits
to exceed the liability.
144
-------
Applying the same reasoning to the Town's
Concept does not lead to the same conclusions.
No industrial or commercial property would
benefit from the provision of sewering in the
Middle Valley. While it is possible that some
income-gene;rating development might be. en-
couraged, the bulk of the vacant land would be
developed as single family homes on large
lots. The market for industrial and commer-
cial development and alternative housing is
not unlimited. In addition, while the Middle
Valley area might offer more on the way of
amenities, it is more remote from the major
transportation routes.
5.334 Community Character
Nature of Impact
minor/significant
-- indirect
negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
The Town's Proposal would result in further
development in the Foxon area. To residents
of the area, this may be perceived as an
aesthetic loss on at least two levels. First,
those people whose land has abutted undevel-
oped land will lose the benefit that they have
enjoyed in terms of privacy and "openess .
Secondly, the- contrasts that are now enjoyed
along Route 80 where the development is inter-
spersed with vacant or agricultural land will
change with the inducement for filling-in
created by a new sewer system. The Town s
Concept would have a much greater effect in
this area. The openess of the landscape and
the farmlands that are found in the Middle
Valley contribute to the "small town or rural
image that many residents desire.
145
-------
5.4 Modified Foxon Proposal
In the previous analysis, the joint evaluation of the
Town Proposal and the Town Concept was necessary in
order to fully examine the implication of the Town's
general sewer plans. From the analysis of problem areas
(Appendix D), the cost-effective analysis (Appendix C),
and the preliminary analysis of alternatives (Section
3.0), it becomes apparent that a limited sewer system is
the only practical solution to the wastewater disposal
problem of the Foxon area at this time.
From one persepctive, this appears to be essentially
what the Town is currently proposing. Because, however,
EPA must evaluate both short term and long term envi-
ronmental impacts, the actual proposal for which the
Town had applied for Federal and State grants had to be
examined more closely. The issue of most concern was
the fact that the Town Proposal assumes the ultimate
sewering of most of the Farm River Valley. In addition,
the Town Proposal sought funding (and still are - in the
case of North Branford's application, they are still
eligible) for lateral 21 funding. During the course of
the EIS, this project was unable to find specific docu-
mentation of existing problems on some of these streets.
This finding does not preclude the Town from building
these local sewers itself, but it does raise the ques-
tion of their grant eligibility. On the other hand, the
EIS project recognized problems on Dorie Drive that the
Town's Proposal would not serve at this time.
In order to isolate some of the conflicting impacts of
the Town's Proposal and Concept and to provide a closer
look at the merits of a sewer system in the Foxon area,
the alternative of a Modified Foxon System will be
evaluated. This is, in effect, a fine tuning of the
general approach which, on the basis of solving waste-
water problems in a cost-effective manner, seems rea-
sonable.
The Modified Foxon System consists of the construction
of a gravity interceptor sewer along Burrs Brook to
serve the major problem area of Arthur Court and is
extended to the Middle School area to serve the schools
and Dorie Drive. The project would include local sewers
to pick up existing and potential problems on Brook Lane
146
-------
and Sunset Lane, respectively. It is also assumed that
the interceptor would be of sufficient size to ulti-
mately accept flows from existing development and
subsequent development in the immediate drainage area.
Those areas were identified in the Town's Proposal as
the B-l and B-2 areas. The concept that is being eval-
uated here on its environmental merits is deliberately
no more exact than the description that was just pre-
sented. The EIS study, with its requirements to cover a
broad range of issues, cannot develop specific design
factors, such as exact location, pipe size, and pipe
slope. In the analysis, on the first cut, the EIS
assumes that these elements of the Modified Foxon System
are essentially those that have been developed for the
Town's Proposal. The Modified Foxon System does not
provide, however, for design capacity for the Middle
Farm River Valley.
5.41 Impacts on Water Resources of Modified Foxon
Proposal
5.411 Public Health
Nature of Impact
significant
direct
positive
long term
Basis of Evaluation
The major areas of chronic septic system
failure which overflow to the Farm River will
be served by the sewer system. The concept
will also allow for future service in the
immediate vicinity where the age of housing
stock and physical site conditions suggest
future problems. These problem areas are also
those areas of development that are closest to
the Saltonstall Reservoir intake. The remain-
ing outlying problem areas which are remote
from the sewer service area would be best
served by rehabilitation of the on-site
system.
147
-------
5.412 Future Water Supply
Nature of Impact
moderate
indirect
negative
-- long term
Basis of Evaluation
The Modified Foxon System will significantly
reduce the immediate public health threat to
the Farm River water supply system. The
development that the sewer system will stim-
ulate has the long term potential of adding
unknown quantities of "non-point" pollutants.
The evaluation of significance of this impact
is based on a conservative stance since a
variety of other variables other than simple
land conversion will affect the quality and
use of future water supply. Included are the
highly variable pollutant loads of agricul-
tural land use, and future water treatment
requirements and technologies. If the devel-
opment takes place in some of the alternative
forms that will be possible with sewer ser-
vice, pollution levels could be reduced.
Cluster type development with reserved open
space can reduce the overall pollutant level
of non-point services by minimizing paved
surfaces.
5.42 Impacts on Natural Systems of Modified Foxon System
5.421 Wetlands
Nature of Impact
-- minor
-- direct
-- negative
short term
148
-------
Basis of Evaluation
The interceptor route of the Modified Foxon
System would follow that of the Town's Pro-
posal and would pass through wetland areas
along Burrs Brook. While provision has been
made for mitigation of most construction
impacts through written specifications for
construction, some impact such as disruption
of vegetation are unavoidable.
5.422 Existing Habitat
Nature of Impact
minor
-- indirect
negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
The development that is anticipated as part of
this alternative will convert lands from wood
land, brush land and agricultural uses. This
action will ultimately diminish the available
land for use as animal habitat.
5.43 Impacts on Human Resources of Modified Foxon System
5.431 Farming
Nature of Impact
-- minor
indirect
negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
This alternative will encourage the conversion
of some land in agricultural use to residen-
tial or industrial uses. While much of this
land is not under the protection of the use
value program, indicating that they may be
converted in any case, this sewering alter-
native will accelerate the process.
149
-------
5.432 Planned Development
Nature of Impact
-- moderate
indirect
positive
long term
Basis of Evaluation
While there are no guarantees that the Town
will consciously seek to maximize this oppor-
tunity, the limited sewer system would provide
an opportunity to concentrate development that
might otherwise take the form of sprawl in the
Middle Valley. In addition, a variety of
housing types could be developed based on the
availability of sewer service. If this type
of development were made attractive and
residential growth were successfully concen-
trated in the area, pressure for development
of the farmland in the Middle Valley could be
reduced. A stronger agricultural preservation
program would have to be instituted, however,
to insure that the goals of diversified devel-
opment could be met.
5.433 Economic Growth
Nature of Impact
-- moderate
indirect
positive
-- long term
Basis of Evaluation
This alternative would assist in the further
development of the vacant industrial and
commercial land by removing the difficulties
and limitations of on-site disposal from the
development process.
150
-------
5.434 Community Character
Nature of Impact
moderate
indirect
-- positive
long term
Basis of Evaluation
The sewer system would eliminate the nuisance
problem of septic system overflow that was
noted earlier. This alternative also has the
potential benefit of retaining the popular
image of a "rural community" through the
implementation of the planning objectives
noted earlier. By attracting new development
to the Foxon area and taking development
pressure off of the agricultural land, the
community has the potential of serving several
of its goals. The ability of the limited
sewer system in the Foxon area to concentrate
development in a planned fashion would help
the community to accommodate residential
growth, stimulate limited industrial develop-
ment, and retain some of its rural charm.
5.5 Green Acres Rehabilitation
The residential development in the Green Acres area is
basically large lot development. Despite the reputation
that the area has for wide-spread septic problems, there
are no inherent site limitations that would rule out the
technical feasibility of rehabilitating the septic
systems. While the area's problems are reputedly due to
topsoil removal, and high groundwater is in evidence,
lots are large enough to permit reconstruction of
leaching fields. The basic issues surrounding this
alternative are:
Additional site specific information
would be required to accurately
estimate costs.
Total costs would have to be compared
with other options.
151
-------
Individual costs would depend upon
the availability of funding.
An application for this project
would hctve to be sponsored by the
Town which would assume a management
role.
The environmental evaluation of the concept follows.
5.51 Impacts on Water Resources of Green Acres On-Site
5.511 Public Health
Nature of Impact
-- moderate
-- direct
-- positive
intermediate duration (?)
Basis of Evaluation
A deliberate commitment to sponsor area-wide
rehabilitation of chronically failing septic
systems would eliminate a general public
health hazard of contact with contaminated
surface v.'ater. A commitment of the homeowner,
the Town, and the health agency would be
required to make it successful.
5.512 Future Water Supply
Nature of Impact
none
Basis of Evaluation
The Muddy River to which the area drains is
not, nor is it likely to be, a source of water
supply.
5-52 Impacts on Human Resources of Green Acres On-Site
5.521 Farmlands
Nature of Impact
none
152
-------
5.522 Planned Developmervt
Nature of Impact
none
5.523 Economic Growth
Nature of Impg.ct
-- none
5.524 Community Character
Nature of Impact
-- minor
indirect
-- positive
intermediate duration (?)
Basis of Evaluation
The elimination of chronic septic systen:
problems would reduce the negative perceptions
that these problems have created for the area.
5.6 Green Acres Area Sewer System
Because of the proximity of an interceptor sewer in
nearby North Haven, the alternative of the conventional
sever was initially evaluated but found to be expensive
in terms of individual costs. For this reason, a modi-
fication to the convent.icnal sewer system was also
evaluated. The major cost element in the conventional
sewer is the price of digging deep trenches for gravity
sewers. Because the flow is by gravity, the system
requires a minimum constant slope to maintain satis-
factory flow and must be buried deep to avoid freezing.
By comparison, if a small diameter pressure sewer system
is used, inexpensive trenching methods can be used to
install the pipe and the flow is relatively independent
of grade. In the case of Green Acres, the flow could be
conveyed along existing roadways to the approved inter-
ceptor on Clintonville Road.
The basic sewer concept is evaluated here in terms of
environmental consequences. When differences between
the two approaches are significant, they are noted.
153
-------
5.61 Impacts on Water Resources of Green Acres Sev.-ers
5.611 Public Health
Nature of Impact
moderate
-- direct
positive
-- long term
Basis of Evaluation
The sewer system will eliminate malfunctioning
septic system problems which cire located in
close proximity to surface drainage with which
children could easily come in contact.
5.612 Futire Water Supply
Nature of Impact
none
5.62 Impacts on Natural Systems of Green Acres Sewers
5.621 Wetlands
Nature of Impact
-- minor
-- direct
-- negative
short term
Basis of Evaluation
Both systems would traverse about 500 feet of
wetlands designated on the Inland Wetlands Map
in order to intercept flows from Surrey Drive.
From the developed area on Palanga and Nida
Drives, the sewers would cross the vacant land
to the southeast enroute to Village Street and
then to Surrey Drive. Some of this vacant
land is classified as wetlands according to
soils mapping.
154
-------
5.622 Existing Habitat
Nature of Impact
minor
-- direct
-- negative
short term
Basis of Evaluation
The interceptor to the North Haven Townline,
paralleling Nida Drive, would traverse about
1,000 feet of woodlands and fields. While
both long and short term impacts can be
mitigated through design specifications, the
initial disruption of vegetation and wildlife
is unavoidable.
5.63 Impacts on Human Resources of Green Acres Sewers
5.631 Farmland
Nature of Impact
-- none
5.632 Planned Development
Nature of Impact
minor
-- direct
-- positive
long term
Basis of Evaluation
The sewer system would permit the completion
of the subdivision thus adding stability to
the neighborhood.
5.633 Economic Growth
Nature of Impact
none
155
-------
5.634 Community Character
Nature of Impact
-- minor
-- indirect
-- positive
-- long term
Basis of Evaluation
The "stigma" of widespread wastewater disposal
problems would be eliminated.
5.7 White Hollow Area On-Site
Chronic problems have been identified in the area of Sky
Lark Lane and Walnut Lane. These areas have been
referred to here as the White Hollow Area. In the pre-
liminary analysis, two alternatives that were identified
as worthy of further study were on-site rehabilitation
and the: community sewer. Most of the problem sites in
this area ha^ve adequate lot size to accommodate a proper
septic system. In these areas the cause of the problem
appears to be slope related. In some instances, the
water table has been intercepted by the cutting of the
hillside to level the house lot. In other cases, septic
system breakout is in evidence on the slope where
inadequate terracing may be the root cause. While more
site work on a house-to-house basis will be necessary to
implement an area-wide rehabilitation program, the envi-
ronmental consequences can be evaluated here.
5.71 Impacts on Water Resources of White Hollow On-Site
Alternative
5.711 Public Health
Nature of Impact
-- significant
-- direct
-- positive
-- intermediate duration (?)
156
-------
Basis of Evaluation
The numerous reported failures which are
located within this portion of the Farm River
watershed would be eliminated. This problem
area is located just upstream of the Northford
diversion to Lake Gaillard. The intermediate
duration is assigned due to the dependence of
this alternative upon long term management by
the Town and numerous individuals.
5.712 Future Water Supply
Nature of Impact
none
5.72 Impacts on Natural Systems of White Hollow On-Site
5.721 Wetlands
Nature of Impact
-- none
5.722 Existing Habitat
Nature of Impact
none
5.73 Impacts on Human Resources of White Hollow On-Site
5.731 Farmland
Nature of Impact
none
5.732 Planned Development
Nature of Impact
-- none
5.733 Economic Growth
Nature of Impact
-- none
157
-------
5.734 Community Character
Nature of Impact
minor
-- indirect
-- positive
-- intermediate duration
Basis of Evaluation
The input that we received regarding the
magnitude of the impact of current failures on
this area indicated that the aesthetic problem
is not as severe as elsewhere in Town. Never-
theless, the area suffers to some degree with
the "reputation" of having problems.
5.8 White Hollow Area Community Sewer System
The occurrence of septic system problems in the vicinity
of Sky La.rk Lane and the; Walnut Lane area are widespread
enough to justify an c.rea-wide solution through sewer-
ing. Because of the; distance to an existing sewer
system and the environmental consequences of construct-
ing a long interceptor, a variation of the conventional
sewer system offers some potential for solving the
area's problems. As conceived, this system would
consist of a small diameter gravity pipe system from the
septic tanks of homes in the area to either one or two
leaching fields on undeveloped land along Durham Road.
More information regarding the technical feasibility of
the alternative would have to be developed as part of
additional Step I Fc.cility Planning.
5.81 Impact on Water Resources of Community Sewers
5.811 Public Health
Nature of Impact
significant
-- direct
positive
-- long term
Basis of Evaluation
This system would eliminate large numbers of
known and potential malfunctioning septic
systems.
158
-------
5.812 Future Water Supply
Nature of Impact
-- minor
direct
negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
The concentration of the area's v/astewater
flow in a single leaching field in close
proximity to the Northford intake would have
the potential of marginally increasing the
chemical content of water entering the Lake
Gaillard system. The only difference between
the present situation and that which is
proposed is the reduction of the distance
between existing discharge points (individual
leachfields), and the Northford intake, and
the proposed discha.rge point (community leach-
field) . Under present conditions, the dis-
tance that water must travel through various
soil and vegetative regimes has some unknown
potential for additional wastev-ater renova-
tion.
5. 82 Impacts on Natural Systems of Commur. ity Sewer
5.821 Wetland
Nature of Impact
minor
direct
-- negative
-- short term
Basis of Evaluation
The: eventual routing of the interceptor to the
leachfield would probably cress through small
stretches of wetland along the upper Farir
River. It would be possible to develop alter-
native routing in this area because of the
development patterns, slope, and proposed
leachfield locations which would minimize any
wetland impacts.
159
-------
5.822 Existing Habitat
Nature of Impact
minor
direct
-- negative
-- long term
EasJ s of Evaluation
The routing of the interceptor from the Walnut
Lane area would be likely to go through unde-
veloped lands for a short distance resulting
in a disruption of natural vegetation.
5.83 Impacts on Human Resources of Community Sewer
5.831 Farmland
Nature of Impact
minor
- direct
negative
long term
Basis of Evaluation
One of two potential leachfield .sites is
active farmland.
5.832 Planned Development
Nature of Impact
none;
Economic Growth
Nature of Impact
none
160
-------
5.834 Community Character
Nature of Impact
minor
-- indirect
-- positive
long term
Basis of Evaluation
This system would improve the overall image or
popular perception of the area by elimination
of malfunctioning septic systems.
5.9 Conclusions
The environmental impacts that were analyzed in the
preceding sections are summarized in Figure 5-1 and
Figure 5-2. When the scope of the wasterwater problem
is considered along with these impacts and costs, the
options that are available are limited. The basic need
is to solve existing problems by a solution which is
environmentally sound and implementable. The first of
these criteria depends upon the ultimate significance of
the total impact while the latter involves a mixture of
factors including total costs, grant priority, indivi-
dual economic burden and general public acceptability.
The final alternatives and any modifications that are
necessary to mitigate the unavoidable environmental
impacts are presented in the sections that follow.
5.91 Foxon Area
In this part of Town, chronic wastewater disposal
problems necessitate the construction of a sewer
system. The modified Foxon proposal responds to
the demonstrated need in the area while minimizing
environmental impacts. The project is also imple-
mentable in terms of financing. Some of the costs
of this proposal are shown in Table 5-2.
161
-------
north branford eis
environmental impact profile
figure 5-1
category
of
impact
Public Health
Future Water Quality
Wetlands
Existing Habitat
Farmlands
Planned Development
Economic Growth
Community Character
adverse impact
X- beneficial impact
O no impact
alternatives-type and intensity of innpact
NO TOWN TOWN MOD'FD.
ACTION PROPOSAL CONCEPT PROPOSAL
w
s
o
25
05
O
2
H
S
w
EH
3
W
Q
O
S
EH
2
U
H
H
g
O
H
CO
W
Ł3
O
p.
O
H
a
w
EH
Ł
W
Q
O
S
EH
CJ
H
H
S
H
CO
w
2
o
05
O
3
H
a
w
EH
P§
W
Q
O
a
u
H
PH
H
2
O
M
co
w
^
o
2
05
O
2
H
a
w
EH
Ł
W
Q
O
a
EH
2
CJ
M
Cn
H
2
O
M
CO
Jf-
Jf
-------
north branford eis
environmental impact profile
figure 5-2
category
of
impact
PUBLIC HEALTH
FUTURE WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS
EXISTING HABITAT
FARMLANDS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC GROWTH
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
adverse impact
5f beneficial impact
O no impact
alter natives-type and intensity of impact
GREEN ACRES AREA WHITE HOLLOW AREA
On-Site Local Sewer On-Site Local Sewer
CT")
O
*
&
O
2
H
a
w
EH
K
W
Q
O
a
EH
O
H
H
O
H
co
w
jŁI
O
*
&
O
2
H
a
w
EH
3
w
Q
O
a
EH
u
H
Cn
H
^
O
H
co
O
O
O
O
O
O
*
*
O
O
O
*
#
*
1
w
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
MINOR
*
MODERATE
SIGNIFICANT
Jf
w
J2
O
2
Ť
O
2
H
a
H
EH
ff
K
w
Q
0
a
EH
2
3
H
fa
H
Ł2
CD
H
CO
O
O
-------
TABLE 5-2
COSTS OF MODIFIED FOXON PROPOSAL
Total Cost $1,252,160.00
Federal and State Grants 866,880.00
Local Share 385,280.00
Tax Increase (Mills) .26
First Year User 734.00
Each Year Thereafter 134.00
Source: Anderson-Nichols & Company, Inc., 1979
The overall impacts are listed in Table 5-1. The
negative impacts that are associated with this
project include direct impacts in the area of wet-
lands and indirect impacts in the areas of future
water supply and existing habitat.
The direct impacts in the wetland category are due
to the construction of the Foxon interceptor
(Figure 5-3) within the wetlands designated on the
Town's map, Figure 4-1, and also within the flood
plain area (Figure 4-2) in places along its route.
Wetland activities such as funded sewer construc-
tion may be monitored at a number of levels. In
the case of the Foxon interceptor, application for
the Corps of Engineers-administered 404 permit
process will not be required due to the small
nature of the brook. The available flow date of
Burrs Brook indicates that the average annual flow
would be below the 5 cfs minimum criteria for the
program applicability. The impacts must, however,
be considered under EPA's regulations pertaining to
Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. At the local
level, permits have been obtained from the Inland
Wetlands Commission.
164
-------
VIRGINIA RD-
PINEVIEW-
DR
PINE PL'
legend
mmmm
interceptor route
wetland soils
LL j
LJ
foxon interceptor fi9ufe 5'3
north branford uja/teuuater treatment facilitie/
0 1600 3200
entol impoct ^Ťnr enviroomentol protection ogency
onder/on-nkhol/ & co., inc
-------
Because of the configuration of the existing
developments, the gravity system along Burrs Brook
is the most logical route. Because the 157 homes
involved straddle the brook, the route that would
require the least excavation is one which is built
along the natural drainage. All other routes would
require pumping. Because this gravity route
traverses undeveloped land, some of which is
wetland and flood plain, some direct and indirect
environmental impacts have been identified.
Because of the absence, of any structure (pump
station, treatment plant) within the flood plain,
and the requirement for cast iron pipe and sealed
manholes through the length of the brook, the
direct flood relocated impacts of the proposed
project are insignificant. Because the flood plain
is quite narrow, less than 200 feet in total width
along the whole brook, and 50 feet on either side
fall within the restricted streambelt zone, few
secondary development impacts are expected within
the area where the stream traverses undeveloped
land.
In the first segment of the interceptor from the
East Haven townline to Totoket Road, no significant
wetland impacts are anticipated. About half of
this segment would be along Williams and James
Roads. The remaining portion would be parallel to
the brook at a distance of about 25' in a straight
line through an area of gravel removal. This
stretch would fall within the floodplain, but move-
ment to higher ground tc the south would require
very deep trenches and would dissect a potential
developable parcel.
In the second segment from Totoket Road to Brook
Lane, the interceptor crosses through backyards on
the north side of the brook, sometimes through
treed areas and sometimes through fields or lawns.
Much of this segment is technically wetlands on the
basis of soil type. Much of it also falls within
the 100 year floodplain.
In the third segment from Brook Lane to Arthur Road
the interceptor is located on the north side of the
brook crossing several backyards and a large area
of cultivated field. At points the route traverses
several stands of trees. Although much of this
land :.s classified as wetland and some floodplain,
most of it is cultivated land.
166
-------
Throughout the length of the wetland areas that are
traversed, the major value of the wetland is as
floodplain. No significant natural vegetation or
animal habitat will be directly affected. (The
area has also been judged to be void of archaeo-
logical resources.) In addition, no significant
long term direct physical effect on water supply
systems is expected. The main objective of any
mitigative measures should be the preservation of
the hydrologic regime of Burrs Brook.
In the area of indirect negative impacts on future
water supply, the actual magnitude is indetermi-
nate. While it is generally held that intensive
development will degrade long term water quality,
the present reservoir diversion system has shown
resiliency in the face of current development and
known wastewater disposal problems. The project
was assigned a moderate impact rating because it
does encourage limited development in a small
portion of the watershed. The magnitude of this
potential area of impact can be minimized through
the continued monitoring of all land uses within
the watershed both for point and non-point pollu-
tants.
In the area of indirect impacts on existing habi-
tat, the basis of the impact was the limited
conversion of farmland and undeveloped land along
Route 80 which presently provides habitat for
common small animals.
5.911 Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided
Certain impacts on the environment are inevi-
tably associated with the construction of this
project. Temporary traffic detours and
delays, noise, and dust generation are likely,
but only short term, phenomena that will be
experienced in the local neighborhoods when
the street sewers are constructed. Where the
sewers are built off streets, through some
yards, a temporary disruption will also occur.
In the intervening open spaces, some potential
for short and long term impacts on the wet-
lands remains. Most of these impacts can be
minimized or eliminated by the mitigative
measures described in the next section.
167
-------
5.912 Mitigative Measures
The direct wetland impacts consist of short
term construction impacts and potential long
term impacts due to environmental design con-
siderations.
Most construction impacts have been addressed
in the general specifications of the Town's
design for the Foxon interceptor. Erosion and
related water quality impacts are covered by
general State standards for construction which
require steps to avoid sedimentation and
restore vegetation. Actual monitoring of
construction activity will be necessary to
insure that the general guidelines are follow-
ed out. Also, the unnecessary cutting of
trees along the stream bank should be avoided.
Many long term potential impacts have already
been addressed in the existing interceptor
design. Cast iron construction throughout
will minimize long term risk of accidental
contamination of water quality. Concrete
encasement of the pipe and lateral sewers at
stream crossings will further minimize ex-
filtration risks. To further reduce the long
term impacts in the wetlands area, steps
should be taken to preserve the existing
hydrologic regime. Original grades should be
maintained so as not to interfere with natural
drainage patterns. In addition, due to the
porous nature of the gravel trench bed, which
could potentially intercept the brook's base
flow, provision should be made to include
impermeable clay barriers at points along the
interceptor trench.
5.92 Green Acres Area
The final determination of the choice of a project
for this problem area will be made on the basis of
cost and feasibility. Because of the limited size
of this sub-division, and the surrounding drainage
area, no significant environmental impacts were
identified (Figure 5-1). Minor negative impacts
were assigned in the areas of wetlands and existing
habitat for the construction of both the Conven-
tional Sewer System and the Pressure Sewer System
when they cross open land.
168
-------
The major concern in this problem area is cost,
both total and individual. EPA must first de-
monstrate that they have selected the most cost
effective solution before they can fund the pro-
ject. Because on-site rehabilitation could not be
ruled-out as infeasible due to large lot size, it
cannot be demonstrated that either sewer system is
cost effective. This is due basically to the large
differences in cost between on-site or either sewer
system (Appendix C).
The individual cost estimates were also unusually
high. It should be remembered that lateral fund-
ing, which has made present sewering relatively
inexpensive, is not available at this time. In
addition, the larger local cost would be shared by
fewer people in this area due to large lot size.
In an effort to determine the effect on individual
costs of differing sewer system configurations, the
analysis was performed for the Green Acres area
both with and without the inclusion of Surrey
Drive. The costs are shown in Table 5-3.
TABLE 5-3
COST ESTIMATES FOR GREEN ACRES SEWERS
Total Project First Year Every Year Tax
Cost user User Increase
Green Acres and Surrey
Conventional Sewer $641,875.00 $832.00 $232.00 0.30
Green Acres Conventional
Sewer 430,000.00 907.00 307.00 0.59
Green Acres and Surrey _Q
Pressure Sewer 390,780.00 753.00 153.00 O.Ob
Green Acres Pressure ^ A nn n.
Sewer 283,205.00 754.00 154.00 0.06
Source: Anderson-Nichols & Company, Inc., 1979
169
-------
In Green Acres, it is recommended that the Town
re-examine the feasibility of on-site rehabilita-
tion in light of the high cost of sewering. In
today's atmosphere, such an approach may well
receive funding that was not generally available
in the past.
5.921 Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided
Both sewer systems would have the potential
for impacts on wetlands. In the case of the
conventional sewer system, these impacts
would be in wetlands with some habitat poten-
tial along Eight Mile Brook. In the case of
the pressure sewer, most sewers would be
along streets with the exception of a length
which traverses the undeveloped portion on
the eastern edge of Green Acres along Valley
Road. This area is basically barren as the
result of gravel removal, but is technically
a wetland.
5.922 Mitigating Measures
In the case of the conventional sewer system,
measures similar to these in the Foxon area
should be taken to insure the short and long
term integrity of the wetlands through design
specifications.
5-93 White Hollow Area
Two alternatives were examined which might provide
an answer for this area's wastewater problems.
Both the on-site rehabilitation and community
sewer system were thought to be feasible after a
preliminary analysis. On-site rehabilitation
would be the least expensive if further engi-
neering studies were able to develop the site
specific information that would be needed to
support a Town sponsored application for Federal
and State grants.
The community sewer system was examined to the
extent that suitable areas for a leachfield were
found in down gradient locations to receive
gravity flow of the effluent of individual septic
systems in the area. Costs for a small diameter
gravity sewer were developed and are shown in
Table 5-4.
170
-------
TABLE 5-4
COST ESTIMATES FOR WHITE HOLLOW COMMUNITY SEWER
First Year Every Year Tax
Total Cost User User Increase
$1,563,600.00 $913.00 $313.00 .68
Source: Anderson-Nichols & Company, Inc., 1979
The on-site rehabilitation approach would have no
negative impacts. The community sewer system would
appear to have several negative, though not signi-
ficant, impacts. It would seem that design of a
gravity system would necessitate stream and wetland
crossings which would have potential impacts. In
addition, in depth hydro-geologic investigations
would be necessary to determine the actual feasi-
bility of the leachfield sites. Because of the
unknown fate of the leachfield effluent in close
proximity to the Northford diversion, this alter-
native was assigned a negative impact.
5.931 Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided
The wetland impacts that have been cited
earlier could occur. Some temporary disrup-
tion of existing habitat would be likely in
the wetland areas adjacent to the Farm River.
In the absence of any detailed knowledge of
the potential leachfield sites, it would
appear likely that some small increase in
nitrates in the ground and surface water would
occur. A detailed hydro-geologic investiga-
tion would be necessary to determine actual
concentrations.
5.932 Mitigating Measures
The wetland impacts could be minimized by
incorporating protective measures into the
engineering design and specifications when
this detailed work is done.
171
-------
It might also be necessary to monitor ground
and surface water in the vicinity of the
leachfield in order to determine the actual
fate of nutrients in the soil.
5.94 Areawide
In the areas of North Branford for which no speci-
fic approach to wastewater management is suggested,
some general guidelines apply. In limited problem
areas such as the Miller/Grant Road neighborhood,
an evaluation of on-site rehabilitation should be
pursued as part of a Step I Facility Plan. Such an
area might be included in the concept of an offi-
cial Town on-site management program. In the
absence of any Town sponsored plan, residents would
have to rehabilitate their septic systems as prob-
lems arose.
For all parts of Town which remain with on-site
treatment, a positive management strategy should
include septage handling as a factor. Presently,
private haulers dispose of pumped septage at
existing wastewater treatment facilities at Bran-
ford or North Haven. Since many areas of Town will
remain on spetic system use for the forseeable
future, the regular pumping of septic systems
should be maintained through periodic reminders to
residents. In addition, the activities of pumpers
should be monitored to insure that the waste that
is pumped is properly disposed of. The details
of a septage management plan should be worked out
as part of the anticipated additional 201 engineer-
ing plan for the remaining problem areas at North
Branford. The outcome of that work would specify
the future course of action to be taken in large
areas of the community and would commit the Town
to a final area wide plan.
172
-------
SECTION 6
LIST OF PREPARERS
This chapter provides information on the
professional qualifications of those
responsible for the preparation of this
EIS
-------
6.1 Responsible Agency and Technical Consultants
Region I of EPA was responsible for preparing this Draft
EIS.
Technical assistance to EPA was provided under a con-
tract with Anderson-Nichols of Boston. Anderson-Nichols
is a multi-disciplined firm of planners, environmental
specialists, engineers and architects.
Anderson-Nichols utilized the services of one sub-
contractor. Dr. Charlotte Thomson of Newbury, Massa-
chusetts conducted the archaeologic investigations for
the proposed Foxon interceptor.
6.2 Region I - EPA Staff
6.21 Project Officer
Mr. Robert Mendoza had overall responsibility for
the preparation of this DEIS. He is a professional
planner with an MRP degree from Pratt Institute.
Mr. Mendoza supervises the preparation of all
wastewater EIS's in Region I.
6.22 Project Manager
Mr. Kenneth Wood is an experienced environmentalist
with a number of years in the environmental and
horticultural field. Prior to joining EPA, he was
with the Massachusetts Division of Water Resources
and was Executive Director of the Charles River
Watershed Association. Mr. Wood was in charge of
the day to day coordination and supervision of all
technical work.
6.23 Municipal Facilities Branch Staff
Mr. Chester Janowski is a professional engineer
responsible for coordinating various wastewater
projects in Connecticut being funded by EPA. He
holds a BS degree in Civil Engineering from Lowell
Technological Institute.
6.24 Water Quality Branch Staff
Mr. William Nuzzo coordinated the water quality
review on this EIS. He holds a BS degree in Civil
Engineering from Clarkson.
175
-------
6.3 Anderson-Nichols
6.31 Project Manager
Walter Murphy was Project Manager for the North
Branford coordinating activities within Anderson-
Nichols and with EPA. He has an MS degree in
physical geography and is at candidate stage in the
Ph.D program at Clark University in Environmental
Management.
6.32 Project Coordinator
Burk Ketcham, Director of the firm's Planning
Division, was responsible for overseeing the pro-
ject and for reviewing the EIS. Mr. Ketcham is a
professional planner with a Masters Degree from
Columbia University.
6.33 Project Engineer
Joe Zeneski is a professional engineer specializing
in wastewater projects. He was responsible for
major items of an engineering nature including the
needs survey, the development of alternatives and
the cost effective analysis. He holds a Masters
Degree in Environmental Engineering from the
University of Rhode Island.
6.34 Environmental Planner
Janet Burns assisted the Project Manager in devel-
oping the environmental inventory and in conducting
the public participation program. She has an MS
degree from the Harvard School of Design.
6.4 Sub-Contractors to Anderson-Nichols
6.41 Dr. Charlotte Thomson
Dr. Thomson is an experienced archaeologist with
advanced degrees from Harvard University. She has
carried out numerous archaeologic investigations on
wastewater projects.
6.42 Environmental Analysis Laboratory
The design of the water quality sampling program,
sampling, and analysis were conducted by EAL, an
accredited laboratory using EPA methods.
176
-------
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This section of the report summarizes
the efforts of the EIS team to involve
the local North Branford community in
the decision making process.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
A.I
AŤ")
. 2
A*}
. 3
A A
. 4
A. 5
XHIBIT A-l
XHIBIT A-2
XHIBIT A-3
North Branford Septic System
Newsletter #1
Newsletter #2
Newsletter #3
A-l
A-l
A-2
A-15
A-3
A-7
A-ll
EXHIBIT A-4
North Branford Citizen's
Questionnaire
A-16
-------
A.I Public Participation Program
In order to insure that the EIS process validly reflec-
ted the needs and desires of the local community, an
effort was made throughout the project to involve the
public. At the start of the project, an introductory
meeting was held for all Town Boards and Officials to
describe the objectives and various work elements of the
project. Subsequent meetings were held with the Sewer
Authority/Town Council and with the Planning Board.
The general public and interested citizens were kept
informed and involved in the process through news
releases, mailed newsletters, and a series of workshops.
Input on local experience also was acquired by means of
a questionnaire. These elements of the project were
briefly described in Section 1.0 and are described in
greater detail in the sections that follow.
A. 2 Newsletters
Three newsletters were mailed to 3,700 households in
North Branford during the course of the study. Basi-
cally, the newsletters served three purposes:
-- keep citizens informed of project
status
-- report interim findings
-- announce workshops
Copies of the newsletters are included on the pages that
follow.
A. 3 Newspapers
The New Haven Register was monitored for the period of
the EIS in order to keep informed on local events.
Items of particular interest included the local refer-
endum that was held to decide the course of action the
Town will take with respect to local funding of sewers
in the EPA approved C-l area. Preceding the referendum,
the paper became the forum for a public debate on the
merits of the program and on the growth issue.
A-l
-------
Public participation in the EIS process was aided by
newspaper coverage based on EPA news releases prior to
each workshop. Also, the paper served as an additional
means of informing the public of upcoming meetings
through the use of advertisements.
A.4 Workshops
Three workshops were held in North Branford at evenly
spaced intervals in the course of the project. These
meetings were intended as informal sessions at which the
public could be informed of the project status and
findings and provided with the opportunity of direct
input into the project.
The workshops were structured as follows:
-- Hand out material specifically
prepared for the North Branford
project was distributed at meetings.
-- A short presentation was given at
the start of each workshop accom-
panied by the use of visual aids.
-- Workshop sessions were conducted in
small discussion groups who chose
leaders to deliver the oral presen-
tation of their conclusions at the
end of the meeting. When problem
areas were identified, they served
as the basis for forming neighbor-
hood groups which could provide
greater insight into neighborhood
problems.
A brief questionnaire was distributed
and collected from all groups or
individuals if they chose to do so.
The workshops were focused on several main points.
These were:
the tentative identification of
problem areas
verification of the EIS problem
areas
discussion of available alternatives
A-2
-------
EXHIBIT A-l
(0
(D
n. branf ord
i
D:
A-3
-------
EXHIBIT A-l
questions about environmental impact statements
WHAT IS IT?
The Environmental Impact Statement, EIS, is a report which
will be prepared as part of an environmental analysis of
North Branford's wastewater disposal and water quality
prob1 ems.
The analysis includes a determination of the types and extent
of wastewater problems, an evaluation of alternative sewer and
non-sewer solutions to those problems and the selection of
recommended projects.
The information that will be used in the ana 1ysis wi11 be the
combination of previous work of local and state agencies, cur-
rent public participation in the EIS process, and supplemen-
tary field data collected by the EIS project team.
WHY IS IT BEING PREPARED?
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, must review
proposed local wastewater management projects where there is
the potential for significant environmental impact on natural
and cultural resources in a town or region.
EPA was petitioned by North Branford's residents and agencies,
as well as State agencies, to review the proposed local project
WHO WILL PREPARE IT?
EPA, Region 1, Boston, has engaged Anderson-Nichols 6 Co., Inc.
150 Causeway Street, Boston, to assist in the preparation of
the EIS.
The project team will consist of planners, hydrologists, sani-
tary engineers, and other specialists.
Local residents, through workshops, questionnaires, corres-
pondence, and a public hearing will play an important part
in shaping the form and content of the Final EIS.
WHEN WILL IT BE PREPARED?
The EIS process was begun about 1 December 1977 and is ex-
pected to take about one year before the Final EIS is pub-
1ished.
Local meetings and press releases will keep residents inform-
ed at regular intervals.
A Draft EIS will be published in the spring.
A review period with local meetings and a public hearing will
be held before the Final EIS is published in the fall.
A-4
-------
EXHIBIT A-l
scope of study
The original sewer project devel-
oped by the Town of North Branford
and its engineering consultants,
was designed to eventually serve
almost the whole Town. Areas A, B,
and C, as shown in the figure, would
have been sewered in three*phases .
EPA has approved grants for the con-
struction of the initial sewering
in Areas A and C on1y (shaded areas)
The EIS will evaluate the existing
and potential water quality and
wastewater disposal problems in the
portions of Areas A, B, and C that
have yet to be approved for funding.
The purpose of the EIS will be to
bring together all available infor-
mation, to permit a reevaluation of
the nature and extent of the water
quality and wastewater disposal pro-
blems in North Branford and identify
the alternative feasible solutions.
The benefits and limitations, includ-
ing short- and long-term costs will
be i dent i fi ed .
L-
\ i
Original
Service Areas
environmental ieeuee
EPA's review of the original pro-
ject identified some of the areas
which the EIS will address. One
important issue is the water qual-
ity of the Farm River which is
used for water supply by the New
Haven Water Company. Much of the
eventual sewering that was propos-
ed for Areas B and C would fall
within the Farm River Basin. The
effect of development that might
accompany the sewering on water
quality, land use, and natural
systems will be evaluated. Other
areas of impacts that have been
identified for study include the
relationship of sewering and Town
planning and the general rural
character of the community. As
the study progresses, additional
issues may develop.
Drainage
A-5
-------
EXHIBIT A-l
workshop
Jfts part of the ge
shown at the righ
shops will be con
B ranford. The pu
shop will be to i
peopIe to the EIS
tain local input
quality and waste
within North Bran
eral public and I
are encouraged to
neral EIS process
t, several Work-
ducted in North
rpose of this Work-
ntroduce the towns-
proces s and to ob-
concerning water
disposal problems
ford. Both the gen
ocal spokespeople
participate.
The format of the first W-rkshop
will be semi -structured with ran-
domly selected groups of about six
people working at individual tables
in an effort to develop a consensus
as to the nature and extent of pro-
blems in the area. During a short
informal session of round-table dis-
cussions, maps will be available to
assist the groups in identifying
areas (not specific isolated houses)
where problems are known to exist.
Through the development of several
key questions, brief oral group re-
ports are used to relay the findings
of the individual tables to the group
as a whole. After the group reports,
a general discussion is encouraged.
As a result
to obtain f i
the types of
are likely t
may be most
sense of the
i ty. The in
who 1e issue
was te d 5 spos
possible sol
t i on that we
of this effprt, EPA hopes
rsthand information on
problems that occur or
o occur, solutions that
appropriate and a general
concerns of the commun-
tent is to explore the
of local water quality/
al problems and their
ution. The more informa-
are able to obtain from
the people familiar with local pro-
blems, the better our recommendations
for wastewater management will be.
THE FIRST WORKSHOP IS SCHEDULED TO BE
HELD AT THE TOWN HALL ON ROUTE 80 ON
MONDAY, 16 JANUARY 1978 AT 7:30 P.M.
general process
review
project:
history
review town
beekground
deta
Informal
Intervlavn
problem
definition
review
technical
information
water
quelity
survey
data
analyala
needs
eurvay
workshop
enelyele
alternative*
workshop 3
environmental ]
Impact of
alter net ives
draft
ela
public
review
public
hearing
A-6
final
ala
-------
EXHIBIT A-2
n. branf ord
i_.ť
0!
A-7
-------
WHAT'6
EXHIBIT A-2
\
WORKSHOP NO. 1 RESULTS
In January about 25 residents participated in the first of three
workshops! The basic purpose of this meeting was to give local
people the opportunity to input their own experiences into the
^SPprocess?PPThe participants were specifically asked to discuss
among themselves where they felt there were septic system problems.
Later in their reports to the group, a number of areas were con-
sistently mentioned. These areas included Green Acres, White
Hollow and Arthur Road. Some groups offered their views as to
how the problems might be solved. One group argued for the con-
struction of sewers while the other felt that a scaled-down
solution would be more appropriate. The results of the workshop
were incorporated into the design of the subsequent field work.
Now that the project has moved further toward defining the scope
of local wastewater disposal problems, it is hoped that more
citizens will participate in the upcoming workshop as the EIS moves
toward the consideration of solutions to these problems.
^^QUESTIONNAIRE
In early February, the EIS Questionnaire was distributed to every
household in the EIS study area. To overcome problems that may
have been caused by bad weather, the response period was extended
and additional questionnaires were made available through a local
telephone number.
On the whole the questionnaire return of about 20% will serve
as another useful indication of local experience and opinion. A
rough hand count of two pertinent questions showed the following
overall response:
Do you feel that your septic system is a problem?
25%; No, 75%
Do you feel that your neighbor's system is a problem?
Yes, 42%; No, 46%; Don't know, 12%
A-8
-------
EXHIBIT A-2
The questionnaires responses reinforced the earlier identifica-
tion of Green Acres, White Hollow, and Arthur Court as problem
areas. As a result of the questionnaire, Jerz Lane, Surrey Drive,
and Brook Lane were also included for further study.
The entire questionnaire will be tabulated for the second work-
shop. In addition to the two limited questions listed above,
there is a wealth of information regarding the present use of
septic systems and the public's opinion and attitudes toward the
local problem. The final analysis will serve as a very valuable
source of how North Branford residents feel about the wastewater
disposal problem and its possible solutions.
DEVELOPMENTS
Under new EPA regulations and guidelines the process of evaluating
solutions to wastewater disposal problems has been expanded. New
requirements will apply to any pending or future Federal grant.
While the requirements are now more rigorous in terms of demon-
strating the need for a project, they also provide for a much
broader range of solutions that may be eligible for funding. Grants
may now be made available for solutions ranging from centralized
sewer collection systems to town-managed septic systems on individ-
ual lots. All of these alternatives must be given serious considera-
tion in order that the most cost-effective, environmentally sound
project be developed. In addition, certain types of solutions such
as land treatment systems may be grant eligible even when they are
slightly more expensive. In brief, the new regulations should
result in projects that can be demonstrated to be the best solution
to a local problem. The relationship of these new guidelines to
North Branford will be discussed at the second workshop.
FIELD EFFORT
During early May a number of engineering efforts were conducted in
North Branford which will help in two ways. First, a check of
neighborhoods with potential problems will help to determine if the
reported problem is actually a neighborhood problem or just a single
house. This evaluation will be assisted by sanitary surveys con-
ducted in the area concurrently by Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection personnel. Secondly, the EIS engineering team
looked at the limitations and potentials of neighborhood areas for
present disposal methods and for possible future solutions. The
findings of the field work will be reported at the workshop. Also,
the range of general solutions which may be feasible on a neighbor-
hood basis will also be discussed.
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING
Since mid-March, EIS laboratory personnel have been collecting
samples from local streams in an effort to determine the exact
condition of local water. The effort was directed both toward the
detection of possible effects of reported septic system problems
and toward establishing a data base against which we can measure
future environmental impact. Samples have been collected at 14
locations on 4 different occassions. The preliminary results ot
this program will be discussed at the upcoming workshop.
A- 9
-------
EXHIBIT A-2
WORKSHOP No. 2
This workshop is being held for two reasons - to tell residents
what we have been doing - to receive your comments and suggestions
concerning the on-going EIS work. The tentative agenda for the
meeting follows:
7:30 Project Status
7:40 Questionnaire Results
7:50 Water Quality Sampling Program
8:00 Engineering Field Effort
8:10 Discussion of Range of Alternatives Available to
Communities
8:30 Group Discussion
Discussion of neighborhood problems and possible
solutions by residents
9:15 General Discussion of Group Reports
10:00 Informal Exchange of Information (EPA will be
available to answer specific questions for indiv-
iduals who wish to remain)
The short presentation at the beginning will be supplemented with
graphic materials where appropriate. Technical information
including generalized cost will also be presented to the extent
that they are known at this time. Informational handouts also
will be available.
TIME & PLACE:
INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL CAFETERIA
7:30 P.M. THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1978
J^IKJ
A-10
-------
EXHIBIT A-3
WUT I
n. branf ord
D
0!
news
3
A-ll
-------
EXHIBIT A-3
WHAT IS THE QUESTION?
The big question is: what kind of project should EPA commit Federal
money to for the solution of water quality problems in North Branford.
.. u,j o-*-Q 4-v.o ^./"M-,^-i +-ir>nQ? wh<=re> are the septic systems that don't
bad are the conditions? where are the septic systems
work? HOW much water pollution is there? what is the best solution?
For you? For the Town? For the State and Federal Governments? How
much will it cost? Will the cure be worse than the problem?
things being equal, what do local residents want to do?
All
HERE IS SOME BACKGROUND,
Some people in Town feel that the whole sewer project will solve
problems, not create them. Others feel that the whole town will not
need sewers, that sewers cost a lot of money and will change the
character of the Town. By taking a second look, with new faces, the
EIS will at least pause for viewpoints to be expressed, new informa-
tion collected, and an independent decision to be made. Also, there
may be some new choices for the Town. The EIS study has been going
on for about six months, data has been collected, meetings have been
held, opinions have been sought and a Draft Impact Statement is being
prepared. This report will spell out all that EPA has learned about
the problem, but more information from you will be welcomed!
IN WHAT DIRECTION IS THE EIS HEADED?
The EIS process has defined a number of "problem areas" in North
Branford: the general areas of White Hollow, Green Acres, Jerz Lane,
Dorrie Lane and Arthur Court. The EIS process has selected three
alternative methods for solving wastewater disposal problems. These
alternatives will be evaluated for each of the problem areas. Also,
when evaluating alternatives that may apply in a certain problem area,
neighboring areas that may have problems in the future will be con-
sidered. The alternatives under consideration are large scale sewering,
localized sewering, and septic system rehabilitation.
A-12
-------
EXHIBIT A-3
The LARGE SCALE SEWERING ALTERNATIVE that will be evaluated will be basic-
ally the concept that has been developed by the Town. While only certain
portions have been proposed for immediate construction, such as the Foxon
Road area, they have been designed assuming future expansion into most
areas of Town. A centralized sewer system connecting to nearby towns has
several advantages:
The homeowner's problems are permanently solved.
The Town does not have to manage a treatment facility.
Local extensions are possible in the future.
There are a number of questions related to this alternative.
What are the real costs of sewers compared to the immediate problem?
What will be the long term effects on the character of the Town?
This alternative is being seriously evaluated for the Foxon Road area. It
is also being considered as a solution for Green Acres in the near future.
Elsewhere this alternative will be evaluated as a long term solution to
scattered problem areas.
The LOCAL SEWERING ALTERNATIVE consists of providing sewers for problem
neighborhoods but treating and disposing of the wastewater locally. Local
treatment in North Branford would likely consist of discharge to the
ground. In a small neighborhood the method might simply be a large septic
system. The advantages of this alternative would include:
Possible lower total costs due to smaller sewer system.
Homeowners have present problems permanently solved.
Possible secondary effects of sewers reduced.
Some issues associated with this approach include:
Suitable sites for land disposal systems must be found.
Who pays for the limited system?
Future expansion may be difficult or impossible.
Although a previous Town study examined this type of solution for the Foxon
area, no evaluation of this type has been done elsewhere.
This alternative is being seriously considered in the White Hollow, Miller
K°ad, and Jerz Lane areas. It may also be possible in the Foxon Road area
depending upon costs and need.
A-13
-------
EXHIBIT A-3
i-es
The REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVE is more feasible under recent changes in
Federal law which have now made this eligible for grants under certain
conditions. In some places the physical short-comings of the site can be
reduced by rebuilding the system with newer designs or by improving
drainage. Advantages may include:
Lower total costs where problems are few and isolated.
No negative development impacts.
Some problems that might arise include:
Town must maintain systems.
Future problems are not directly addressed.
Uncertainty about long term solution.
The application of this type of solution is largely untried. Many
questions concerning the use of Federal and State money for this alterna-
tive remain.
This alternative is being seriously considered for the White Hollow, _Green_
Acres, Surrey Drive, Jerz Lane, Dorrie Lane, and Miller Road areas.
All three alternatives and their implications for your neighborhood will
be discussed at the next workshop.
STANLEY T
A-14
-------
The input that was received was incorporated into the
record at the project through a summary memo.
A>5 North Branford Septic System Questionnaire
The questionnaire was mailed to all households in early
February. A pre-addressed postpaid form was used to
facilitate ease of return. Originally, provision was
made for a local telephone number to be available to
which residents might direct any questions that they
might have about the form or its intent. The state of
emergency that occurred due to the blizzard in early
February pre-empted the use of the phone for emergency
calls only. Nonetheless, a respectable return of about
18% was obtained. A copy of the questionnaire follows.
Some of the questionnaire results are reported in Appen-
dix D.
A-15
-------
EXHIBIT A-4
u.s. environmental protection agency
north branford citizens' questionnaire
The purpose of the enclosed questionnaire is to collect up-to-
date information on the operation and maintenance of septic sys-
tems in the Town of North Branford as part of the year-long
effort required to prepare the North Branford EIS. For simpli-
city and economy, this questionnaire is being distributed to
each mailing address in town. Unavoidably, this questionnaire
will be received by homeowners who are in the proposed sewer
service areas: Section A and Section C. Therefore, for your
convenience, the following list of streets to be sewered in the
approved areas is included. If you live within the approved
sewer service area, it is not necessary to complete and return
the questionnaire.
Section A
Circle Drive
Harrison Road
Lea Road
Frederick Street
Loeber Place
Notch Hill Road (from Loeber Place to
Frederick Street)
Branford Road (from Twin Lake Road to
Branford Town Line)
Chidsey Drive
Burr Hill Road
Hubbard Road
Meadow Road
Lake Road
Queach Road (Northford Road)
Twin Lake Road
Cedar Lake Road
Glen Circle
Glen Road
DeForest Drive
Brook Road
Rivaldi Drive
Colonial Drive
Ric Court
Summit Drive
Holly Heights Drive (partially)
Section C
Birchwood Drive
Carlen Drive
Cedar Lane
Clintonville Road (from Birchwood Road to
North Haven Town Line)
Conifer Drive
Glen Meadow Drive
Village Street (from Clintonville Road to
Woodvale Drive)
Woodhouse Avenue
Hoodvale Drive
A-16
-------
EXHIBIT A-4
DIRECTIONS
It is requested that you fill out the questionnaire as
completely as possible, whether you have a wastewater disposal
system problem or not, within seven (7) days. The more complete
and detailed the information is from this questionnaire, the
better and more specific will be EPA's recommendations. When you
have completed the questionnaire, simply refold, CROSS OUT THE
WORDS "POSTAL PATRON" AND DEPOSIT IN MAILBOX.
If you have any questions concerning this questionnaire,
you can contact a representative of Anderson-Nichols and Company,
Inc., EPA's EIS Consultant at 488-8353 Ext. 19 or 24 between
1 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Monday, 6 February and Tuesday, 7 February.
GENERAL
0Building Location:
Street and Number Neighborhood_
Building age Lot Size
Do you: own Q rent Q
How long have you owned or rented this building?
If house, number of people occupying the building their ages
Water Supply: Water Company Q Private Well Q
Type of Wastewater disposal system:
Septic tank system Ł] Cesspool Q
Separate washing machine discharge Q Other (specify)
Wastewater disposal system age (years)
Appliances used:
Dishwasher Q Washing Machine Q
Garbage disposal Q Sump pump Ł]
Have you ever noticed any of the following wastewater disposal system trouble signs:
Wet spots D Dark green grass over the system Q
Odors Q Melting snow over the system Ł]
Slow drains Q None of the above D
Is your lot subject to flooding during rain? Yes D No U
Have you ever had your wastewater system repaired or modified? Yes Q] No [_J
If yes: What was done and when was it done
Has the repair or modification solved your problem? Yes D No U
A-17
-------
EXHIBIT A-4
SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
What do you do to prevent problems?
Conserve Water Yes Q NO Q
Keep grease out of drain: Yes Q No F]
Use chemical additives: Yes Q No Q
If yes:
Which additives?
How often?
Do you have the system pumped? Yes Q No Q
How often? At what cost?
Are you confident that these Actions Work Yes Q No Q
PERSONAL OPINION
Do you feel that your present disposal system is a problem? Yes Q No Q
If yes: What do you think is the cause of your problem (explain)
What do you think it would cost to repair or replace your disposal system so that
it would be problem free?
$0 $500 $1000 $1500 $2000 $2500 $3000 $3500 $4000 More
If no: How long do you expect your system will continue to operate without problem?
Would you be willing to take special measures to prevent disposal system problems
if you knew that they would work? Yes Q No Q
How much would you be willing to spend annually on these measures?
$0 $25 $50 $75 $100 $150 $200 $250 $500 $750 More
Do you think your neighbors are having problems with their wastewater disposal
systems? Yes [~] No r~\
Do you think that there is a water pollution problem in your
neighborhood? , , Yes Q No Q
Do you feel that your water supply is of good quality? Yes Q No Q
Would you be willing to have your water tested as part of this EIS? Yes Q No Q
Do you think sewers are needed in your neighborhood? Yes Q No Q
Do you think sewers are needed town-wide? Yes Q No Q
Do you feel that there are alternatives to sewer construction which could be used
in North Branford? yes pi NO Q
If yes, please describe:
A-18
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING PROGRAM
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
B.I Description of Sampling Program B-l
B.2 Explanation and Significance of
Water Quality Parameters B-2
B. 21 Total Coliform Bacteria B-2
B.22 Fecal Coliform Bacteria B-3
B.23 Fecal Streptococcus Bacteria B-3
B.24 Fecal Coliform/Fecal Streptococcus
Bacteria Ratio B-3
B.25 Surfactants (Anionic) B-4
B.26 Total Phosphorous B-5
B.27 Nitrogen (Nitrite & Nitrate,
Total Kjeldahl) B-5
B.28 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (6005)
and Chemical Demand (COD) B-6
B.3 Sampling Sites and Field
Observations B-7
B.31 Site #1 - Pistapaug Pond Outlet at
North Branford Road in
Wallingford B-7
B.32 Site #2 - Reeds Gap Road B-7
B.33 Site #3 - Durham Road B-7
B.34 Site #4 - Northford B~8
B.35 Site #5 - Above Pages Mill Pond B-8
B.36 Site #6 - Below Pages Mill Pond B-8
B.37 Site #7 - Farm River at Katherine
Street B~8
B.38 Site #8 - Burrs Brook at Middle
School
B.39 Site #9 - Burrs Brook below Arthur
Court B"8
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE
B 391 site HO - Burrs Brook at Totoket
Road B-9
B.392 Site #11 - Farm River above
Northford Diversion B-9
3.393 site #12 - Muddy River Drainage B-9
B.394 Site #13 - Eight Mile Brook at
Green Acres B-9
B.395 Site #14 - Munger Brook above
North Branford Village B-9
B.4 Discussion of Analytical Results B-10
B.41 Site # 1 - Pistapaug Pond Outlet at
North Branford Road in
Wallingford B-10
B.42 Site # 2 - Reeds Gap Road B-10
B.43 Site # 3 - Durham Road B-ll
B.44 Site # 4 - Northford B-ll
B.45 Site # 5 - Above Pages Mill Pond B-12
B.46 Site # 6 - Below Pages Mill Pond B-12
B.47 Site # 7 - Farm River at Katherine
Street B-13
B.48 Site # 8 - Burrs Brook at Middle
School B-13
B.49 Site # 9 - Burrs Brook below Arthur
Court B-14
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE
B.491
B.492
R 493
JD " -J '
B.494
B.495
BAQf.
*4 .7 O
TABLE B-l
TABLE B-2
TABLE B-3
TABLE B-4
TABLE B-5
TABLE B-6
TABLE B-7
TABLE B-8
TABLE B-9
Site #10 - Burrs Brook at Totoket
Road
Site #11 - Farm River above
Northford Diversion
Site #12 Muddy River Drainage
Site #13 - Eight Mile Brook at
Green Acres
Site #14 - Munger Brook above
North Branford Village. . . . .
Total Coliform (MF) Data
Fecal Coliform (MF) Data
Fecal Streptococcus (MF) Data
Fecal Col i form/Fecal Streptococcus
Ratios
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrite - Nitrate Data
Total Phosphate Data
BOD5 & COD Data
Surfactant Data
B-14
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-16
B-17
B-18
B-19
B-20
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24
B-25
B-26
-------
B.I Description of Sampling Program
The North Branford water quality sampling program con-
sisted of taking grab samples at fourteen (14) surface
water streams or river sites throughout the North
Branford area on four (4) separate dates during the
spring of 1978.
All samples were analyzed for the following parameters:
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform and Fecal
Streptococcus Bacteria
Nitrite and Nitrate
Total Phosphorous
Tota.l Kjeldahl Nitrogen
-- Surfactants
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (6005)
Chemical Oxygen Demand 'COD)
The sites were established with the intent of assessing
the impact of current methods of human waste disposal on
local water quality and locating potential health
problens. The program was not intended to be a detailed
investigation of the state of water quality in the Town
or to assess the impact of all human activities (i.e.,
other non-point pollution sources). Parameters were
selected that would most, likely indicate the presence of
human wastes.
These sites were located either within or downstream
from potentially failing on-lot waste disposal system
areas, or at sites corresponding to previously sampled
point.s on the Farm River and its tributaries by the U.S.
Geological Survey. During 1975 to 1976, the USGS
sampled at 13 locations on the Farm River and its
tributaries. Approximately ten samples were collected
at various months throughout the year, thereby reflect-
ing possible seasonal variation. Of the 13 locations,
about half were in areas which the E1S wished to obtain
B-l
-------
information. This provided an opportunity to compare
data sets and thereby reduce the possibility of sampling
errors. Those USGS sampling sites coincident with those
of the EIS program are indicated in the description of
sample sites that follows. The complete USGS data set
can be found in the publication Water Resources Data for
Connecticut, Water Years 3.975 & 1976, U.S. Geological
Survey Water Data Reports CT-75-1, and CT-76-1. To
facilitate sampling, sites were located at or near
accessible bridges and road culverts. Sampling dates
were spaced at two (2) week intervals starting in mid-
Mr.rch, with the exception of the last run, which was
approximateJ.y one (1) month after the third run.
Within the limits of time and funds allocated to the
study, it was decided thet a four (4) sampling run
program would best account for variations in wet and dry
stream conditions, normal sampling errors, normal stream
composition and analytical errors. No attempt was made
in the sampling program to account for seasonal varia-
tions other than considering the hypothesis that non-
point s.ource, on-lot disposal systems would tend to have
the greatest impact on local water quality and highest
probability of failure during high c.roundwate.r, wet
spring conditions. However, this also might represent
the conditions of greatest dilution of pollutants.
B. 2 Explanation and Significance of Water Quality Pcirameters
B.21 Total Coliform Bacteria
Total coliform refers to a group of bacteria which
exists in the: environment in soils, vegetation and
animals. The majority of this group of organisms,
however, inhabit the intestinal tracts of warm
blooded animals (enteric bacteria) and are released
to the environment in the fecal wastes of such
along with other pathogenic (disease causing)
bacteria. Once so released, the life history or
survival characteristics of these two bacteria
types, in the alien environment, are similar.
Thus, the presence of coliform organisms indicates
the potential presence of disease causing organisms
and/or enteric viruses. Coliform organisms by
themselves do not cause disease, but since tests to
determine the presence and amounts of pathogenic
bacteria are very difficult and costly to perform,
B-2
-------
it is widely used as an indicator and monitoring
test. When enteric pathogenic bacteria or viruses
are present in water, which is eventually used for
drinking water purposes, they can cause epidemic
diseases, such as typhoid, dysentery and infectious
hepatitis. When present in surface lakes, ponds,
rivers or streams, the risks are not as great but
may eventually infect humans by contact in bathing
or by transmission through other animals.
B.22 Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Some members of the coliform group do not inhabit
the intestines of warm blooded animals, but occur
naturally in soils and on vegetation and, as a
result, are likely to be present in water. To
differentiate between these two groups, the fecal
coliform test is used. Fecal coliform are those
bacteria that occur only in the intestines of warm
blooded animals. Their presence in water indicates
definite fecal contamination of animal origin, but
not necessarily from man.
B. 23 Fecal Streptococcus Bacteria
This group of non-pathogenic bacteria includes a
number of species which inhabit the intestines of
warm blooded animals and are excreted with the
fecal matter. It is therefore an indicator of
fecal contamination. However, there is at least
one species which is not limited to the intestine
of man and animals, but has also been found asso-
ciated with vegetation insects and certain types of
soils. The standard fecal streptococcus test
measures all species and by itself is of limited
value in establishing the presence of fecal pollu-
tion in water or wastewater. However, when results
are combined with the fecal coliform test data,
more specific information may be obtained about the
source of the bacterial contamination of the water.
B.24 Fecal Coliform/Fecal Streptococcus Bacteria Ratio
In order to more definitively identify the likely
source of fecal contamination of a water, (i.e.,
human or non-human), the recently developed fecal
coliform/fecal streptococcus count ratio (FC/FS)
can be used. Estimates of per capita contributions
B-3
-------
of fecal coliforms and fecal streptococcus bacteria
for animals were used to develop the following FC/
FS ratios:
Humans 4.4
Ducks 0.6
Sheep 0.4
Chickens 0.4
Pigs 0.4
Cows 0.2
Turkeys 0.1
Thus, an FC/FS ratio of greater than 4:1 in a fresh
water sample is considered indicative of pollution
derived from municipal wastes composed of human
excrement. Ratios less than 0.6 suggest that
pollution was due to non-human sources. Ratios in
between 0.6 and 4.1 are less definitive. However,
in order for these ratios to be valid, certain
other environmental conditions must be met and con-
sidered.
Computation of the FC/FS ratio and analysis of all
the bacteria data results for a particular water
quality sampling location allows one to assess the
upstream sources of pollution as to whether or not
they are of human origin.
B.25 Surfactants (Anionic)
This is the term applied to commercially available
synthetic detergents used in the household for
general cleaning purposes, so named because they
contain anionic surface-active agents. When
released to a surface water, these are of concern
for three (3) reasons. First, in concentrations
around 0.5 mg/1, they will cause the water to foam
and form an unsightly froth under certain condi-
tions. Secondly, since the new detergents are now
relatively biodegradable (i.e., easily converted by
biochemical means to less objectionable and harmful
compounds), their degradation, along with other
organic wastes, requires the use of oxygen which
can place an excessive demand on the water system
using oxygen which is needed by aquatic animals for
survival. Thirdly, they release nutrient chemicals
which may stimulate algae blooms, again creating
aesthetically undesirable conditions. Caution must
be exercised in interpreting low surfactant read-
ings because there are naturally occurring organic
compounds in surface waters that respond positively
to the test.
B-4
-------
B.26 Total Phosphorous
Phosphorous is of interest and concern in water
quality assessments because it is one of the
necessary nutrient compounds for phytoplankton and
specifically, algae growth. Excessive and elevated
rates of production of aquatic vegetation in a
surface water body is termed eutrophication if
continued over a long enough period of time, the
result will be the eventual "drying up" of the body
of water with dense vegetation. This process
occurs naturally with all water bodies, but in the
absence of any outside stimulus, the rate of change
is hardly noticeable. In order for the growth of
phytoplankton to take place, various chemical
nutrients are required. The three (3) main re-
quirements are carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous.
Phosphorous is the limiting nutrient (i.e., rate
controlling) in the eutrophication process and
supplying it to a body of water will hasten the
rate. Consequently, in the fight to slow down the
eutrophication process, phosphorous is the variable
usually selected for control. Flowing water, with
greater than 0.1 mg/1 total phosphorous, is suscep-
tible to algal blooms, while the value for impound-
ed waters is 0.01 mg/1 as ortho-phosphate. There
are two principle sources of the phosphorous found
in water. It is contained in soluble, natural and
artificial fertilizers which are applied to agri-
cultural land and may wash off in surface run-off.
Finally, it is present in soluble forms of deter-
gents and human wastes. From this, it may enter
the groundwater or surface water in household
disposal unit effluents. Phosphate can also be
present in bedrock, but leaching of it into natural
waters is a slow process.
B.27 Nitrogen (Nitrite & Nitrate, Total Kjeldahl)
Nitrogen, like phosphorous, is a necessary nutrient
for the growth of aquatic vegetation but is usually
readily available and rapidly cycled through the
environment. It is present in the aquatic environ-
ment principally in its organic forms nitrate
, nitrite (NO^j) , ammonia (NH3) and ammonium
B-5
-------
(NHt). In the organic form, it is found in complex
proteins, amino acids, peptides and other com-
pounds. It is measured along with ammonia by the
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen procedure. Organic nitro-
gen is analyzed because human wastes contain large
quantities of it, and often times, they are soluble
and will pass through an on-lot disposal system.
Organic nitrogen compounds are converted by bac-
teria in the environment to less complex nitrogen
compounds which eventually end up as free ammonia.
Other bacteria in the environment using oxygen
convert ammonia to nitrite and then to nitrate.
Nitrate in the water and soil (and the other
inorganic forms of nitrogen) are then taken up by
plants and algae in their growth and reconverted to
organic forms to build their structure. The
problem is complicated somewhat by the fact that
other sources besides human wastes exist for
supplying nitrogen to a water body. Artificial and
natural fertilizers contain nitrogen as nitrate,
nitrite and organic nitrogen, all of which can wind
up as nitrate in water. In addition, naturally
decaying vegetation will release some nitrogen.
Nitrate (and nitrite) is of interest because in
concentration in excess of 10 mg/1 N, it can cause
a fatal infant disease called methemoglobinemia
(blue babies). The other forms of nitrogen, espe-
cially nitrite and ammonia, are of concern in water
since they consume oxygen for their conversion
which respiring aquatic animals may need (fish).
Ammonia is also toxic to fish in high enough con-
centrations.
B.28 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODcQ and Chemical
Demand (COD)
These two tests are used to assess the amount of
oxygen that will be used in biochemical processes
in a water and, hence, will not be available for
use by zooplankton and other aquatic animals (fish)
for breathing.
BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen that will
be consumed in a receiving water as a result of
microbiological decomposition of organic wastes
(human, industrial and natural). BOD represents
the portion of a waste that can be easily decom-
posed by biological activity.
B-6
-------
COD is a measure of both the easily decomposed
material and also the biologically resistant mater-
ial and chemically oxidizable inorganic material.
It is most often used to evaluate complex materials
such as paper and pulp wastes for which the BOD
test fails.
B. 3 Sampling Sites & Field Observations
The following is a summary of the field notes on each
sampling location which includes a description of the
sites. Figure 1-4 shows specific locations. Each site
was a surface water site and was sampled on four (4)
separate occasions, except where noted.
B.31 Site #1
This site is located over the North Branford line
on North Branford Road where the outlet stream from
the Pistapaug Pond crosses the road. This area is
both unpopulated and uncultivated. The stream
flows through a wooded area, under the road and
continues through an open field possibly used for
grazing. Foam was observed downstream during one
of the sampling runs. This site was sampled twice.
The USGS data set also provides information for
this location.
B.32 Site #2
This site is located where the Farm River crosses
under Reed's Gap Road. There are a few houses
above the stream as well as a cultivated field. A
drain pipe running parallel to the road empties
into the river. Above this site is surface drain-
age from the White Hollow area. This was also a
USGS site.
B.33 Site #3
This site is found on Connecticut Route 17 where a
tributary to the Farm River crosses under the road
near the North Branford package store. Next to the
package store, there is a house that has 50-60 fowl
in the yard beside the stream. Although there were
few houses in the immediate vicinity, there were a
number of cultivated fields that had been recently
turned over. USGS also sampled this site.
B-7
-------
B.34 Site #4
This site is located at a bridge on Connecticut
Route 22 where the Farm River crosses under the
road. There is a house upstrecun e. few feet above
river level with little else in the area. This was
a USGS site also,.
B.35 Site #5
This site is situated at the end of an unmarked
dirt road off Totoket F.oad. It lies above Pages
Kill Pond below a housing development. Both
cultivated and uncultivated fields border this
site. This was also a USGS sampling site.
B.36 Site #6
This site is on Mill Road off Tctoket Road. The
samples were taken past the waterfall after the
stream passed under the road below Mill Pond. A
field fcr grazing sloped down to the stream. Green
scum was observed on the' borders of Pages Mill Pond
but the stream below was too swiftly running to
allow it to accumulate.
B.37 Site #7
This site is situated where the Farm River passes
behind the houses at the end of Ratherine Street
off of Foxon Road. The: stream moves slowly behind
the development and through the woods. There
seemed to be little agricultural activity in the
immediate area.
B.38 Site #8
This site is ot the drainage ditch by the school at
Foxon Road. The stream goes under the parking lot
and tennis court before surfacing again in the
ditch. It then flows past six to twelve dwellings
which are located on high ground.
B.39 Site #9
Site #9 is located on the same tributary of the
Farm River as Site Ł8 but further downstream. It
flows through a housing development and then
through a field on Foxon Road. Foam was observed
as well as bits of detritus. The Arthur Road area
i.s immediately above this site.
B-8
-------
B.391 Site #10
This site is the last of the three sites (8, 9 &
10) on the same tributary of the Farm River. It is
located where the stream crosses Totoket Road after
flowing through a few housing developments. No
agricultural activity was noted in this area. USGS
also sampled this site.
B.392 Site #11
Site #11 is located on River Road off Foxon Road
where the Farm River crosses under the road. Aside
from one house directly above the sampling site,
there were few houses in the area. The river was
slowly moving and clear. During one sampling run,
a boy was seen to catch a trout.
B.393 Site #12
This site is located at the end of Carlen Drive off
Birchwood Road on Connecticut Route 22. The stream
passes through a housing development and into a
small pond which is relatively clear. Most of the
houses are new and lots drain directly towards the
stream.
B.394 Site #13
This site is located where a stream flows through a
large, new housing development at the end of Ruta
Drive. Small amounts of foam were observed at the
sampling site. House lots in the development
generally slope towards the stream.
B.395 Site #14
Site #14 is located on Fowler Road off Foxon Road
where the stream passes under the road. The stream
drains a swampy area in which two business concerns
are located.
B-9
-------
B.4 Discussion of Analytical Results
B.41 Site #1
Pistapaug Pond outlet at North Branford Road in
Wallingford
The availability of only two sets of data limits
the conclusions concerning this site. This site
was originally intended for comparison purposes
since it is a fairly isolated area. Pistapaug Pond
is located in an undeveloped area. There were no
homes or observed agricultural activity in the
immediate area. The pond is well protected and not
utilized for any recreational activity. It serves
as a source for the Wallingford water supply and is
thus fenced in and protected. It therefore must be
considered to represent a near optimum water
quality condition for this area. With only two
sampling runs available for comparison, the bacter-
iological results, although higher than some of the
other sites, are generally low and are not of human
origin. The FC/FS ratios are high enough to indi-
cate human origin but the length of water retention
in the pond and the lack of any known human acti-
vity around it make this ratio suspect. The counts
used in computing the highest ratio are less than
the recommended level. The likely source of
bacteria is warm blooded animals.
B.42 Site #2
Reeds Gap Road
The four sets of results for this site on the Farm
River indicate no significant water quality prob-
lems. The river at this site maintains a good,
constant flow and the inputs from any anthropogenic
activity above this site appear to be largely
diluted, assimilated and dispersed by normal
aquatic biochemical activity within the system. If
on-lot disposal system failure is suspected in the
immediate area above the site, the water quality
testing performed does not support this.
B-10
-------
Two (2) of the four FC/FS ratios computed indicate
a possible human source (_1), but the counts used
to calculate one of the ratios was lower than the
recommended ( 100) for accurate validity of the
developed ratios. All other indicators of anthro-
pogenic activity or fecal discharges are compara-
tively low. Total phosphorous (ave. 0.02 mg/1),
surfactants (1 of 4 values positive) and Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (ave. 0.23 mg/1) are all rela-
tively low. The nitrate and nitrite nitrogen
values (ave. 0.8 mg-N/1) are slightly elevated but
not unusual for a river basin draining agricultural
and grazing land. This site had the second lowest
average.
B.43 Site #3
Durham Road
This site was only sampled three (3) times due to
time problems. Immediately upstream from this site
and draining into the stream is extensive agricul-
tural activity. Some fields had been recently
turned over. Many fowl and some livestock were
grazing upstream and next to the stream.
The FC/FS ratios do not indicate a human source
with the slightly elevated counts attributable to
the upstream livestock. Total phosphorous and
nitrite and nitrate values are elevated but ex-
pected due to the agricultural activity upstream.
No surfactants or significant organic loadings were
detected for the three (3) sampling times.
B.44 Site #4
Northford
Water quality sampling at this site indicates no
significant upstream sources of human wastes.
Although the FC/FS ratios are all greater than 1,
the counts for all but the first sampling run were
less than the recommended ( 100) value for valid
application. No surfactants were detected, phos-
phorous levels are low and no organic pollution was
detected. Nitrite and nitrate values were consis-
tent and likely derived from fertilizers in drained
upstream fields.
B-ll
-------
B.45 Site #5
Above Pages Mill Pond
This site was only sampled three (3) times due to
difficulty in initially locating its position.
The bacteria results and FC/FS ratios indicate no
heavy upstream human wastes entering the river.
The one observed high FC/FS ratio was computed with
low ( 100 colonies/100 ml) counts and is invalid.
All bacteria counts for this site were low. One
positive, but comparatively low, surfactant reading
was obtained but the method responds positively to
other natural chemicals.
Total phosphorous levels were low and no organic
loading was measurable. Levels of nitrogen (ni-
trite, nitrate and total kjeldahl nitrogen),
although elevated, are comparable with those
observed in other parts of the river and within the
range of values found in the U.S. Geological Survey
data at a site above this. The likely source of
nitrate is surface drainage of agricultural fields
containing natural and artificial fertilizers and
livestock wastes. The levels of nitrite and
nitrate were well below the Federal standard set
for drinking waters at 10 mg-N/1.
B.46 Site #6
Below Pages Mill Pond
The results for this site on the Farm River just
below Pages Mill Pond also indicates no significant
water pollution problems from upstream human dis-
charges. The water in this area is impounded by
the dam at the outlet of the pond allowing a
significant retention time. At this time of the
year (Spring), this allows nutrients to be taken up
by phytoplankton during growth and reduces the
concentrations observed downstream. FC/FS ratios
and overall bacteria counts at this site do not
indicate human sewage to be present. Total and
fecal coliform counts are low and no surfactants
were detected. Phosphorous levels were low to
moderate, but probably high enough to support some
algae growth within Pages Mill Pond. Such growth
B-12
-------
was observed during the last sampling run alona the
shoreline. Nitrogen levels were elevated again but
consistent with upstream values. BOD and COD
values again indicate no organic overloading.
B.47 Site #7
Farm River at Katherine Street
This site on the Farm River below Site #6 also
shows no indication of upstream human pollution
(based upon the bacteriological) results. Only one
(1) of the four (4) FC/FS ratios exceed 1.0, but
the counts composing it were 101 and 80 and thus on
the borderline of usefulness. One positive, but
low, surfactant reading was obtained for the second
sampling, but total phosphorous and nitrite-nitrate
values for this date were not concurrently higher.
Overall phosphorous levels at this site are measur-
ably above those upstream at Site #6, but not
significantly high. A similar trend is observed
for the forms of nitrogen (Total Kjeldahl and
nitrite-nitrate). Organic levels were again low.
B.48 Site #8
Burrs Brook at Middle School
The bacteriological results at Site #8 do not
indicate the presence of human fecal contamination.
FC/FS ratios were low or not valid with the fecal
coliform counts being very low for three (3) out of
the four (4) runs, but the sampling site likely
contains input from surface drainage of the nearby
school lot and playground. However, total phos-
phorous (ave. 0.15 mg/1) and nitrite-nitrate (ave.
1.1 mg-N/1) levels were equal to or greater than
values obtained at sites on the Farm River likely
receiving surface drainage from agricultural and
grazing fields. This indicates the potential for
some upstream human source since little such land
exists above this site. Positive, but very low and
therefore dubious, surfactant readings were ob-
tained, and no significant organic levels were
measurable. A single, high Kjeldahl nitrogen value
was obtained for the first sampling run but sub-
sequent values were not significant.
B-13
-------
B.49 Site #9
Burrs Brook below Arthur Court
With two (2) of the four (4) FC/FS ratios at this
site in the range indicative of human fecal origin,
there is a potential for some upstream on-lot
system failure in this area. A third ratio was
near the lower indicative level with the fourth
value for the first sampling run being the only
discrepancy. This sampling, however, was done when
there were still significant amounts of snow left
on the ground. High total coliform counts were
obtained at this site and the last three sampling
runs showed consistent, comparatively elevated
fecal and streptococcus counts.
Phosphorous and nitrogen levels parallel those at
the upstream Site #8. Two positive but again
suspect surfactant values were obtained. Organic
loading tests were again inconclusive.
B.491 Site #10
Burrs Brook at Totoket Road
At Site #10, the effects of any upstream human
pollution as evident in bacteriological results has
largely dissipated. Only two (2) FC/FS ratios are
high, but these are based on low counts. Total
coliform counts were low for the last two sampling
runs with the fecal and streptococcus results being
very low over the last three (3) runs.
Total phosphorous and nitrogen levels were nearly
equal to those at the upstream sites and showed the
similar pattern of the highest reading during the
first sampling run. A single, positive but again
low surfactant reading was obtained for the first
sampling date, but no measurable organic matter was
found.
B.492 Site #11
Farm River above Northford Diversion
The results for this site on the Farm River below
the study area represent the combined levels of the
B-14
-------
Farm River and its tributary flowing through Site
#8, 9 and 10. The bacteriological results do not
indicate the presence of any upstream human wastes
the single high FC/FS ratio being derived from low'
counts. Generally, all bacteria counts are com-
paratively low at this site.
Phosphorous levels are not significantly elevated
here and correspond with those observed at Site #7
and 10 on equivalent sampling dates. Nitrogen
shows a similar pattern, although the nitrite-
nitrate levels are slightly increased. The major
source of this is still thought to be upstream
surface drainage of cultivated and grazing land.
No significant surfactants or organic loadings
could be detected.
B.493 Site #12
Muddy River Drainage
The results for this site, a stream off Carlen
Drive, indicate the possibility of human wastes
entering this stream. Lots bordering this stream
on Carlen Drive generally slope towards it. The
bacteriological results are not conclusive. Only
one representative valid FC/FS ratio was obtained
for the last sampling run. Total coliform counts
for all runs were comparatively elevated, but fecal
counts were very low during the second and third
sampling. However, total phosphorous values were
consistent and noticeably elevated for such a small
stream.
Nitrogen levels were also significantly high for
the primarily residential area this stream drains.
There is little apparent agricultural activity in
upstream watershed areas. Overall nitrite-nitrate
levels were within the range observed for Farm
River sites where agricultural and grazing land
drainage is the likely primary source. Two posi-
tive surfactant readings were obtained at this site
but only the first run value safely indicates the
presence of detergents. BOD5 data are low and con-
sistent with other sites, but the single last run
COD test did indicate the likely presence of small
amounts of organic matter.
B-15
-------
B.494 Site #13
Eight Mile Brook at Green Acres
There is definite evidence that on-lot disposal
system wastes are entering this stream. Total
coliform counts were high for the first three
sampling runs with two of the computed FC/FS ratios
(second and third run) above 0.6. The last run
also had a high ratio but the fecal count was less
than 100 and no growth of fecal streptococcus
colonies was observed. Counts for the first sam-
pling run were generally higher than for subsequent
dates.
Phosphorous levels in this stream are high and
consistent throughout the four (4) samplings. The
highest value was again obtained from the first
run. Two of the available nitrite-nitrate values
are elevated with the third or last run being
significantly lower. The large number of resi-
dential lots and their obvious slope towards this
stream undoubtedly result in it receiving consi-
derable amounts of normal surface and street
drainage. However, the detection of three (3) out
of four (4) positive surfactant values (all less
than 0.1 mg/1) and the field observation of foam at
the site is strong evidence of the presence of
human sewerage and likely on-lot system failures.
The parameters used to assess levels of organic
loadings (BOD and COD) gave inconclusive results.
B.495 Site #14
Hunger Brook above North Branford Village
The results for this site on Hunger Brook in the
southeastern section of the Town do not indicate
any adverse water quality conditions or the pre-
sence of human wastes. Bacteria counts were
generally low, the highest values being obtained
for the first sampling. One FC/FS ratio was above
0.6 but was computed using low counts ( 100) .
Phosphorous levels were very low for the three
sampling runs and nitrite-nitrate levels were
significantly below nearly all other sites. In
addition, no positive surfactant results were
observed and organic levels appeared low. The last
sampling did result in a measurable but low COD
value of 7.4 mg/1.
B-16
-------
B.496 Water Quality Data
The actual data collected for the North Branford
EIS is shown in Tables B-l through B-9. The
abbreviations that are used are explained below:
MF Membrane filter technique
NR No results available due to
analytical procedural problems.
TNTC Too numerous to count
NG No growth
IS Insufficient volume for
analysis
* Indicates a poor degree of
accuracy due to number of
colonies outside recommended
range.
** Due to consistently low BOD's,
COD's were substituted for
higher accuracy.
B-17
-------
TABLE B-l
TOTAL COLIFORM (MF) DATA
Site
No.
1
2
3
4
5
ť 6
i
ť' 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Run #1
Col/lOOmls.
2400
1200*
3900
2900
21,300*
9000
TNTC
TNTC
3700
8300
16,400*
3000
Run #2
Col/lOOmls.
350
120
211
100*
NG
NG
70,000
5000
650
3000
11,400
80
Run #3
Col/lOOmls.
TNTC
6000
600
900
1038
60
1330
5700
630,000
300
70
1353
17,800
487
Run #4
Col/lOOmls
747
1670
2360
440
877
343*
560
3350
65,500
166
113
17,600
600
730
-------
TABLE B-2
FECAL COLIFORM (MF) DATA
Site
No.
1
2
3
4
5
u 6
i
K 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Run #1
Col/lOOmls.
340
700
3600
320
400
1600
1000
540
100*
1800*
510
110
Run #2
Col/lOOmls.
24
60
46
83
110
10*
200*
47
127
20*
127
6*
Run ftj
Col/lOOmls.
72
7
20
10
1
2
120
NG
180
NG
4
NG
480
NG
Kun ff<*
Col/lOOmls
138
8
204
25
36
37
101
16
468
26
111
300
63* '
32*
-------
I
N>
o
TABLE B-3
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS (MF) DATA
Site
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Run #1
Col/lOOmls.
300*
1460*
2500
15,100*
17,300*
TNTC
22,200*
178,000*
TNTC
8600
TNTC
3200
Run #2
Col/100 mis.
61
10
127
280
950
NG
480
50
2200
520
NG
20
Run #3
Co 1/10 Oml s.
36
16
530
10
3
NG
450
80
160
10
600
140
480
110
Run #4
Col/lOOmls
260
8*
345
12*
38*
59*
80*
106*
418
19*
10*
110*
NG
10
-------
Cd
I
TABLE B-4
FECAL COLIFORM/FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS RATIOS
Site
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Run #1
1.1
.5
1.4
.02
.02
<,2
.04
.003
^.01
.2
x- 05
.03
Run #2
0.4
6.0
0.4
.3
.1
,>-l
.4
.9
.06
.04
^1,3
0.3
Run #3
2
0.4
.04
1.0
.3
0.3
.1
1.1
<.l
.007
^1
1
^.03
Run #4
0.53
1.0
0.59
2.08
1.09
0.62
1.26
0.15
1.11
1.36
11.1
2.7
63.0*
3.2
(*) Signifies no growth.
-------
TABLE B-5
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
tt)
I
to
to
Site
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Run #1
mg-N/1
0.62
1.45
0.63
0.88
1.12
1.55
0.73
0.72
0.65
0.44
0.58
0.23
Run #2
mg-N/1
0.15
0.15
0.23
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.18
0.15
0.33
0.34
0.24
Run #3
mg-N/1
0.20
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.28
0.08
0.10
0.08
0.20
0.18
0.12
0.23
0.15
0.06
Run #4
mg-N/1
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.16
0.10
0.37
0.28
0.18
0.13
-------
TABLE B-6
NITRITE - NITRATE DATA
Site
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
ft)
i 7
to
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Run #1
mg-N/1
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
X.
0,
3
0
5
5
0
2
1
1
,8
,3
.S.
.7
Run #2
mg-N/1
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
7
3
6
0
4
4
3
4
5
3
. 5
,4
Run #3
mg-N/1
2.
0.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
0.
7
9
8
3
2
2
5
2
5
3
5
1
6
5
Run #4
mg-N/1
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
7
2
6
7
2
3
3
7
7
7
3
7
3
4
-------
TABLE B-7
TOTAL PHOSPHATE DATA
Site
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
03
1
Ł 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Run #1
mg-P/1
.02
. 04
.04
. 07
.16
.42
.22
.20
.12
.12
.16
<.01
Run #2
mg-P/1
.02
.02
.02
.03
.05
.09
.05
.02
.04
.07
.10
-c.Ol
Run #3
mg-P/1
.04
.01
.03
.02
<. 01
.03
.06
.04
.05
.04
.03
.10
.11
.04
Run #4
mg-P/1
.05
.03
.06
.03
<. 01
.01
.03
.06
.05
.06
.03
.19
.09
.01
-------
TABLE B-8
BOD5& COD DATA
Site
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Tť -li 1
Run #1
mg. 1
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
BOD 5
Run #2
mg/1
1.3
._
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.7
2.2
2.1
1.7
2.1
1.6
2.3
Run #3
mg/1
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.5
COD**
Run #4
mg/1
^5.0
<5.0
-.5.0
^5.0
<5.0
,;.5 . 0
8.4
^'-5.0
^.5.0
6.3
5.0
9.9
-5.0
7.4
-------
TABLE B-9
SURFACTANT DATA
Site
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
I 7
% 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Run #1
mg/1
. 056
<.040
^.040
4-040
^.040
.040
.040
.044
< .040
.064
.068
^.040
Run #2
mg/1
^. 040
.044
. 070
.040
.060
.046
.050
^.040
<.040
.040
.050
<.040
Run #3
mg/1
^.040
<-040
.^.040
< -040
<-040
^040
^. 040
.040
^.040
<.040
<.040
<_.040
.052
<.. 040
Run #4
mg/1
0.025
0.009
0.012
0.007
0.019
0.022
0.019
0.025
0.024
0.025
0.025
0.030
0.030
0.022
-------
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION & ECONOMICS OF ALTERNATIVES
This appendix contains the background on all
costs used in the analysis of alternatives
presented in this EIS. This appendix
contains a number of tables that present both
the "present worth" costs of alternatives and,
where appropriate, a breakdown of project
costs into individual, State and Federal costs.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
C.I
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.5
C.6
C.7
TABLE C-l
TABLE C-2
TABLE C-3
TABLE C-4
TABLE C-5
TABLE C-6
TABLE C-l
TABLE C-8
PAGE
Background c_ j_
Alternatives c-1
Problem Areas C-2
Basis of Costs c-3
Present Worth c-4
The Tables C-4
The Analysis Process C-5
Summary of Problem Areas
Alternative 2 - Section "B"
Community Leaching Fields
Alternative 3 - Section "B"
Limited Sewering
Alternative 4 - Section "B"
Areawide Sewering
Alternative 5 - Section "B"
Limited Sewer in Foxon and
Community Systems in Northern
Section
Isolation of Costs, Community
Leaching Fields in Northern
Section B
Summary of Cost Estimates
Section "B"
Foxon Area - Comparison of User Costs
Community Systems Versus Limited Sewers
C-2
C-8
C-9
010
Oil
012
013
C-14
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE
TABLE C-9 Individual Cost Estimates
Community Systems - Section "B"
Miller Road & Grant Road - Jerz
Lane C-15
TABLE C-10 Individual Cost Estimates
Alternative 3 Versus Alternative 4
Section "B" C-16
TABLE C-ll Alternative 1 - Section "C"
On-Site Disposal C-17
TABLE C-11A Alternative 2A - Section "C"
Community Leaching Systems in
White Hollow, Limited Sewers
for Green Acres C-18
TABLE C-12 Alternative 3 - Section "C"
Limited Sewering C-19
TABLE C-13 Alternative 2B - Section "C"
Community Leaching Systems in
VJhite Hollow, Limited Sewers
for Green Acres and Surrey C-20
TABLE C-13A Alternative 3A - Section "C"
Limited Sewers - Green Acres
& Surrey C-21
TABLE C-13B Alternative 3B - Section "C"
Limited Sewers - Green Acres Only C-22
TABLE C-14 Alternative 4 - Section "C"
Areawide Sewering C-23
TABLE C-15 Summary of Cost Estimates
Section "C" C-24
TABLE C-16 On-Site Disposal
Individual Costs C-25
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
TABLE C-17
TABLE C-18
TABLE C-19
TABLE C-20
TABLE C-21
TABLE C-22
TABLE C-22A
TABLE C-23
Community Leaching Systems
White Hollow Area, Individual
Costs
Individual Costs
Limited Sewering - Section "C"
All Problem Areas
Individual Costs
Limited Sewering - Section "C"
Green Acres & Surrey
Individual Costs
Limited Sewering - Section "C"
Green Acres Only
Pressure Sewer System for
Green Acres
Pressure Sewer System
Green Acres and Surrey
Pressure Sewer System
Green Acres Only
Individual Costs
Pressure Sewer System
PAGE
C-26
C-27
C-28
C-29
C-30
C-31
C-31
C-32
-------
C-l Background
The original concept for sewers in North Branford
("SEWERAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY" NORTH BRANFORD, CONNECT-
ICUT, FLAHERTY-GIAVARA & ASSOCIATES 1971) was designed
to take advantage of regionalization opportunities. The
concept, in effect, divided the Town into three sec-
tions, A, B & C (See Figure 1-3) , and called for the
transmission of wastewater collected in each section to
the Towns of Branford, East Haven and North Haven,
respectively (See Figure 1-2). Sewer construction is in
progress in Section "A" and the sewer construction
proposal for a portion of Section "C" has been been
decided. Therefore, the EIS is limited to the analysis
of alternatives for Section "B" and the remainder of
Section "C".
C-2 Alternatives
Four basic alternatives were applied as the solution of
wastewater disposal problems in North Branford. These
alternatives are:
-- Continued reliance on on-site
disposal with rehabilitation
of problem units.
Off-site disposal of wastewater
from problem areas through small
scale community leaching systems
and on-site disposal for other
areas.
Off-site disposal of wastewater
from problem areas through a
limited sewer system and on-site
disposal for other areas.
Off-site disposal of wastewater
from all units through an area-
wide sewer system (the original
concept).
These alternatives were combined where appropriate to
suit the needs of the area studied.
C-l
-------
C-3 Problem Areas
The problem areas, as determined by the "Needs Analy-
sis", are summarized below along with the number of
units served in each area.
TABLE C-l
NAME
Section "B1
Sunset Road
Brook Lane
Arthur Court
Dorie Drive
Jerz Lane
Miller Road
Grant Drive
Section "C"
Surrey Drive
Green Acres
White Hollow
Summary of Problem Areas
LOCATION
Western and southwestern
North Branford
Neighborhood south of
Foxon Road
Neighborhood south of
Foxon Road made up of
Arthur Court, Arthur
Road and Edward Road
Neighborhood west of
Forest Road, north of
Foxon Road
Neighborhood west of
Forest Road, north of
Dorie Drive
Neighborhood east of
Forest Road in north
portion of Section "B"
Northern North Branford
Neighborhood east of
Village Street
Neighborhood west of
Village Street, includes
Nida, Ruta & Palanga Drives
Northeastern portion of
North Branford, area south
of Durham Road
UNITS
833
60
76
18
16
40
1,179
7
59
(43 existing
153
C-2
-------
C-4 Basis of Costs
The cost estimates developed for each alternative are
based on the following:
On-site systems will fail at a rate
of 2% per year and each failure will
require a repair that costs, on the
average, $2,000.
Community leaching systems in all
areas except the Foxon area (Sunset/
Brook, Arthur Court and Dorie Drive)
can take advantage of gravity flow
from existing septic tanks through
small diameter pipes to convey the
sewage to community leaching fields
(in some cases, pumping is required
to move the septic tank effluent to
the leaching fields).
Community leaching systems in the
Foxon area will require individual
grinder pumps and pressure sewer
systems to convey the wastewater
to the community leaching fields.
-- Community leaching fields are
sized at 1,000 square feet per
house served.
Implementation costs (engineering,
legal fees, project administration)
are 30% of the municipal construc-
tion costs.
The division of project costs into shares (Federal,
State and local) was based on the following:
Federal and State grants (75% and
15%, respectively) will be made for
major portions of the alternative;
interceptors, pump stations, force
mains, treatment facilities; but
not collector sewers (except in
Foxon) and implementation costs.
C-3
-------
The local share of project costs will
be recovered from both users and the
general taxpayer; users will pay 40%
of the costs, general taxpayers will
pay 60% of the costs.
An annual cost of $81,100 is equivalent
to 1 mill on the tax rate.
Users will be allowed to pay their
share of the local cost over twenty
years.
-- Users will pay for operation and
maintenance of collection and
treatment facilities.
C-5 Present Worth
The various alternatives considered herein have differ-
ent initial costs (capital costs) and different annual
costs. For the purpose of comparison, the capital and
annual costs of an alternative are combined to produce a
total present worth cost for the alternative. The total
present worth cost of an alternative is a number that
takes into account the cost of money (as determined by
the interest rate used). Therefore, an annual cost of
$1,000 per year for twenty years has a present worth of
$11,000, rather than $20,000. Another factor used in
the present worth analysis is salvage value. This fac-
tor represents the value of an item at the end of the
study period (in this case, 20 years). The salvage
value of an item is deducted from the total present
worth as a credit.
C-6 The Tables
Tables C-2 through C-6 deal with the present worth cost
of alternatives for Section "B". Table C-7 is a summary
of these present worth costs. Tables C-8 through C-10
present a comparison of individual costs for community
systems and limited sewering in the Foxon area. Tables
C-ll through C-14 deal with the present worth cost of
alternatives for Section "C". Table C-15 is a summary
of these present worth costs. Tables C-16 through C-20
present the individual costs for the alternatives in
Section "C". Finally, Tables C-21 through C-24 contain
the analysis of a specialized pressure sewer concept for
the Green Acres area.
C-4
-------
C-7 The Analysis Process
In Tables C-2 through C-4, three basic concepts to solve
the wastewater problems in the Foxon area (Area B) were
developed. They were:
Community sewer systems discharging
to leachfields in their specific
problem areas.
-- A limited sewer system servicing
only the problem areas.
An area-wide sewer system servicing
all of the area.
In each instance, where sewer service was not provided,
estimates were developed for the costs incurred by home-
owners for septic system use over the 20 year planning
period. This was done in accordance with the assump-
tions of Section C-4. The community sewer system had
the lowest present worth cost of the three approaches.
The analysis in Tables C-5 and C-6 was developed as a
refinement to the approach of solving the area's prob-
lems. Because of the necessity to install many indi-
vidual pumps in Green Acres and the proximity to the
East Haven sewer system, the least cost alternative was
disaggregated to consider the question of a community
system for areas such as Miller/Grant Roads and a
limited sewer for Arthur Court.
The summary of the present worth analysis is shown in
Table C-7. The least cost approach to solving the Foxon
area problems consists of a limited sewering of the
Arthur Court area discharging to East Haven and the use
of community leaching fields in the Miller, Grant, and
Jerz Lane areas.
Though not a formal part of the present worth analysis
upon which cost-effective analysis is defined, the
computations in Tables C-8 through C-10 show the anti-
cipated costs to individuals that are associated with
the various alternatives. While the cost to the indi-
vidual in the Arthur Court area ($734 first year, $134
each year thereafter) appear reasonable, the other costs
are quite high. These factors are legitimate areas of
concern in the impact evaluations and conclusions and
were considered there.
C-5
-------
In Tables C-ll through C-14, the entire C-2 and C-3
areas are considered as a unit. (C-l has already been
approved for sewering.) Costs were developed for:
continued on-site septic system use
throughout the area.
a community sewer in the White Hollow
area and a limited sewer in Green
Acres.
a community sewer in the White Hollow
area and a limited sewer in Green
Acres extending to Surrey Drive.
a limited sewer to all present problem
areas.
a limited sewer to Green Acres and
Surrey Drive, on-site elsewhere.
a limited sewer to Green Acres only,
on-site elsewhere.
area-wide sewering.
The total present worth costs of these alternatives is
presented in Table C-15. From this Table, it is seen
that the least cost alternative would be to remain with
on-site septic system use in the whole area. For those
with no history of problems, such an approach seems
desirable. Table C-16 was developed to show the real
costs, regardless who must pay them, of on-site use.
The basic assumption is that the individual runs the
risk (40% chance) of having to have major repairs to his
system in the 20 year planning period, as well as paying
$30 annually for operational maintenance. The impli-
cation is, while annual costs are low, the individual
runs the risk of having to pay a large amount solely by
himself.
The basis of Alternative 1 in Table C-16 is the cumula-
tive effect of this risk throughout the area plus the
rehabilitation of known problems through a community
sponsored and grant-assisted program. The effects of
grants upon the individual whose system must be repaired
are shown in Table C-16 as an initial first year cost of
$800.
C-6
-------
Because it is not known whether on-site rehabilitation
is actually feasible on a site-by-site basis (additional
site specific engineering is required) and because the
willingness of residents and the community to pursue
this program are unknown, additional options were
explored in terms of total and individual costs.
In Tables C-16 through C-20, the individual costs for
the major alternatives were computed. From these
Tables, it is apparent that no solution would be as
inexpensive for the homeowner as is possible in the
Foxon area. This is due basically to assumptions of the
funding that will be available for various elements of
the alternatives under the present State priority
system. The basic difference between the costs to the
individual in areas C-2 and C-3 compared to costs
incurred elsewhere in Town, is the cost of lateral
street sewers which are assumed to be a local expense
here. As a result, the individual expense for all
options is higher.
Because of the high individual costs that were calcu-
lated for the limited sewer for the Green Acres area
(Table C-20), several variations were developed in an
effort to see if the cost might be lowered. In Table C-
20, the size of the system was reduced to serve only the
Green Acres area. In Table C-21 through C-24, a concept
for a small diameter pressure sewer was developed. Two
sets of costs were developed based on different assump-
tions of funding.
The effect of the availability of grants is consider-
able. It should be pointed out that variations in
conventional sewers are uncommon. Consequently, exper-
ience in applying assumptions on the priority which will
be assigned to a project is limited. In Green Acres,
the assumption that every element from the house pump on
is eligible for funding significantly reduces the
individual costs. In White Hollow, on the other hand,
the use of a gravity system meant that the lateral
sewers, as is the case in conventional sewers, were not
considered likely to be founded and, consequently, the
individual cost is considerable.
Definitive answers on the funding of unique or inno-
vative systems will emerge as towns apply to the State
for funding. In light of the high costs of conventional
sewer systems, towns should not be dissuaded from devel-
oping the necessary engineering information to support
applications that may prove less costly to everyone.
C-7
-------
o
!
CO
TABLE C-2
ALTERNATIVE 2 - SECTION "B"
COMMUNITY LEACHING FIELDS
PRESENT WORTH COST
ITEM
Grinder Pumps
House Connections
Initial Repairs
New Septic Tanks
QUANTITY
153
209
10
108
COLLECTOR SEWERS
Small Diameter 4,316'
Pressure 7,520'
Interceptors (Pressure) 2,900'
Leaching Fields 209,000 s.f.
Land 9.3 ac.
Ejector Stations 2
Force Main 1,900'
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Operation and Maintenance
Grinder Pumps 153
Pump Outs 833
Repairs 12
Ejector Stations 2
Leaching Fields
TOTAL
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
UNIT COST
$ 1,750
600
2,000
500
40
15
20
2.50
10,000
25
ANNUAL COST
60
30
2,000
5,000
9,180
24,990
24,000
10,000
14,000
$ 82,170
PRESENT
WORTH COST
267,750
125,400
20,000
54,000
172,640
112,800
58,000
522,500
93,000
115,000
47,500
372,000
896,490
$2,740,800
SALVAGE
VALUE
0
20,900
1,200
3,200
28,800
18,800
9,700
25,780
7,900
(116,280)
-------
TABLE C-3
ALTERNATIVE 3-SECTION
LIMITED SEWERING
PRESENT WORTH COST
rB"
O
I
vo
ITEM
House Connection
Rehabilitations
CONVENTIONAL SEWERS
Collectors
Interceptors
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Pump Outs
Sewer System
Annual Repairs
TOTAL
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
QUANTITY
12
27
209
10
,340'
,460'
624
209
12
UNIT COST ANNUAL COST
600
2,000
55
70
30 18,720
40 8,360
2,000 24,000
PRESENT
WORTH COST
125
20
678
1,922
780
,400
,000
,700
,200
,300
SALVAGE
VALUE
20,900
1,200
113,350
321,000
-
51,080
557,250
(456,450)
$3,627,400
-------
ITEM
House Connections
CONVENTIONAL SEWERS
Collectors
Interceptors
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Sewer Use
TABLE C-4
ALTERNATIVE 4- SECTION "B"
AREAWIDE SEWERING
PRESENT WORTH COST
QUANTITY
94,
27,
833
000
460
833
PRESENT
UNIT COST ANNUAL COST WORTH COST
$ 600 $ 499,
55 5,170,
70 1,922,
2,127,
40 33,320 363,
800
000
200
600
520
SALVAGE
VALUE
$ 83
863
321
(1,267
,470
,400
,000
,870)
O
I
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
$8,815,250
-------
o
I
ITEM
House Connections
Initial Repairs
CONVENTIONAL SEWERS
Collectors
Interceptors
SMALL DIAMETER SEWERS
Collectors
Ejector Stations
Leaching Fields
Land
Force Main
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
TABLE C-5
ALTERNATIVE 5 - SECTION "B"
LIMITED SEWER IN FOXON AND
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS IN NORTHERN SECTION
PRESENT WORTH COST
QUANTITY
209
10
7,160'
8,760'
4,316'
56,000 s.f.
3 ac
1,900'
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Pump Outs 680
Repairs 12
Ejector Stations 2
Leaching Fields 2
Sewage Treatment 153
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
UNIT COST
$ 600
2,000
55
65
40
2.5
10,000
25
30
2,000
5,000
3,500
40
ANNUAL COST
20,400
24,000
10,000
7,000
6,120
67,520
PRESENT
WORTH COST
125,400
20,000
393,800
569,400
172,640
115,000
140,000
30,000
47,500
440,500
SALVAGE
VALUE
20,900
1,200
65,750
95,050
28,800
8,300
7,900
736,660
$2,563,000
(227,900)
-------
o
I
TABLE C-6
ISOLATION OF COSTS
COMMUNITY LEACHING FIELDS IN NORTHERN SECTION B
PRESENT WORTH COSTS
ITEM
House Connections
Initial Repairs
COLLECTOR SEWERS
Force Mains
Ejector Stations
Leaching Fields
Land
QUANTITY
56
10
4,316
1,900
2
56,000 s.f.
3 ac.
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Pump Outs 680
Repairs 12
Ejector Stations 2
Leaching Fields 2
UNIT COST
$ 600
2,000
40
25
2.50
10,000
30
2,000
5,000
3,500
ANNUAL COST
20,400
24,000
10,000
7,000
61,400
PRESENT
WORTH COST
$ 33,600
20,000
172,640
47,500
115,000
140,000
30,000
151,560
SALVAGE
VALUE
$ 5,600
1,200
28,800
7,900
8,300
669,900
(51,800)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
$1,328,400
-------
o
I
ALTERNATIVE
4.
5.
5A.
5B.
TABLE C-7
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
SECTION "B"
DESCRIPTION
Continued reliance on on-site
disposal.
Community leaching fields
for problem areas, small
diameter gravity systems for
Miller/Grant & Jerz. Small
diameter pressure systems for
Foxon.
Limited sewer system to serve
only problem areas discharge to
East Haven system.
Areawide sewer system discharge
to East Haven.
Limited sewer system in Foxon-
Community leaching systems for
Miller/Grant & Jerz.
Community leaching system for
Foxon.
Limited serve system for Foxon.
PRESENT WORTH
COST
Not Feasible
$2,740,800
$3,627,400
$8,815,250
$2,563,000
$1,412,400
$1,234,600
-------
TABLE C-8
FOXON AREA - 153 USERS
COMPARISON OF USES COST
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS VERSUS LIMITED SEWERS
O
I
ITEM
Private Capital
House Connections
MUNICIPAL CAPITAL
New Septic Tanks
Grinder Pumps
Collector Sewers
Interceptor
Leaching Fields
Implementation
TOTAL
FEDERAL & STATE GRANTS
LOCAL SHARES
Amount to Taxes
Tax Increase
Lien on Users
Annual Cost
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
ANNUAL USER COST
First Year
Each Year Thereafter
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
92,000
54,000
267,750
112,800
58,000
446,000
281,630
1,220,180
453,600
766,580
459,948
0.52
306,632
28,105
20,770
920
320
LIMITED SEWERS
92,000
393,800
569,400
288,960
1,252,160
866,880
385,280
231,168
0.26
154,112
14,125
6,120
734
134
-------
TABLE C-9
INDIVIDUAL COST ESTIMATES
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS - SECTION "B"
MILLER RD & GRANT RD - JERZ LANE
ITEM
Units Served
House Connections
Collectors
Force Mains
Ejector
Leaching Field
Land
Implementation
0 TOTAL
i
K State & Federal Funds
Local Share
Amount to Taxas
Tax Increase
Lien on Users
Annual Cost
0 & M Cost
ANNUAL USER COST
First Year
Eash Year Thereafter
MlliLEiK/ (jJxaiN x
40
24,000
121,440
10,000
60,000
100,000
20,000
93,440
404,880
171,000
233,880
140,328
0.16
93,552
8,575
9,700
1,057
457
VJ j_|J.tu
16
9,600
51,200
37,500
55,000
40,000
10,000
58,120
251,820
128,250
123,570
74,142
0.09
49,428
4,530
8,980
1,444
844
56
33,600
172,640
47,500
115,000
140,000
30,000
151,560
656,700
299,250
357,450
214,470
0.25
142,980
13,105
18,680
1,167
567
-------
TABLE C-10
INDIVIDUAL COST ESTIMATES
ALTERNATIVE 3 vs. ALTERNATIVE 4
SECTION "B"
O
I
ITEM
Units Served
House Connections
Collectors
Interceptors
Implementation
TOTAL
Federal & State Grants
Local Share
Amount to Taxes
Tax Increase
Lien on Users
Annual Cost
O&M Cost
ANNUAL USER COST
First Year
Each Year Thereafter
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTERNATIVE 4
209
125,400
678,700
1,922,200
780,300
3,381,200
1,729,980
1,651,220
990,732
1.12
660,488
60,540
8,360
929
329
499
5,170
1,922
2,127
9,219
1,729
7,489
4,493
2,995
274
33
833
,800
,000
,200
,600
,800
,980
,820
,892
5.08
,928
,600
,320
969
369
-------
n
i
ITEM
Rehabilitations
QUANTITY
55
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Pump Outs 1179
Repairs 24
TOTAL
TABLE C-ll
ALTERNATIVE 1 - SECTION "C"
ON-SITE DISPOSAL
PRESENT WORTH COST
1179 UNITS SERVED
UNIT COST
2000
30
2000
ANNUAL COST
35,370
48,000
83,370
PRESENT
WORTH COST
110,000
909,600
SALVAGE
VALUE
(6,600)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
$1,013,000
-------
n
i
M
CO
TABLE C-ll
ALTERNATIVE 2A - SECTION "C"
COMMUNITY LEACHING SYSTEMS IN WHITE HOLLOW
LIMITED SEWERS FOR GREEN ACRES
PRESENT WORTH COST
ITEM
House Connections
Rehabilitations
COLLECTOR SEWERS
Conventional
Small Diameter
INTERCEPTORS
Conventions1
Small Diameter
LEACHING FIELD
Land
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Pump Outs ]
Leaching Fields
Treatment
Repairs
PRESENT
lUANTITY UNIT COST ANNUAL COST WORTH COST
197
25
6000'
14400'
4150'
54000 s.f.
5.5 ac.
600
2000
55
40
45
2.50
10000
118,200
50,000
330,000
576,000
186,750
385,000
55,000
SALVAGE
VALUE
19,700
3,000
55,110
96,190
31,000
15,250
36
43
18
30
40
2000
34,080
7,000
1,720
36,000
859,700 (220,250)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
$2,800,250
-------
o
I
TABLE C-12
ALTERNATIVE 3 - SECTION "C"
LIMITED SEWERING
PRESENT WORTH COST
ITEM QUANTITY
House Connections
Rehabilitations
Collector Sewers
Interceptors
Pump Stations
Force Main
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Pump Outs 975
Annual Repairs 18
Pump Station 1
Treatment 204
UNIT COST
204
20
20,150'
21,500
1
1,750
$ 600
2000
55
70
150,000
45
30
2,000
15,000
40
ANNUAL COST
29,250
36,000
15,000
8,160
88,410
PRESENT
WORTH COST
122,400
40,000
1,108,250
1,505,000
150,000
78,750
852,600
964,500
SALVAGE
VALUE
20,450
2,400
185,000
253,000
18,000
(491,900)
4,329,650
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
-------
o
1
TABLE C-13
ALTERNATIVE 2B- SECTION "C"
COMMUNITY LEACHING SYSTEMS IN WHITE HOLLOW
LIMITED SEWERS FOR GREEN ACRES AND SURREY
PRESENT WORTH COST
ITEM
House Connections
Rehabilitations
COLLECTOR SEWERS
Conventional
Small Diameter
INTERCEPTORS
Conventional
Small Diameter
Leaching Fields
Land
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Pump Outs 1129
Leaching Fields
Treatment 50
Repairs 18
QUANTITY
204
20
4000'
14400
3450
4150
.54000
5.5
UNIT COST ANNUAL COST
$ 600
2,000
55
40
65
45
2.50
10,000
PRESENT
WORTH COST
122,400
40,000
269,500
576,000
224,250
186,750
385,000
55,000
508,950
SALVAGE
VALUE
20,450
2,400
45,000
96,190
37,225
31,000
15,250
30
40
2,000
33,870
7,000
2,000
36,000
78,870
860,475
(247,515)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
$2,980,810
-------
TABLE C-13A
ALTERNATIVE 3A - SECTION "C"
LIMITED SEWERS - GREEN ACRES & SURREY
PRESENT WORTH COST
O
I
NJ
ITEM
LIMITED SEWERING
House Connections
Collector Sewers
Interceptors
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Treatment
PRESENT WORTH COST
ON-SITE DISPOSAL
Rehabilitations
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Pump Outs
Repairs
PRESENT WORTH COST
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
QUANTITY
50
4900'
3450'
i
50
UNIT COST ANNUAL COST
$ 600
55
65
40 $ 2,000
PRESENT
WORTH COST
$ 30,000
269,500
224,250
148,125
21,825
SALVAGE
VALUE
$ 6,000
45,000
37,225
(88,225)
30
1129
18
2000
30
2000
33,870
36,000
69,870
$605,475
60,000
762,275
3,600
(3,600)
$818,675
$1,424,150
-------
TABLE C-13B
ALTERNATIVE 3B - SECTION "C"
LIMITED SEWERS - GREEN ACRES ONLY
PRESENT WORTH COST
n
I
to
to
ITEM QUANTITY
LIMITED SEWERING
House Connections 43
Collector Sewers 6,000'
Implementation Costs
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Treatment 43
PRESENT WORTH COST
ON-SITE DISPOSAL
Rehabilitations
35
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Pump Outs 1,136
Repairs 18
PRESENT WORTH COST
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
UNIT COST
$ 600
55
40
2,000
30
2,000
ANNUAL COST
1,720
34,080
36,000
"70,080
PRESENT
WORTH COST
$ 25,800
330,000
99,000
18,750
SALVAGE
VALUE
$ 5,160
54,790
(59,950
$413,600
70,000
164,600
4,200
$4,200)
830,400
$1,244,000
-------
TABLE C-14
ALTERNATIVE 4- SECTION "C"
AREAWIDE SEWERING
PRESENT WORTH COST
O
I
tvj
ITEM
House Connections
Collector Sewers
Interceptor
Pump Station
Force Main
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Pump Station
Treatment
QUANTITY
1,179
89,200
23,000
1
1,750
ICE
1
1,179
UNIT COST
600
55
70
200,000
50
17,500
40
PRESENT
ANNUAL COST WORTH COST
707,400
4,906,000
1,610,000
200,000
87,500
2,041,000
17,500
47,160
64,660 705,450
SALVAGE
VALUE
118,000
819,000
269,000
18,000
14,600
(1,238,600)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
$9,018,750
-------
TABLE C-15
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
SECTION "C"
O
I
fo
ALTERNATIVE
2A
2B
3A
3B
DESCRIPTION
Continued reliance on on-site
disposal.
Community leaching systems for
the White Hollow Area, limited
sewers for Green Acres and on-
site for the rest of the area.
Community leaching systems for
the White Hollow Area, limited
sewering of Green Acres and
Surrey Drive and on-site for the
rest of the area.
Limited sewer system for all
problem areas, on-site to the
rest of the area.
Limited sewer system for Green
Acres & Surrey Drive on-site
for the rest.
Limited sewers for Green Acres
on-site for the rest
Areawide sewer system
TOTAL
PRESENT WORTH COST
$1,013,000
$2,800,250
$2,980,810
$4,329,650
$1,424,150
1,244,000
9,018,750
-------
TABLE C-16
ON-SITE DISPOSAL
INDIVIDUAL COSTS
ITEM COST
Initial Repair $2,000
Implementation Cost 600
Total Cost 2,600
Federal & State Grants 1,800
Local Cost 800
? ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
Biennial Pumping
At $60 per pump out 30
Cost of Furnace Repair 2,000
COST TO USER
If Initial Repair Required 800
ANNUAL COST OF MAINTENANCE 30
IF INITIAL REPAIR NOT REQUIRED
Annual Cost of Maintenance 30
40% chance of repair during
20 year period at 2,000
-------
TABLE C-17
COMMUNITY LEACHING SYSTEMS
WHITE HOLLOW AREA
INDIVIDUAL COSTS
154 UNITS
ITEM COST
PRIVATE CAPITAL
House Connections 92,400
MUNICIPAL CAPITAL
Collector Sewers 576,000
n Interceptors 186,750
i Leaching System 440,000
^ Implementation 360,850
TOTAL $ 1,563,600
FEDERAL & STATE GRANTS 564,075
LOCAL SHARE 999,525
Amount to Taxes 599,715
Tax Rate Increase u.tťo
Lien on Users 399,810
Annual Cost
over 20 years 36,646
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 11,620
COST TO USERS
First Year Cost 913
Annual Cost Thereafter 313
-------
TABLE C-18
INDIVIDUAL COSTS
LIMITED SEWERING - SECTION "C"
ALL PROBLEM AREAS
241 UNITS
O
I
to
ITEM
PRIVATE CAPITAL
House Connections
MUNICIPAL CAPITAL
Collector Sewer
Interceptors
Pump Station
Force Main
Implementation
TOTAL
FEDERAL & STATE FUNDS
LOCAL SHARE
AMOUNT TO TAXES
Tax Rate Increase
Lien on Users
Annual Cost
over 20 years
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
NUMBER OF ABUTTERS
FIRST YEAR COST
ANNUAL COST THEREAFTER
COST
$ 144,600
1,108,250
1,505,000
150,000
78,800
852,600
$3,694,650
1,560,420
2,134,230
1,280,538
1.45
853,692
78,248
24,640
241
1,027
427
-------
TABLE C-19
INDIVIDUAL COSTS
LIMITED SEWERING - SECTION "C1
GREEN ACRES & SURREY
84 UNITS
ITEM COST
PRIVATE CAPITAL
House Connections $ 50,400
MUNICIPAL CAPITAL
Collector Sewer 269,500
Interceptor 224,250
Implementation 148,125
TOTAL $ 641,875
O
to FEDERAL & STATE FUNDS 201,825
oo
LOCAL SHARE 440,050
AMOUNT TO TAXES 264,030
Tax Rate Increase 0.30
LIEN ON USERS 176,020
Annual Cost over
20 years 16,134
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 3,360
NUMBER OF ABUTTERS 84
FIRST YEAR COST 832
ANNUAL COST THEREAFTER 232
-------
TABLE C-20
INDIVIDUAL COSTS
LIMITED SEWERING - SECTION "C"
GREEN ACRES ONLY
59 UNITS
ITEM COST
Private Capital
House Connections 35,400
MUNICIPAL CAPITAL
Collector Sewers 330,000
n Implementation 100/000
i
Ł TOTAL 430,000
FEDERAL & STATE FUNDS
LOCAL SHARE 430,000
AMOUNT TO TAXES 258,000
Tax Rate Increase 0.30
LIEN ON USERS 172,000
Annual Cost
over 20 years 15,766
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 2,360
NUMBER OF ABUTTERS 59
FIRST YEAR COST 907
ANNUAL COST THEREAFTER 307
-------
TABLE C-21
Pressure Sewer System for Green Acres
Costs of Estimate -
Grinder pumps $1,750 installed
Collector pipes $15/L.F.
Interceptor pipe $20/L.F.
Pump replacement after 15 yrs.
Pump maintenance $60/yr/unit
Wastewater treatment $40/yr/unit
Units served:
Green acres and surrey - 50
Green acres 43
Pipe length:
Green acres and surrey
Green acres
Present worth analysis @
over 20 years
5600/3480'
3000'/3480'
6 5/8%
Individual Costs
EPA & State Funding for Pumps, Collectors
and Mains.
On-site alternative - 10 initial repairs @ $2,000
Biennval pumping @ $60
Repair @ 2%/year @ $2,000
Initial Repairs 10 @ 2000 =
O&M
Pumping 25 @ 60 = 1,500
Repairs 1 @ 2,000 = 2,000
3,500 x 10.91
2,000
= 38,185
58,185
C-30
-------
SECTION C-22
PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM
GREEN ACRES & SURREY
PRESENT WORTH COST
ITEM
QUANTITY
House Connections 50
Grinder Pumps 50
Replacements @ 15 yrs. 50
Collectors 5600'
Mains 3480'
Implementation
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Pumps 50
Treatment 50
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
UNIT COST
600
1750
1750
15
20
60
40
100
PRESENT
WORTH COST
30,000
87,500
33,425
84,000
69,600
82,355
54,500
SALVAGE
VALUE
5,000
13,940
11,560
(30,500)
$410,930
PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM
GREEN ACRES ONLY
PRESENT WORTH COST
House Connections 43
Grinder Pumps 43
Replacements @ 15/yr 43
Collectors 3000'
Mains 3480
Implementation
Operation & Maintenance
Pumps 43
Treatment 4 3
600
1750
1750
15
20
60
40
100
25,800
75,250
28,745
45,000
69,600
65,575
4,280
7,470
11,560
46,910
(23,310)
333,570
C-31
-------
ITEM
Units
Private Capital
System Imple-
mentation
Federal & State
Funds
Local Share
Amount to Taxes
Tax Rate Increase
Lien on Users
Annual Cost
over 20 years
First Year Cost
Annual Cost Thereafter
TABLE C-23
INDIVIDUAL COSTS
PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM
GREEN ACRES
GREEN ACRES
AND SURREY
59
35,400
217,850
65,355
283,205
196,065
87,140
52,284
0.06
34,856
3,195
.nee 5,900
754
.er 154
W/0 Funds
-
283,205
169,923
0.20
113,282
10,383
5,900
876
276
84
50,400
300,600
90,180
390,780
270,540
120,240
72,144
0.08
48,096
4,410
8,400
753
153
W/0 Fun
-
390,780
234,468
0.27
156,312
14,327
8,400
870
270
C-32
-------
APPENDIX D
DETERMINATION OF WASTEWATER NEEDS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
D.I Method of Evaluating Needs D-l
D.ll Reason for Investigating
Sewerage Needs D-l
D.12 Definition of Wastewater Problem
Areas D-l
D.13 Determination of Wastewater
Disposal Problem Areas D-l
D.14 Determination of Water Quality
Problem Areas D-2
D.2 Findings D-2
D.21 Review of Previous Reports and
Studies D-2
D.22 Review of Soil Conditions D-4
D.23 Public Workshop D-ll
D.24 Review of Local Records D-ll
D. 25 Questionnaire Survey D-ll
D.26 Field Surveys D-14
D.21 Water Quality Analysis D-14
D.3 Analysis of Findings D-15
D.31 Methodology D-15
D.32 Frame of Reference D-15
D.33 Analysis D-15
D. 34 Conclusions D~1'
TABLE D-l Summary of Responses D-11
-------
D.I Method of Evaluating Needs
D. 11 Reason for Investigating Sewerage Ne-eds
There are two primary reasons for investigating
sewerage needs. One, a documentation of wastewater
collection end treatment needs is required for
Federal participation in funding of projects recom-
mended in Facility Plans; public health and water
quality problems must be clearly documented and
directly attributable to the malfunctioning of
existing on-site disposal systems. Two, common
sense dictates that it is inappropriate to spend
public or private funds to solve problems without
first knowing their frequency, magnitude, and
adverse environmental, social or economic impacts.
D.12 Definition of Wastewater Problem Aress
Wastewater problem areas are limited to locations
where on-lot systems are failing and/or pollution
of either groundwater or surface water can be
attributed to on-lot system. On-site failures
occur when problems, such as slov< plumbing drain-
age, system back-up, breakout of effluent, sewage
odors and/or ether obvious sub-standard performance
is observed.
D. 13 Determination of Wastewater Disposal Problem Areas
A systematic program of data collection and eval-
uation has been used to determine wastewater
disposal problem areas in North Branford. This
program included:
-- review of previous reports snd
studies of wastewater disposal
problems,
review of geological and agri-
cultural reports to determine
the suitability of North
Eranford soils for on-site
disposal,
D-l
-------
meetings with the public to
determine its perception of
wastewater problems,
interviews with local health
officials and review/analysis
of records to establish the
performance of existing waste-
water disposal systems,
-- a town-wide mailing of question-
naires designed to allow the
public to comment on wastewater
collection and treatment needs
in their neighborhoods and for
their houses, and
two separate problem area surveys,
one by the EIS team engineers to
evaluate the feasibility of on-
site repairs in a general sense,
another by the Connecticut Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection
field engineers to check for the
existence of failing septic systems
in identified problem areas.
D.14 Determination of Water Quality Problem Areas
The major issue precipitating this EIS on waste-
water collection in North Branford is the need for
and effects of sewers in the Farm River Valley, a
watershed for the New Haven Water Company. Data
was collected and evaluated to determine whether
existing wastewater disposal practices in the Town
have an impact on water quality and to provide a
baseline for the evaluation of alternatives. The
data collection and evaluation program used is
fully described in Appendix B of this document.
D.2 Findings
D-21 Review of Previous Reports and Studies
Two reports for series of reports) are relevant to
the determination of wastewater collection and
treatment needs in North Branford: the first,
D-2
-------
"Sewerage Feasibility Study" North Branford,
Connecticut, Flaherty-Giavara & Associates, 1971,
and subsequent supporting and augmenting documents;
the second, a series of studies conducted by the
Connecticut Department of Health.
The Flaherty-Giavara report cited wastewater
disposal problems in the following areas:
Section A
Section C-l (a portion of the
Town not included in the EIS
study area)
Brook Lane
Jerz Lane
-- Dorie Drive
Miller Road and Grant Road
Most of the Northeastern
portion of Town
In subsequent reports, the Arthur Court and Green
Acres neighborhoods were added to the list of
problem areas. To remedy the wastewater disposal
problems in these areas, a regional sewer system
was proposed that would ultimately serve the entire
Town. The initial phases of the project would
result in capital investments from $8,000 to
$11,000 per house served, not including tie-in
costs, regional 0 & M costs, or capital recovery
charges from the neighboring communities.
The East Shore District Health Department, with the
help of Yale University Graduate students from the
Medical School's Department of Epidemiology and
Public Health, conducted a survey of 485 homes in
the northeast section of North Branford during the
Fall of 1974. They found that 37 of those surveyed
had problems with their wastewater disposal system.
D-3
-------
Between December 1974 and June 1975, the Connec-
ticut Department of Health conducted a survey of
water company watersheds in North Branford. The 37
homes in northeastern North Branford, which were
found to have wastewater disposal problems, were
surveyed - 11 of these had problems serious enough
to warrant immediate correction, 8 had problems
that warranted surveillance. The survey included
457 locations downstream of this area - 34 had
problems that warranted correction (31 in North
Branford), 40 had problems that warranted surveil-
lance (37 in North Branford). By December 1977,
according to the water company as reported by
ESDHD, only 2 systems warranted correction and 9
systems warranted surveillance. The results of the
sewer studies indicates that in general problems
can be corrected. In certain areas, however, such
as Arthur Court and Dorie Lane, the continued re-
cording of septic system problems suggests basic
limitations for the use of on-site systems.
D.22 Review of Soil Conditions
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conser-
vation Service (SCS) has published information on
soil conditions in North Branford. SCS classifies
soil according to their limitations for on-site
disposal (see Figure 4-2 in main text). These
classifications are based on a combination of
factors including: depth to groundwater, depth to
bedrock, permeability and slope. Recognizing that
these factors can be overcome individually, the SCS
data was analyzed to separate the factors. Figures
D-l, D-2, D-3 and D-4, respectively, present areas
with: groundwater within 3 feet of the surface,
bedrock within 2 feet of the surface, slow permea-
bility, and steep slopes. These maps were then
overlain to produce Figure D-5, which presents
those areas where a combination of two limiting
factors makes on-site disposal very difficult. A
further mapping effort resulted in a map of areas
with no limitations to on-site disposal (see Figure
D-6) that is, areas with deep groundwater (greater
than 3 feet), good permeability (50% chance of
percolation rate between 10 and 20 minutes at the
worst), slope less than 15% and bedrock depth
greater than 10 feet. It is noted that disturbed
areas (cut and fill areas, such as Green Acres and
the Arthur Court neighborhoods) have unclassified
soils.
D-4
-------
/hallouu grounduuQter
legend
shallow
groundwater
figuteD-l
north branford wa/teuuater treatment
date: rebruo/V 1979
/ource:/oilcon/ervation /ervice
environmental impact /totement environmerUgj_
0 1600 3200
onder/on-nicnol/ & co., inc.
-------
/hallow bedrock
figufeD-2
north branford w a / t ew Q ter treatment facilitie/
dote: febararv 1979
/ource: /oil con/ervation /ervice
0 1600 3200
environmental impact /tatement environmental protection agency
ander/on-nichol/ & co.,inc.
technical con/ultant
-------
/louu permeability
legend
80% chance of a
30 minute/inch
percolation
figufeD-3
north branford uu a / t e w a ter treatment Facilities
dote; rebrgarv 1979
0 1600 3200
/ource: /oilcon/ervation/ervice
environmental imoact /tatement environ men to I protection agency
onder/on-nicnol/ & co., inc.
-------
/teep /lope/
north branford w a / t e uu a ter treatment facilitie/
date: februaru 1979
0 1600 3200
/ource: /oil con/ervation /ervice
environmental impact /tatement environmentol protection
ander/on-nichol/ & co., inc.
technical con/ultant
-------
legend
I
slouu permeabiliti,)
high grounduuoter
C3 shalloai bedrock
steep slope > 15%
areas of combined limitations
figufeD-5
north branford wa/tewater treatment focilitie/
date: febryory 1979 o i6oo MOO
/ource: /oil con/ervotion /ervlce
-------
legend
areas not subject
to limitations of:
high grounduuater,
slow permeability,
shallow bedrock,
or steep slope*
* does not include
unclassified soils
areas with few limitations
figufeD-6
north branford w a / t ew a ter treatment Facilitie/
dote; february 1979
/ource: /oil con/ervotion /ervice
0 1600 3200
environmental impact /tatement environmental protection agency
onder/on-nichol/ & co.,inc.
technical con/ultant
-------
D.23 Public Workshop
During the first EIS public workshop held on
January 16, 1978, participants indicated that three
problem areas existed: Arthur Court, Green Acres
and White Hollow (the northeastern portion of
Town).
D-24 Review of Local Records
A review of the history of on-site disposal in
North Branford indicates that prior to July 1974,
there was little effective control over the in-
stallation of septic systems. In July 1974, the
East Shore District Health Department took ever the
management of on-site disposal. Town records of
on-site systems are dated no earlier than 1960 and
contain only sketchy information (a random sampling
of records indicated that very few contained perco-
lation test results and the few that did had rates
ranging from 2.0 minutes per inch to 40 minutes per
inch).
Between July 1974 and February 1978, ESDHD has
issued permits for the repair of 88 septic systems
and the installation of 180 new septic systems.
This is equivalent to an average annual repair rate
of less than 1% per year and an average annual
septic system growth rate of approximately 2% per
year.
D.25 Questionnaire Survey
Approximately 3,800 questionnaires were sent to
families in North Branford (almost 700 of the total
were sent to families within the non-EIS study
area, thus the response rate is based on 3,100
questionnaires). A total of 557 questionnaires
were returned, for a response rate of approximately
18%. The following profile can be drawn from the
questionnaire response:
96.1% of the respondents were
homeowners
the average residency is 12
years
D-ll
-------
33% of respondents have lived
in Town 5 years or less
50% have lived in Town 10 years
or less
-- the average family size of
respondents is 3.5 people
26% had two member families
16% had three member families
29% had four member families
-- 16% had five member families
-- 92% of the respondents have
septic systems
The following table summarizes the responses to
some of the questions in the survey. The numbers
indicate the precentage of respondents.
TABLE D-l
Summary of Responses
QUESTION ANSWERS
YES NO NO ANS,
Have you had your wastewater system
repaired or modified? 34.5 62.8 2.7
If yes, has the repair or
modification solved your problem? 75.0 20.8 4.2
What do you do to prevent problems?
Conserve water 58.5 26.4 15.1
Keep grease out of drains 82.6 9.7 7.7
Use chemical additives 17.2 64.8 18.0
Have the system pumped 64.1 21.9 14.0
D-12
-------
TABLE D-l (Cont'd)
QUESTION
If yes, how often
Are you confident that these
actions work?
Do you feel that your present
disposal system is a problem?
Would you be willing to take
special measures to prevent
disposal system problems if
you knew that they would work?
Do you think your neighbors are
having problems with their
wastewater disposal systems?
Do you think that there is a
water pollution problem in
your neighborhood?
Do you think sewers are needed
in your neighborhood?
Do you think sewers are needed
Town-wide?
Do you feel that there are
alternatives to sewer
construction which could be
used in North Branford?
YES
60.1
23.0
67.0
42.9
24.2
37.5
36.8
ANSWERS
NO
NO. ANS
75% no more than once every
two years.
20.1
75.0
12.4
45.4
67.7
55.1
46.9
19.8
2.0
20.6
11.7
8.1
7.4
16.3
36.1
34.8
29.1
Based on the Town-wide analysis, the wastewater
disposal problem is not overwhelming; only 23% of
the respondents feel that their present disposal
system is a problem. To pursue this further, the
responses were analyzed on a neighborhood basis and
the results indicate the following problem areas
(i.e., at least 50% of the respondents indicating
problems with their on-site system):
D-13
-------
Arthur Court neighborhood
White Hollow
-- Green Acres
Surrey Drive
Brook Lane
-- Jerz Lane
Miller Road/Grant Drive
D.26 Field Surveys
A number of informal field surveys were conducted,
at one time or another, by all the individuals
involved in the preparation of this EIS. In
addition, two formal surveys were conducted as a
follow-up to the determination of problem areas by
analysis of questionnaire responses. The first
formal survey was conducted by the EIS team engi-
neer to establish the feasibility of on-site
repairs in the probDem areas. The results of this
survey indicate that except in the small lot
neighborhoods (Arthur Court, for example) on-site
repairs could be made. The survey also indicated
some basic problems with on-site disposal in North
Branford resulting from a lack of knowledge of the
part of the homeowner as to his waste disposal
system's location.
A second, independent survey was conducted by
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
field engineers to verify the existence of waste-
water disposal problems in the designated problem
areas. This was accomplished by requesting a
survey of a number cf streets in North Branford
(these streets were located in designated problem
areas and non-problem areas). This survey verified
the determination of problem areas.
D.27 Water Quality Analysis
The findings of the water quality survey and analy-
sis (see Appendix E) support the determination of
problems to the degree that the highest coliform
counts are coincident with these areas.
D-14
-------
D. 3 Analysis of Findings
D. 31 Methodology
The presentation of the findings of the determin-
ation of wastevater disposal problem areas hints st
a number of recurring problem areas. The methodol-
ogy involved in the analysis of the findings relied
on correlation of all the data to result in final
determination .
D. 32 Frame of Reference
Recent s.tudies-'- of the failure of on-site waste-
water disposal systems indicate that the failure
rate of residential septic systems (as reflected by
the repair rate) increases cis the system's age, and
then once a certain age 'half-life) is attained,
the failure rate decreases. Further, there exist a
number of factors that affect the half-life (aver-
age life) of a group of systems. These factors
include :
Soil conditions, such as depth
to groundwater cr impermeable
layer and soil type.
Size of leaching area relative
to family size and water use.
Installation procedures and level
of effort involved in inspection
by regulatory agency.
Care and maintenance of the system.
D.33 Analysis
A comparison of the location of problem areas as
determined by the previous studies, public workshop
and Questionnaire survey with soil conditions as
determined by SCS result in no single soil condi-
tion associated with problems. For example:
the Arthur Court neighborhood has
unclassified sells, but from the
field survey it showed this area
is wet.
D-15
-------
The White Hollow area is, in part,
unclassified, but a portion has
high groundwater, slow permeability
and steep slopes.
The Green Acres area is unclassified.
Surrey Drive is shallow to bedrock.
Brook Lane has high groundwater and
slow permeability.
Jerz Lane is, in part, unclassified,
but the field survey indicates that
it is a wet area.
The Miller Road/Grant Drive neighbor-
hood is, in part, unclassified and,
in part, wet with slowly permeable
soils.
Dorie Drive has high groundwater.
Thus, the wastewater disposal problem in North
Branford can be explained, in part, by soil condi-
tions. It is noted that a good portion of Town,
see Figure D-6, has no SCS constraints on on-site
disposal, however, these lands are still vacant
(used for farming) and will only affect future
wastewater disposal for new developments.
The review of the Town's records on on-site dis-
posal and conversations with long-time Town resi-
dents indicate that until the East Shore District
Health Department became the regulatory agency for
on-site disposal in North Branford, the level of
effort involved in the inspection of septic system
installation was minimal. This, in part, explains
the wastewater disposal problem in Town and bodes
well for on-site disposal for new development.
Further State Health Department regulations for on-
site were modified and improved in 1970 so that new
systems are being designed at a more reasonable
size.
D-16
-------
The questionnaire survey of Town residents indi-
cates that almost two-thirds of the respondents are
maintaining their on-site systems through periodic
pumping. There remains, however, a number of new
residents (perhaps moving from urban areas to North
Branford) who have never used an on-site disposal
system and know very little about the system's care
or maintenance. This, in part, explains the waste-
water disposal problem.
D.34 Conclusions
The history of on-site disposal in North Branford
has led to a number of wastewater disposal problems
that have resulted in unsanitary conditions in some
cases and effects on surface water quality in other
cases. The wastewater disposal problem is not
Town-wide, but is found in isolated parts of Town.
The problem is due to the poorly supervised in-
stallation of probably inadequate systems in areas
with soil conditions that require special consider-
ation. The problem has been addressed on many
fronts, the State has promulgated new regulations,
the regulatory functions have been shifted to a
regional agency and the Town has built or proposed
to build sewers in problem areas. The response to
this problem and future problems is not sewers in
all cases. Future problems can be avoided by prop-
erly installing adequate systems in good locations
and educating the homeowner as to the proper care
and maintenance of an on-site disposal system.
Existing problem areas can be served by a number of
alternatives that include:
continued use of on-site
disposal with appropriate
repairs and rehabilitations.
-- communal or shared treatment/
disposal systems.
-- limited sewer systems.
Not all of these alternatives are suitable for all
problem areas, specifically, continued on-site
disposal is not suitable for the Foxon section
including Arthur Court, Dorie Drive, and Brook
Lane/Sunset Road.
D-17
-------
In summary, the problem areas as determined by the
procedures and methods described above are in
Section B: Brook Lane/Sunset Road, Arthur Court,
Dorie Drive, Jerz Lane and Miller/Grant Road; in
Section C: Surrey Drive, Green Acres and White
Hollow.
D-18
-------
APPENDIX E
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
Annual Report 1976, Town of North Branford
Annual Report 1977, Town of North Eranford
Bonelli, Joseph, "North Branford: An Alternative to Uncontrolled
Development." Paper submitted to Agricultural Economics class
of Dr. Irving Fellows, University of Connecticut, 1974.
Christman, Priscilla; Leeson, A. Dix, "Ecologic, Sociologic and
Economic Guides to Land Use Decisions, North Branford,
Connecticut." Prepared for the North Branford Conservation
Commission, 1973.
Connecticut State Department of Health, Public Health Code
Regulation, "Standards for Quality of Public Drinking Water."
Council on Environmental Quality, "Interceptor Sewers and
Suburban Sprawl: The Impact of Construction Grants on
Residential Land Use", Vol. 1, July, 1974.
Council on Environmental Quality, "The Costs of Sprawl:
Environmental and Economic Costs of Alternative Residential
Development Patterns at the Urban Fringe", April, 1974.
Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut,
"Sewer Avoidance Program: A Report to the Joint Standing
Committee on the Environment", Connecticut, January, 1978.
Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut,
"Rules and Regulations Concerning Water Pollution Control",
1975, Unimplemented.
Dowhan, Joseph J- and Craig, Robert J. , "Rare and Endangered
Species of Connecticut and Their Habitats", State Geological
and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Report of Inves-
tigations No. 6, 1976.
Fenton G. Keyes Associates, "Recreation Study - Town of North
Branford, Connecticut", April, 1974.
Flaherty-Giavara Associates, "Sewerage Feasibility Study -
North Branford, Connecticut." July, 1971.
Flaherty-Giavara Associates, "North Branford Sewers, Sewer
Extension Report, Arthur, Edwards, Lake and Meadow Roads ,
October, 1973.
Flaherty-Giavara Associates, "Environmental Assessment,
Sanitary Sewer System (Initial Phase)", March, 1975.
E-l
-------
Flaherty-Giavara Associates, "Evaluation: Initial Phase of
Sewer Program - North Branford, Connecticut", May, 1976.
Flint, Richard Foster, "The Surficial Geology of the Branford
Quadrangle with Map", State Geological and Natural History
Survey of Connecticut, Quadrangle Report No. 14, 1964.
"Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection", Federal
Register, Vol. 44, No. 4, January 5, 1979.
Foote, Franklin M., Connecticut State Department of Health,
"Private Subsurface Sewage Disposal."
Mazzaferro, David L., "Hydrogeologic Data for the Quinnipiac
River Basin, Connecticut", Prepared by the U.S. Geological
Survey in cooperation with the Conn. Department of Environ-
mental Protection, (Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin
No. z6), 1973.
Natural Resources Center, Department of Environmental
Protection, State of Connecticut, "Natural Resources
Information Directory: Town of North Branford", 1977.
North Branford Conservation Commission, "Conservation Plan
for North Branford", 1970.
North Branford Planning and Zoning Commission, "The North
Branford Plan of Development: A Guide for Change and
Growth from 1970 Toward the Year 2000", June, 1971.
North Branford Planning and Zoning Commission, "Minutes of
A Public Hearing of June 20, 1977 on the Proposed Zoning
Regulations for the Twon of North Branford."
Office of Policy and Management, State of Connecticut,
"Conservation and Development Policies Plan: Proposed
Revision of 1979", March, 1978.
Porter, Stephen C., "The Surficial Geology of the Wallingford
Quadrangle With Map", State Geological and Natural History
Survey of Connecticut, Quadrangle Report No. 10, 1960.
Regional Planning Agency of South Central Connecticut,
"Land Use in South Central Connecticut 1978-2000,
Policies and Principles", February, 1978.
"Regulations: Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Town of
North Branford", May, 1974.
"Report of the Connecticut Council on Water Company Lands",
February, 1977.
E-2
-------
qirS r t ^vice, Conn- Cooperative Extension
Service etal., "Special Soils Report New Haven County,
Connecticut, Soil Interpretations for Urban Uses."
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Natural Soil Group Interpretations for the Town of
North Branford, Connecticut."
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
A Guide for Streambelts: A System of Natural Environ-
mental Corridors in Connecticut", September, 1972.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Flood
Insurance Study, Town of North Branford", 1977.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality
Administration, Storm Water Pollution from Urban Land
Activity, 1970.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Manual for Preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements for Wastewater Treatment
Works, Facilities Plans, and 208 Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Plans", July, 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, "Region I Environmental Resource
Inventory, North Branford, Connecticut." July, 1978.
"Zoning Regulations of the Town of North Branford,
Connecticut", North Branford Planning and Zoning
Commission, April, 1977.
.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 - A-1093/350
E-3
------- |