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:

-------
                                    M€R!D€N
 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

-------