environmental
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1
-------
vr
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ REGION I
J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
To: Federal, State and Local Officials; Engineering, Planning
and Environmental Consultants; and Interested Citizens
and Environmentalists
This manual has been prepared by EPA, Region I, to provide guidance
in preparing Environmental Assessments on Wastewater Facility Plans
in the New England States.
The construction of wastewater facilities utilizing Federal grants
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
constitutes one of the major public works activities now underway
in New England. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 and subsequent EPA regulations, an Environmental Assessment
is required as part of the wastewater facility planning process.
The Environmental Assessment is directed at determining the nature
of primary and secondary environmental impacts of the proposed project
and those alternatives which may have been considered in preparing a
wastewater facility plan.
I wish to stress that this manual does not constitute a policy
statement by Region I on how to do an Environmental Assessment.
Our environment, particularly in New England, is so diverse that it
would be impossible to expect one document to cover all possibilities.
Furthermore, we anticipate that your comments, and suggestions
presented during the workshops will be useful in developing a
methodology which will result in assessments tailored to local
and state needs as well as Federal regulations.
Sincerely,
illiam R. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 - OVERVIEW PAGE
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
INTRODUCTION
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXPERIENCE, REGION I
IMPROVING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
CASE STUDY COMMUNITY PROFILE
1:2
1:2
1:3
1:4
1:5
CHAPTER 2 - NEEDS ANALYSIS
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
INTRODUCTION
REGULATORY STATUS
PAST PRACTICES
SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY
CASE STUDY
LEVEL OF EFFORT .
APPENDIX
2:2
2:3
2:4
2:6
2:12
2:15
2:19
CHAPTER 3 - COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
INTRODUCTION
REGULATORY STATUS
PAST PRACTICES/FUTURE DIRECTIONS
SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY
CASE STUDIES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
3:2
3:2
3:3
3:4
3:15
3:26
CHAPTER 4 - LAND APPLICATION
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
INTRODUCTION
REGULATORY STATUS
PAST PRACTICES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EVALUATION PROCEDURE
AND CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
4:2
4:2
4:4
4:7
4:31
CHAPTER 5 - SECONDARY IMPACTS
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
INTRODUCTION
REGULATORY STATUS
PAST PRACTICE
SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY
CASE STUDY
5:2
5:3
5:5
5:6
5:28
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANUAL 0:1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER 6 - HYDRQLQGIC IMPACTS PAGE
6.0 INTRODUCTION 6:2
6.1 REGULATORY STATUS 6:2
6.2 PAST PRACTICES 6:3
CHAPTER 7 - WETLANDS
7.0 INTRODUCTION 7:2
7.1 RELEVANT FEDERAL LEGISLATION 7:3
7.2 STATE LEGISLATION 7:4
7.2 PAST PRACTICES 7:6
7.3 SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY 7:8
CHAPTER 8 - ARCHAEOLOGY
8.0 INTRODUCTION - ARCHAEOLOGY IN NEW ENGLAND 8:2
8.1 REGULATORY STATUS 8:8
8.2 PAST PRACTICES 8:10
8.3 SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY 8:10
8.4 TINKERSVILLE: ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ENVIRON-
MENTAL ASSESSMENT 8:15
8.5 APPENDIX 8:17
CHAPTER 9 - AIR QUALITY
9.0 INTRODUCTION 9:2
9.1 PRIMARY IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY 9:2
9.2 SECONDARY IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY 9:18
9.3 REFERENCES 9:21
APPENDIX A ATTAINMENT/NON-ATTAINMENT STATUS
IN NEW ENGLAND 9:25
APPENDIX B INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR
SECONDARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT MODEL 9:26
CHAPTER 10 - NOISE
10.0 INTRODUCTION 10:2
10.1 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY NOISE PROBLEM 10:2
10.2 MAKING A PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
ASSESSMENT 10:10
10.3 REFERENCES 10:17
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANUAL 0:2
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1 FOLLOWING PAGE
1-1 TOWN OF TINKERSVILLE 1:6
CHAPTER 2
2-1 COST COMPONENTS - SEWERING VS ON SITE SYSTEMS 2:6
2-2 NEEDS ANALYSIS MAPPING 2:12
2-3 TOWN OF TINKERSVILLE 2:12
2-4 PROBLEM LOCATION 2:14
2-5 SOILS DATA 2:14
2-6 AGE OF DEVELOPMENT 2:14
2-7 LAND USE 2:14
2-8 PROBLEM DEFINITION 2:14
CHAPTER 3
3-1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLANNING GUIDE 3:8
3-2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLANNING GUIDE
(TYPICAL EXAMPLE) 3:8
3-3 EXETER N.H. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 3:15
3-4 EXETER N.H. PRE-HEARING NEWS ARTICLE 3:15
3-5 EXETER N.H. PRE-HEARING NEWS ARTICLE 3:15
3-6 EXETER N.H. PUBLIC HEARING HANDOUT 3:15
3-7 EXETER N.H. PUBLIC HEARING HANDOUT 3:15
3-8 EXETER N.H. ARTICLE DESCRIBING HEARING 3:15
3-9 EXETER N.H. ARTICLE DESCRIBING HEARING 3:15
CHAPTER 4
4-1 LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 4:8
4-2 IDENTIFICATION OF SUITABLE LAND APPLICATION
SITES 4:12
4-3 COMPOSITE LAND APPLICATION EVALUATION MAP 4:32
CHAPTER 5
5-1 COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE-1 5:28
5-2 "PRIME AREA" OF POTENTIAL SECONDARY IMPACTS 5:28
5-3 POTENTIAL GROWTH AREAS 5:28
5-4 GROWTH CONSTRAINT AREAS 5:28
5-5 POTENTIAL GROWTH AREAS - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5:28
5-6 POTENTIAL GROWTH REALLOCATION - SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVE 1 5:28
5-7 SECONDARY IMPACT POTENTIALS SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 1 5:28
5-7A LEGEND FOR FIGURE 5-7 5:28
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANUAL 0:3
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
CHAPTER 6 FOLLOWING PAGE
6-1 THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE 6:2
6-2 GROUNDWATER HEAD 6:6
6-3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM INCREASED PEAK RUNOFF
DUE TO INDUCED GROWTH WITHOUT ON SITE HYDROLOGIC
CONTROLS 6 : 8
6-4 WATER TABLE BALANCE 6:12
6-5 GROUNDWATER TABLE MAP 6:12
CHAPTER 7
7-1 COMPOSITE WETLANDS SKETCH 7:10
7-2 WETLANDS IMPACT AREAS 7:10
7-3 COMPARISON OF THE LEVELS OF ORGANIC MATTER
PRODUCTION IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF ECOSYSTEMS 7:14
7-4 REGULAR VS IRREGULAR R.O.W. CUTTING 7:22
CHAPTER 9
9-1 ATTAINMENT - NON-ATTAINMENT DEFINITION CONCEPT 9:4
9-2 POLLUTANT EMISSION FROM SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS 9:8
9-3 PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 9:10
9-4 MAXIMUM (NORMALIZED) GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATION
(XU/0) MAX (in~2) 9:14
9-5 SAMPLE DISPERSION CALCULATION FOR MAXIMUM DOWN-
WIND CONCENTRATION 9:18
9-6 OVERVIEW OF SECONDARY LAND USE AND AIR QUALITY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE 9:20
9-7 S02 ATTAINMENT/NON-ATTAINMENT STATUS 9:25
9-8 S02 ANNUAL AVERAGE MAXIMUM 24 HOURLY LEVELS
TRENDS 1974-76 9:25
9-9 TSP ATTAINMENT/NON-ATTAINMENT STATUS 9:25
9-10 TSP ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN - TRENDS 1974-76 9:25
9-11 OZONE ATTAINMENT/NON-ATTAINMENT STATUS 9:25
9-12 OZONE - MAXIMUM LEVEL, VIOLATION FREQUENCY -
ONE HOUR STANDARD TRENDS 1974-76 9:25
9-13 CO ATTAINMENT/NON-ATTAINMENT STATUS 9:25
9-14 CO MAXIMUM LEVEL, VIOLATION FREQUENCY -
8 HOUR STANDARD TRENDS 1974-76 9:25
9-15 NO2 ATTAINMENT/NON-ATTAINMENT STATUS 9:25
CHAPTER 10
10-1 dBA LEVEL AND RELATIVE LOUDNESS OF TYPICAL
INDOOR AND OUTDOOR NOISES 10:4
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANUAL 0:4
-------
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 2 PAGE
2-1 COST COMPARISON OF ON-SITE DISPOSAL VS
COLLECTION AND TREATMENT 2:5
2-2 NEEDS ANALYSIS LEVEL OF EFFORT 2:16
CHAPTER 4
4-1 SUMMARY OF MAJOR STATE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND APPLICATION WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM -
REGION I 4:5
4-2 SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED SITE OPERATIONAL DATA FOR
LAND APPLICATION PROCESSES 4:13
4-3 SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS FOR LAND
APPLICATION SYSTEMS 4:18
4-4 GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS FOR LAND
APPLICATION SYSTEMS 4:19
4-5 TYPICAL WASTEWATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
CHARACTERISTICS 4:22
4-6 TYPICAL SLUDGE QUALITY AND QUANTITY CHARACTER-
ISTICS 4:23
4-7 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM LAND
APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE 4:25
4-8 EARLY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IDENTIFICATION
FACTORS FOR REGION I - NEW ENGLAND 4:29
4-9 INFORMATION NEEDS AND SOURCES FOR LAND AP-
PLICATION OF WASTEWATER 4:30
4-10 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EARLY WARNING
INDICATORS FOR TINKERSVILLE 4:35
4-11 CONSULTANT AND SUBCONTRACTOR MANPOWER COMMITMENT
FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE LAND APPLICATION
ALTERNATIVE 4:37
CHAPTER 5
5-1 WASTEWATER FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(SECONDARY IMPACT DETERMINATION) 5:23
5-2 WASTEWATER FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(SECONDARY IMPACT EVALUATION FORM) 5:24
5-3 WASTEWATER FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(SECONDARY IMPACT PROFILE) 5:27
CHAPTER 7
7-1 WETLAND EVALUATION WORKSHEETS 7:12
7-2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 7:17
7-3 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 7:17
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANUAL 0:5
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
PAGE
7-4 IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION ON PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
WETLANDS CHARACTERISTICS 7:23
7-5 RELATIONSHIP OF IMPACTS TO SPECIFIC WETLAND
FUNCTIONS 7:24
7-6 WETLANDS IMPACT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 7:25
7-7 APPROXIMATE EFFORT FOR WETLANDS ASSESSMENT 7:27
CHAPTER 9
9-1 NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 9:3
9-2 SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION INCREMENTS 9:5
9-3 KEY TO STABILITY CATEGORIES 9:14
9-B1 INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT MANUAL 9:27
CHAPTER 10
10-1 HUD NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION 10:8
10-2 EPA IDENTIFIED NOISE LEVELS REQUISITE TO PROTECT
THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH AN ADEQUATE
MARGIN OF SAFETY 10:9
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANUAL 0:6
-------
environmental
assessment
manual
overview
-------
CHAPTER 1 - OVERVIEW
Prepared by: Anderson-Nichols 1:1
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This "Environmental Assessment Manual - Wastewater Facilities"
has been developed to provide guidance to grant applicants
in preparing Environmental Assessments (EAs) for EPA funded
wastewater facilities. The manual has been prepared by
Region I of EPA and is directed at conditions common to the
New England region.
The manual does not constitute a statement of Region I policy
in the preparation of EAs. It is intended as a guide for
use by towns and cities, their consultants, and state
administrators. The procedures outlined herein will have
application to many situations. There are, however, many
unique conditions which may require original and innovative
procedures.
The topics included for discussion do not cover all of the
environmental concerns addressed in a typical EA. The con-
centration is in those areas which have been problems
throughout the region or have been mandated by recent EPA
regulations.
The format of the manual is such that sections may be revised
or added as new methodologies are developed or regulations
issued.
1.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972,
Federal grants are available for a broad range of wastewater
collection and treatment facilities. As a prerequisite for
receiving grants, amounting to up to 75 per cent of eligible
costs, a three step planning, design and construction process
is required. These steps are as follows:
Step 1 - Facility Planning
Step 2 - Detailed Design
Step 3 - Construction
Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) all Federally funded construction
projects which will significantly affect the human environment
are subject to an environmental review process. The specific
procedures to be followed in assessing environmental impacts
are promulgated by each Federal agency. EPA's regulations
are 40 CFR Part 6, "Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements" (April 1975).
The basic environmental procedures, as they apply to EPA's
wastewater facility grants in Region I are contained in the
following:
June 1978 1:2
-------
"Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan" EPA/MCD, (May 1975).
"Guides to Environmental Planning, Assessments and Impacts
for Water Quality Management Plans and Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Projects", Region I, EPA, Revised August 1975.
The environmental assessment is part of the documentation
known as the Facility Plan and prepared during Step 1. The
environmental assessment provides a basis for evaluating the
significance of the environmental impacts of the various alter-
natives considered in preparing the Facility Plan..
If EPA concurs in an EA finding that the proposed facility
plan will not have any significant adverse effects, a Nega-
tive Declaration is issued. If EPA finds that a project may
have significant adverse effects or is very controversial,
EPA will issue a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS).
An EIS is more comprehensive than an EA and concentrates its
analysis on those areas with a potential for significant en-
vironmental degradation.
1.2 RECENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXPERIENCE - REGION 1
In most cases in New England the EA has been prepared by the
firm engaged by a community or sewer authority to prepare a
Facility Plan. No .accurate records are maintained by EPA,
but it is estimated that over the past five years an average
of $2,000 to $10,000 has been allocated for the EA portion
of Step 1. An overwhelming majority of the assessments have
reported no significant adverse impacts.
Increasingly, however, EPA and/or the public have been chal-
lenging the Environmental Assessment findings. Due to a num-
ber of reasons such as the inadequacy of the significant impact
analysis or the significant nature of the potential adverse
impacts, EPA has found it necessary to prepare the second
level of analysis—an Environmental Impact Statement. The
issuance of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS can mean a
year's delay in completing facility planning.
One method being used in several EPA regions and recently
initiated in Region 1 is the "piggyback" EIS. Under this
procedure an EIS is prepared concurrently with the facility
plan by an independent consultant. "Piggybacking" can avoid
the delays inherent in first doing an EA and then following
it with an EIS.
As noted above, some EIS's have been needed because of the
inadequacy of the EAS's analysis or because the sewer needs
documentation has not been sufficient. In instances this
can be traced to the very limited funds allocated to EA
work.
June 1978 1:3
-------
In others the EA has been viewed as a nuisance assignment;
there is a reluctance on the part of the engineering firm to
state that the impacts are significant. Sewer authorities,
state agencies and engineering consultants don't relish envi-
ronmental complications which can further delay a project.
1.3 IMPROVING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
A recent study by the GAO contained a number of recommenda-
tions for improving the environmental analysis procedures
under NEPA for several Federal agencies, including EPA. The
key recommendation was for an early identification of signi-
ficant impacts so that the EIS process, where required,
could proceed concurrently with Step 1 facility planning.
A more smoothly functioning facilities planning process can
be encouraged by improving the environmental assessment anal-
ysis. Three results could be realized:
1. The environmental analysis of any key issue would be suf-
ficient to convince the public and/or EPA that, in fact, the
impacts are not significant, or
2. The environmental analysis would, at an early stage, iden-
tify a significant impact or impacts which would warrant a
"piggyback" EIS.
3. The environmental analysis could identify problem areas
and alert officials to measures for alleviating mitigating
adverse impacts, thus turning a potentially significant issue
into an environmentally benign one.
In New England and throughout the United States the environ-
mental assessment often has been viewed as just another Fed-
eral application requirement. The days of considering the
assessment as a document justifying the proposed facility
plan are numbered and were never intended in the various EPA
regulations.
Today there is a growing public awareness that the size, ca-
pacity and location of wastewater facilities have a signifi-
cant impact on the direction and rate of community growth.
A number of community development experts now contend that
public facilities such as sewers can be more important in
determining land use patterns than zoning.
It is the premise of this manual that the environmental
assessment process be utilized in developing wastewater facil-
ity plans which are consistent with local objectives. Under
no condition should the facility plan direct or induce devel-
opment in a manner which is contrary to local goals and
plans.
June 1978 1:4
-------
1.4 CASE STUDY COMMUNITY PROFILE
Tinkersville, New England is an imagined community which has
been created to facilitate discussions of some of the environ-
mental assessment methodologies presented in this manual.
Figure 1-1 shown the major streets and natural features of
the town. Additional maps and descriptive text are con-
tained in a number of the chapters of the manual.
The following sections provide a profile of the community.
Tinkersville is located in central New England approximately
15 miles east of Summerfield, a moderately sized industrial
and commercial city of 60,000.
1.41 Economy
Tinkersville serves as the major shipping and commercial cen-
ter for five or six surrounding towns.
The major commercial center is located along Old State Road
in West Village.
Tinkersville is the only significant employment center in
the immediate area. Major industries include the old
Nutrient Products Factory in South Village and several elec-
tronics industries located on either side of New State Road
on the east side of Town.
Nutrient Products, which is locally owned, developed to
serve the original farming community. Although the company
still serves the remaining agricultural activities in
Tinkersville and surrounding towns, it has diversified into
new products and is showing steady growth.
The electronics industries are divisions of nationally re-
cognized manufacturers who located in Tinkersville because
of its central location with respect to the New England mar-
ket, good highway and rail access, a surplus of trainable
and skilled labor, and the natural living amenities of the
area. All are prospering and anticipate expansion to serve
a growing market for their products.
Very few residents commute to jobs outside of Tinkersville.
The median family income in 1978 is estimated to be $15,000.
Agriculture is still important in Tinkersville. The area
south of the Green River is made up of a number of operating
dairy farms.
1.42 Population
In 1978 the population was 15,000. Prior year populations
were: 1970 - 12,000; 1960 - 9,000; 1950, 6,000. Virtually
June 1978 1:5
-------
all of the town's growth can be attributed to the expansion
of existing industries and the attraction of new industry to
town.
1.43 Natural Features
The terrain is gently rolling and there are no significant
areas of excessive slope or high elevation.
The Green River by-passes the older developed section of the
town and fortunately has been retained in a relatively natu-
ral state.
1.44 Urban Development
Urban development consisting of small and large lot single
family homes, commercial uses and industry are concentrated
in the central section of town. Due to the lack of sewers
there has been no multi-family housing except for some large
home conversions and units over stores in West Village. The
surrounding land areas contain scattered homes, farms or wood-
lands. Public water is supplied to the urbanized sections
of town.
1.45 Water Resources
A reservoir in the northeast section of town provides an ade-
quate water supply for the town. With some expansion it can
serve some of the future needs of the community.
An additional water resource is a major unutilized ground-
water aquifer on the north side of the Green River.
1.46 Population Projection
The Green River Regional Planning Commission, in collabora-
tion with the State Planning Office has made the following
population estimates (assuming no sewer construction) for
Tinkersvilie:
1980 - 16,000
1990 - 19,000
2000 - 22,000
These estimates have been accepted by the local Chamber of
Commerce and Planning Baord.
1.47 Local Plans
In 1971 the Planning Board prepared a Master Plan to guide
the Town's future growth. The plan generally encouraged
future growth at densities of one half acre/lot or more
south of New State Road, north of the Green River and west
June 1978 1:6
-------
-•-*»^"--» 'MLA^.""-"i2-r^*^
^-i*^»<_A
-------
of South Village. Because the soils in the above area had,
according to SCS criteria, limitations for on-site septic
systems it was suggested that sewering would be appropriate
along with the sewering of the older sections of West Vil-
lage and South Village.
Due to the continued strong influence of Nutrient Products
in local affairs, the plan did not propose sewer extensions
to help attract additional industry in the new industrial
area on the east side of town.
There has been continued bickerinq over the contention that
the plan is not reflective of community's desire to attract
new industry to provide a more balanced tax base.
1.48 Municipal Finances
The extensive subdivision activity during the past twenty
years to provide housing to serve new residents attracted by
the new and growing local industries has placed a severe
strain on the school system. Schools represent 60% of the
local municipal budget. Additional schools will be required
in the near future.
Other municipal services have expanded to meet the needs of
a growing population. The per capita cost of these ser-
vices, however, has grown at a rate which exceeds the infla-
tion rate for the area.
1.49 Growth Regulations
The Town has adopted strong regulations which render con-
struction in wetland areas almost impossible and the devel-
opment of flood plains or high water table areas not econ-
omically attractive.
These regulations, however, provide few restrictions or con-
trols covering land development adjacent to wetlands and
streams.
June 1978 1:7
-------
i
needs
analysis
-------
CHAPTER 2 - NEEDS ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Anderson-Nichols 2:1
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
In 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted
a survey of 258 facility plans from 49 states. Of the
total, 83 were for completely new collection and treatment
systems. Three-quarters of the 83 plans indicated costs in
excess of $100 per household per year. At the time of the
survey, the median family income in the U.S. was approxi-
mately $13,000. Considering that in small communities the
median income was less, the anticipated burden of the annual
costs for the new collection and treatment systems on the
average homeowner can be appreciated.
Most facility plans are well prepared and propose reasonable
solutions to wastewater disposal problems. Some plans,
however, have proposed socially and economically burdensome
projects. The consequences are defeat by the voters or an
order to prepare an EIS. A major shortcoming of many of
these projects is in the preliminary work - the definition
and documentation of sewer needs. If need for the project
is better substantiated, then the costs, although occasion-
ally high will be better understood and consequently more
apt to be accepted by the voters.
This chapter of the Environmental Assessment Manual deals
with the basic reason for the recommendations found in a
Facilities Plan, that is, the documentation of need for the
proposed project. This section presents some background
information on regulatory requirements and past practices,
and includes a suggested methodology for the preparation of
an adequate needs analysis.
The objective of the presentation of this chapter is the
documentation of the need and a suggested methodology for
the preparation of a needs analysis. The suggested method-
ology is not specifically required by EPA policy or program
requirements but is presented as an aid to the engineer who
has to meet EPA program requirements.
In many cases, water pollution and public health problems
have been identified by the EPA "Needs Survey"; the NPDES
Permit process; the State Priority List development; or
prior state or local sanitary surveys. The methodology for
further identifying and documenting such problems will be
presented in this chapter.
The needs analysis portion of facility planning is necessary
to establish the nature of wastewater disposal problems and
to develop reasonable alternatives. It is also helpful in
preparing an Environmental Assessment of the proposed project
by providing documentation of problems and justification for
the proposed actions.
June 1978 2:2
-------
2.1 REGULATORY STATUS
Several years after the implementation of Public Law 92-500
and the rules and regulations promulgated under Section 201
of the Act, EPA administrators became acutely aware of the
problems encountered by small communities which were unable
to meet the high costs of wastewater collection and treatment
facilities. In response to the problem,' John T. Rhett, in
an August 18, 1976 memorandum to EPA's Regional Administrators,
presented a draft Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM)
which required that Facility Plans include a complete and
careful cost-effectiveness analysis of:
— septic tanks, holding tanks and package treatment
plants (which are all eligible for federal funding)
for small clusters of houses;
"honey wagons" and septage treatment facilities
(also eligible for federal funding) to serve a
group of individual family systems; and
— new systems serving only an individual family
(though this alternative is not eligible for federal
funding).
Though still a draft PRM the Rhett memorandum is being used
as a guide to EPA policy. In further response to the problem
of costly collection and treatment facilities and to clarify
EPA policy on the funding of collection systems, Douglas
Costle, EPA Administrator, issued PRM 77-8 on June 21, 1977.
Section 111-B of PRM 77-8 required that the cost-effective-
ness of collector sewers must be proven when compared to the
alternatives presented in the Rhett memorandum. The section
also required the specific documentation of health, ground-
water and discharge problems of existing disposal systems
and the documentation of site characteristics which restrict
the use of existing disposal systems. Section 111-C of the
same PRM required public disclosure of the costs of any
collection system project including:
the estimated monthly charge for operation and
maintenance,
the estimated monthly debt service charge,
the estimated connection charge, and
the estimated connection charge to a typical resi-
dential customer for the new collection system and
any other associated wastewater facilities required.
The most recent response to the collection system cost
problem comes from Congress in the form of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1977 which adds sub-
section (h) to Section 201. Sub-section (h) allows grants
June 1978 2:3
-------
for the construction of "privately owned treatment works
serving one or more principal residences or small commercial
establishments constructed prior to, and inhabited on, the
date of enactment, of the sub-section.
2.2 PAST PRACTICES
In the past, engineers were inclined to presuppose "needs"
when a community hired them to do a Sewerage Feasibility
Study or Facility PLan, though the local desire might have
been the stimulation of industrial development or a transfer
of the "problem" of individual sub-surface disposal systems
from the local Board of Health to a Sewer Authority. Funding
programs have until recently helped to promote this lack of
real "needs analysis."
Prior to enactment of PL 92-500, HUD planning loans were
often used to prepare engineering reports in anticipation of
public works projects. Often times these reports were
written in accordance with "Guides for the Design of Waste-
water Treatment Works" prepared by the New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission, wherein it is stated
that the engineer's report should include a "brief descrip-
tion of project including statement of need".
The enactment of PL 92-500 made funds available for the
projects created under the HUD planning program but led to
the establishment by EPA of "Facility Plans." These Facility
Plans" often became rewrites of the old engineering reports
with the addition of infiltration/inflow studies, industrial
cost recovery and user charge systems and an environmental
assessment. Because Section 201 of the Act allows funding
for the construction of wastewater collection and treatment
facilities, such projects were often recommended and built.
2.21 Objections to Past Practices
Recently, voters facing ever increasing taxes, high inflation
and dwindling disposable income have been opposing sewer
construction by voting down bond referenda. In addition,
environmentally conscious citizens, fearing dramatic environ-
mental and social changes, work to defeat sewer proposals or
push for Environmental Impact Statements.
The concern of voters over the high cost of new collection
and treatment systems is not imagined. Table 2.1 is an
example of how many factors affect the cost comparison of
on-site disposal versus collection and treatment under three
conditions.
June 1978 2:4
-------
It should be noted that the information presented in Table
2-1 conforms with an important requirement of Section 111-C
of PRM-77.8 in that both private and public costs are included.
The differentiation of costs in addition to several other
concepts that are relevant to the cost effective analysis is
illustrated in Figure 2-1. The figure schematically shows
the entire wastewater system and includes all potential
costs such as repiping of house plumbing, the house collec-
tion sewers, the interceptor and the treatment plant. The
figure also shows that the largest portion of the wastewater
system's cost lies in the collection system in the case of
sewers and the future operation, maintenance and repair for
an on-site approach. Thus, the greatest potential in minimiz-
ing cost to the community lies in either reducing the cost
of the collection system or in minimizing the cost and
frequency of future on-site failures.
TABLE 2-1
COST COMPARISON OF
ON-SITE DISPOSAL VS. COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE I - SEWER CONSTRUCTION
Lot size
Sewer length per lot
Cost per lot @ $45/L.F.
Cost per lot for STP &
Interceptors
House Connection
TOTAL CAPITAL
P.W. of $35/yr O&M over
50 yrs. @ 6.5%
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
Case 1
200 x 100
122.5
5512
875
750
7137
525
$7622
Case 2
100 x 100
72.5
3262
875
750
4887
525
$5412
Case 3
75 x 100
54
2430
875
750
4055
525
$4580
ALTERNATIVE II - SYSTEM REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE
Repair cost 2000
Immediate cost/unit 400
Anual failure rate 3%
Annual repair cost/unit 60
Annual O&M/unit 30
P.W. of annual cost over
50 yrs. @ 6.5% 1350
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $1750
Ratio cost of sewers to
cost of rehabilitation 4.4
3000
600
4%
120
30
2250
$2850
1.9
5000
1000
5%
250
30
4200
$5200
0.88
June 1978
2:5
-------
The preceding table and figure clearly demonstrate that
wastewater collection and treatment is generally more costly
than on-site disposal. Many engineers and regulatory offi-
cals, however, feel that although on-site disposal may be
less costly, it is only a temporary measure and not as
effective as the more "modern" collection and treatment
alternative. This cost difference, the new program require-
ments and the new funding opportunities, however, require a
detailed analysis and documentation of existing disposal
system problems or "needs analysis" to justify the construc-
tion of wastewater collection and treatment facilities. The
engineer must, then, commit himself to as much time for
"needs analysis" and evaluation of alternatives to collection
as he would spend in the more "glamourous" work of evaluating
AWT alternatives. This implies that the engineer develops a
methodology for the needs analysis and includes it in his
Plan of Study (POS) prior to initiating the Facilities Plan.
A suggested needs analysis methodology follows.
2.3 SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY
The suggested methodology is not new. It does not replace
the past practices of many engineers but adds to them,
broadens them and makes them more responsive to the public.
The facility planning process, (Step 1), is a three phased
process.
Phase 1, analysis of needs, includes:
gathering information
analyzing the information
definition of problem
Phase 2, alternatives evaluation, includes:
Development of alternatives and implementation
plans
analysis of alternatives and implementations plans
evaluation and ranking of alternatives and implemen-
tation plans
Phase 3 selection of recommended alternative includes:
the gathering of public opinion
selection of recommended alternative and implementa-
tion plan
preparation of the Facilities Plan and Environmental
Assessment
June 1978
2:6
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
The needs analysis portion of the facility planning process
is the major topic of this chapter.
2.31 Information Gathering
In performing a needs analysis, it is necessary to gather
and store, in a recoverable manner, as much meaningful
information as possible which relates to the identification
of pollution control problems and potential health hazards
and compliance with local or other pollution abatement
orders. There are generally four categories of sources
available, these are:
1. Meetings with concerned and involved individuals
and organizations
2. Existing data and records
3. New data
4. The public
2.311 Meetings With Concerned and Involved Individuals and Organi-
zations .
The first category of sources is usually brought into the
process early in order to determine the location and extent
of the existing data and records. Concerned and involved
organizations and individuals include:
— The local government unit which could be the Town
Council, Board of Selectmen, Mayor, Town Manager, etc.
These people as the elected or appointed representatives
of the community often are quite aware of the existence
of wastewater problems and can help make access to
other information much easier.
— The local and regional planning agency and/or commis-
sion are occasionally aware of wastewater problems.
Most regional agencies have been involved with 208
plans. These generally are more helpful in providing
inventory information and plans for land uses such as
apartment or industrial sites which may require waste-
water facilities.
-- The Building Inspector is in some instances aware of
wastewater problems and can help determine whether
problems coul.d be caused by construction practices.
-- The Board of Health or Health Department generally
oversees the installation, maintenance and repair of
on-site systems and is usually a good source of records
of such. They usually receive and often record com-
plaints of overflows or failures.
June 1978 2:7
-------
-- Septage pumpers and landfill operators or sewage
treatment plant superintendents usually know where most
of their business is or keep records of septage pumping
and dumping.
— Local environmental or conservation groups which are
usually helpful in establishing an environmental back-
ground for the facility plan, may also be aware of
wastewater problems and areas of poor soils or high
groundwater.
All of the above sources are tapped by personal interview
and are thus subject to all of the human errors in both the
transmission and reception of information. Each person has
a varying level of competence and bias regarding on-site
systems and their inherent characteristics. The interviewer
cannot simply ask, "Where are your on-site problems?" the
problem should be defined through further questioning in an
attempt to filter out bias and over simplification. The
additional questions could include:
What is the nature of the problem?
How many or what percent have problems?
Are problems seasonal?
— Was the construction in the area with problems in
conformance with current rates and regulations?
The engineer must keep in mind that wastewater disposal
problems come in two types. Surface waters of a quality
less than that set by a regulatory agency are "physical"
problems which can be easily located and quantified by the
engineer. The other type, however, is the "emotional"
problem, the potential public health threat from sewage
overflowing in the backyard or down the street which makes
homeowners and local officials terribly excited and often
brings a cry for sewers. There are also those officials and
groups who are vehemently opposed to sewers. For these
reasons and to quantify the problem, it is not enough to
simply interview interested and concerned individuals in
gathering information.
2.312 Existing Data and Records
The next source in the information gathering phase of the
needs analysis is to consult existing records and data.
These include:
— Water quality data usually collected by the Water
Department, Board of Health Department. These are
occasionally accompanied by stream belt or shore line
surveys to find discharges. The water quality informa-
tion alone is usually not conclusive when trying to
establish whether inadequately treated wastewater is
June 1978 2:8
-------
overflowing into waterways. For that reason, they
should be supplemented with field surveys. Groundwater
quality information can be obtained from the Health
Department or Water Resources Division of the State.
This information and the location of existing and
proposed well sites will help develop potential and
existing problem areas.
— The U.S. Soil Conservation Service usually has
information on each town which includes an evaluation
of various soil types and conditions which can limit
the suitability of a site to on-site disposal. Due to
the nature of survey work producing this information,
such data must be viewed as a general guide to soil
types. Occasionally, the SCS classification of a soil
type as having "severe" or "very severe" limitations to
on-site disposal may be misleading in that it actually
applies to only the upper three or four feet of the
soil and doesn't take into account unconventional
alternatives such as mound systems.
— Installation, repair, maintenance and failure records
for on-site disposal systems are extremely useful in
establishing the existence and extent of wastewater
disposal problems. Installation, repair and failure
records are generally available from the Board of
Health, Health Department or Engineering Department.
Installation records can provide a list of locations on
which sub-surface disposal systems have been approved
and/or disapproved. Repair and failure records (usually
a list of the location of overflow complaints) will
help locate problems and, if extensive enough, establish
a failure rate for such systems.
— Land use and demographic data are usually available
from the local planning agency and the U.S. Census
Bureau. The information will help determine the loca-
tion of high density development, areas with high
tenancy rates or low property values.
— Septage haulers usually consider a listing of the
problem areas as proprietary market information and do
not quickly help anybody that may recommend a municipal
sewer. However, many towns now have septage treatment
facilities and require some basic information regarding
the source of the pumpage which can then be used to
great advantage by the engineer.
— Past engineering or planning reports often provide
substantial data, records and results of field work
which provide a valuable data baseline for ongoing work
or as a basis of comparison to establish trends and
document changes.
June 1978 2:9
-------
2.313 New Data
If the existing information is not adequate it may be neces-
sary to collect additional information on the community.
This may include:
-- Additional water quality samples.
— Subsurface explorations with a hand auger to allow
the engineer to expand the SCS data through either a
shot-gun approach or through a detailed survey in
neighborhoods with suspected problems. This approach
will establish site specific information.
-- Windshield surveys either townwide or in specific
neighborhoods help the engineer get a feel for the
community and establish the location of old, poor or
high density neighborhoods. The windshield survey
works best when the observer is a passenger and not the
driver. This approach can also be coupled with the
house to house survey.
-- The house to house survey is most helpful in gather-
ing information. It usually suffers from lack of extent
because of the cost and time involved. It is best
suited to specific neighborhoods as back-up to other
sources.
2.314 The Public
The last and perhaps most important source of information is
the public. Public participation has been cited as a parti-
cularly important part of the facility planning process, in
general, and is specifically important in the needs analysis
phase (See Chapter 3, Community Involvement). Because the
people of a community are the ones experiencing wastewater
disposal problems and are the final decision makers in the
approval of an alternative, it is necessary to obtain infor-
mation on problems as well as their opinions on alternatives,
Public participation in the needs analysis can be accom-
plished in at least three ways.
-- Public workshops can be used at several points in
the facility planning process. An effective tool is to
separate attendees into a number of groups which indivi-
dually prepare a map of problem areas in the community.
The workshop can also be used later in the needs analy-
sis to present preliminary findings and alternatives.
Thus, the workshop can be used for both "give and take"
in an informal setting.
June 1978 2:10
-------
— Public meetings are usually more formal than the
workshop and although some of the attendees willingly
present their views, many will not. Therefore, the
public meeting is more effective as a means of present-
ing information.
— Questionnaires distributed to all residents in the
planning area will usually produce a much larger and
more representative participation than a workshop or
public meeting. When thoughtfully prepared, the ques-
tionnaire can produce a large amount of information in
a useful form. Recent experience on Environmental
Impact Statements, in Region 1, which have included
questionnaires, has found response rates ranging from
15% to over 40%. A sample questionnaire is included as
Appendix 2.6.
2.32 Data Analysis
The next phase in the needs analysis is the synthesis of the
information gathered from the above sources. The most
effective tool is a map of the study area. It is suggested
that the map be of large scale and contain street names. It
is useful to prepare a number of copies of the base map as a
work map. Information, such as the location of homes which
have septic tanks pumped more often than once a year is
plotted on the work maps and then transferred to overlays.
The overlays can then be combined into a composite map (See
Figure 2-2) which may be compared with other overlays. This
comparison will produce correlations (e.g. frequent septage
pumping in older neighborhoods) which help define the prob-
lem. The maps and overlays produced in the analysis of the
information are also suitable (when of large scale) for
public meetings and workshops and can be reduced to a suit-
able size for the Facilities Plan.
When presenting the analysis it is often useful to present
the maps which indicate no correlations. For example, a
community with extremely good soils (i.e. permeable soils
and low groundwater) may have an area with a high concentrta-
tion of overflow complaints. The overlay procedure will
produce no correlation between soils and overflows but will
indicate that the overflow (or failure) of an on-site system
is not due exclusively to physical conditions. This bit of
information presented in the report will demonstrate that
the analysis was performed and will help dispel possible
misconceptions.
June 1978 2:11
-------
2.33 Problem Definition
The final step in the needs analysis is the definition of
the problem. More often than not the problem will be in more
than one form and if properly defined will guide the develop-
ment of alternatives. It is important to note a few inter-
esting findings from some recent facility plans and Environ-
mental Impact Statements prepared in Region 1.
-- In one plan, it was found that the complaints of
disposal system overflows (failures) were located in a
pattern. Comparison of this pattern to various charac-
teristics of the community indicated that this pattern
corresponded to an area which was old, of high density,
had a relatively low average property value and a high
percentage of rental units. The analysis indicated
that rehabilitation of on-site systems was not feasible
and sewer construction, though cost-effective, would
probably produce an adverse effect on residents who
would have to pay either directly or through increased
rents. In order to lessen the financial impact on the
taxpayers, a supplemental source of funding is now
being developed which will use HUD Community Development
Block Grants.
— The needs analysis conducted as part of an EIS
prepared for a project which included sewering most of
a then unsewered community indicated that septage
pumpings and repairs, which were used as justification
for the project, were actually only routine maintenance
and that an overwhelming majority of respondents to a
town-wide questionnaire felt that their existing dispo-
sal systems were not a problem.
-- In another EIS needs analysis, it was found that the
high fecal coliform counts found in the town's major
stream and used as a justification for a town-wide
sewer system, were caused by farming activities within
the watershed.
2.4 CASE STUDY
In 1977, "Consultant Inc. of Westport, New England" was con-
tracted to prepare a Step 1 Facilities Plan for the town of
Tinkersville, a small community of 15,000 located just east
of Westport. The needs analysis of the Tinkersville Facilities
Plan is described here because the consultant's study pro-
duced some very interesting results.
June 1978 2:12
-------
MAr
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
Prior to World War II, Tinkersville was a small farming/-
industrial community with two major village centers. South
Village, located at the intersection of Main Street and the
New England Railroad, is the older of the two villages.
West Village located at the intersection of Old State Road
and the railroad developed during the mid 1930's. With the
completion of new State Road came additional development to
the north of West Village and more recently, the approval of
major subdivisions throughout town.
2.41 Location o_f Problems
The first phase of Consultant's sewerage needs analysis was
location of problems. Consultant, Inc. held a series of
early meetings with the town government unit, the town
planning unit, the local board of health, the State Depart-
ment of Health, and interested citizens. At these meetings a
great deal of information was gathered concerning the history
of on-site disposal system installation, operation, mainten-
ance and failure. This information was used to locate
potential problem neighborhoods for house to house surveys.
These survey results plus streambelt surveys conducted by
the State and consultant were used to produce the Problem
Location map (Figure 2-4). Problems include: septic tanks
which require pumping more than once each year (this recog-
nizes the distinction between preventative maintenance
pumping and problem pumping), confirmed overflows reported
by the Board of Health and raw discharges reported by the
State Health Department and the consultant's survey.
2.42 Map Soil Data
The next phase of the consultant's needs analysis was the
mapping of soil data obtained from the U.S.D.A. SCS and the
consultant's house to house survey. Figure 2-5 shows areas
with seasonal high groundwater within three feet of the
surface and areas with slow permeability. The map could
also show areas with shallow bedrock and areas with steep
(greater than 15%) slope. Comparison of the Problem Location
map and the Soils Data map indicates that only a few problems
are caused by high groundwater or slow permeability. This
fact was confirmed by the results of a town-wide question-
naire and the first public workshop.
2.43 Age o_f Development
The consultant next mapped the relative age of development.
This information was obtained from old U.S.G.S. maps which
showed individual buildings in existence prior to the date
of the map. Comparison of Figure 2-6 with the Problem
Location map indicates that a number of problems in West
June 1978 2:13
-------
Village can be correlated with age of development. It should
be noted that if the town's records were extensive enough
the consultant could correlate individual failures with the
age of the system. This technique, was used by Frink and
Hill in Glastonbury, Connecticut' ' ' to determine a half life
of 27 years for on-site disposal systems (i.e. 50% of all
systems studied failed within 27 years).
2.44 Land Use Analysis
As part of the problem definition phase of the needs analy-
sis, the consultant made use of the town planning unit's
Land Use Map and his own survey information to map potential
need areas (i.e. commercial developments and industrial
sites) and constraints to on-site rehabilitation (e.g. small
lot residential development). This information was
mapped for correlation with the Problem Location map.
2.45 Problem Definition
The Problem Definition map is one of the intermediate outputs
prepared for the second public workshop. This map shows
three distinct problem areas. Area A, the old high density
residential and commercial development in West Village, is
one area of chronic on-site disposal problems. The needs
analysis indicated that problems in this area are due to the
age (and probably the nature) of the systems. There are no
severe soil limitations preventing on-site disposal, but
rehabilitation could be difficult due to the high density of
the development.
Area B, the newer residential development in West Village,
is another area of chronic on-site disposal problems. The
needs analysis indicated that problems here are not caused
by soil conditions or age of development (reflecting a
change in town zoning after the earlier development in West
Village). Earlier meetings with the public health officer
did inform the consultant, however, that the code for on-site
disposal was changed (improved) after development in this
area and that problems in Area B are probably due to underde-
signed systems.
Area C, a recent residential development to the east of
South Village, has on-site disposal problems due to high
groundwater as a result of poor installation supervision.
This area, however, is not troubled by high density and has
potential for on-site system rehabilitation.
^ "Longevity of Septic Systems in Connecticut Soils",
D.E. Hill and C. R. Frink, Bulletin 747, June 1974, The
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.
June 1978 2:14
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
PATA
suow
r
WITHIN
4
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
UAKlP U
t-^-^^jV
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
It should be noted that individual problems in areas of slow
permeability did not indicate problem areas. Also, untreated
waste discharges to streams were discovered by the consul-
tant's streambelt survey and ordered corrected by the public
health officer.
Consultant's study concluded that different solutions were
feasible for each of the problem areas defined. More important,
however, by documenting their needs analysis and involving
the public from the start of the Facilities Plan, they found
that:
they recommended the most cost-effective, tech-
nically feasible alternatives,
the alternatives were both politically and publicly
acceptable, and
as a result of their detailed analysis, they pro-
duced a high quality Environmental Assessment as
part of their Facilities Plan.
2.5 LEVEL OF EFFORT
The facility planning consultant hired to perform the needs
analysis described above should give some careful thought to
the level of detail and manpower required for each case. It
is suggested that the needs analysis performed on a study
area of approximately 300 dwelling units would not require a
questionnaire mailing but would rely on information developed
by the house to house survey if problems are suspected after
the preliminary analysis. For the needs analysis performed
on a study area of 3000 dwelling units, the questionnaire
would be used as part of the preliminary analysis and then a
house to house survey would be performed in neighborhoods
found to be potential problems.
To establish a range of values, it is assumed that between
20% and 100% of the house to house survey will be required.
June 1978 2:15
-------
TABLE 2-2
NEEDS ANALYSIS LEVEL OF EFFORT
ESTIMATED
ITEM TASK DESCRIPTION MAN DAYS
1 Preliminary - strategy planning 5.0
2 Meetings with town officials and
department heads 1.5
3 Review existing records and reports
- Board of Health 2.0
Planning Department 2.0
Engineering/Building Inspector 1.0
- State Reports 2 .0
Soils Data, interpretation/mapping 2.0
- Old U.S.G.S. maps 1.0
4 New Data
- Water quality sampling, testing and
evaluation if existing information is
inadequate
5 - Windshield survey 2.0
6 - Preliminary analysis 5.0
7 - House-to-house survey, preparation
of forms, questionnaires 3.0
Total estimates time per house 2.0
hours plus downtime for no answer,
inconvenienced or uncooperative home
owners and travel between houses; say
3 houses per day. Therefore, for a
survey of 300 houses estimate 100
days 100.0
8 - Final mapping of survey data 2.0
9 - Initial workship to precede house
to house survey 2.0
10 Questionnaire used in larger town to
screen neighborhoods prior to house
to house survey
June 1978 2:16
-------
ITEM
11
12
TABLE 2-2 (Cont.)
TASK DESCRIPTION
Preparation
Printing/mailing list/postage assume
28
-------
Case 1. Community of 1000 people, 300 houses estimate based on
Items 1-9 and 12.
Low end of range based on house to house survey of 20%
of the houses and no water quality sampling required.
55 man days
Upper end of range based on house to house survey of
all houses and a water quality sampling program.
135 man days
plus sampling
Case 2. Community of 10,000 people, 3000 houses estimate based
on Items 1-12.
Low end of range based on house to house survey of
of 300 houses and no water quality sampling required.
80 man days
plus questionnaire costs
Upper end of range based on house to house survey of
300 houses and a water quality sampling program.
160 man days
plus questionnaire costs
plus sampling
June 1978 2:18
-------
2.6
APPENDIX
FOR OFFICE
USE ONLY
1-4
5-7
8-11
12
13
14
11-16
17
18-22
23-26
27-31
32-35
36
37-38
39-43
44-4C
47
48
49
50
51
52-53
Pic
and
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
1C.
17.
IB.
19.
HASTEMATER HANACKMCNT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REQUEST KOR INFORMATION
Please complete as much of the requested information as poosiblc, fold, staple, affix stamp,
end drop in the mail box.
Name Street Address .
2. Do you _^
Is this a one
Own
Rent
, two , throe , or more
4. Number of people occupy ing the house ^____^^__
family house? (Check one)
5. What iu the date of septic- nystcm installation or the last major re-novation?
6. The answer to Question No. 5 in known approximate uncertain
7. How large is your lot?
square feet
acres
What appliances do you have connected to your septic system?
Clothes Wanner Garbage Grinder Sump Pump Dishwasher
9. Check any of the following operational pr oh lorn.-, you have with your wastcwatcr disposal r.yslcra?
Sewage odors System bickupn/fllow system drainage
Other
Sewage flowing on ground surface
_Spncify
10. If operational problem(s) is indicated in Question No. 9, at what limu of yc.ir doer, Ihju
problem occur? Chock as many blocks ao appropriate: Spring Rummer Fall Winter
11. Do you havo a routine maintenance program for your wactcwater disposal cystc-m? Yno No
12. If yes to Question 11, describe the maintenance* performed and indicate the time interval
between maintenance procedures. . .
13. Wliat is the average onniinj, ...aintcnancc coot for your syr.lem? ._ ,. • • ''
14. If the cost were roasoii.jMo, what is your opinion on public sewers? (Check one)
_Strongly in favor In favor No opinion Opposed Strongly opposed
15. Are you familiar with composting toilets r.uch as clivns mult rum, ccolct, etc.? yes _No
16. If yen to Question No. 15, what is your opinion on installing a composting toilut iri your homo?
—Strongly in favor In. favor Nu opinion Op'josed Strongly opposed
17. Khat is your opinion on the Town assuming the responsibility (or maintenance and rcp.'iir of
all individual septic syutemn as a municipal service fundcfd from general revenue?
Strongly in favor In fuvor No opinion Optioued Strongly opposed
IB. What is your opinion on requiring tho installation of water-saving toiK-ts, showers, and
other devices for all new and replacement inz-.t.nllation?
Strongly in favor In favor Ho opinion Opp-jsod Strongly opposed
19. Do you In'ive any comments 01 nugqcfitiunu? -
June 1978
2:19
-------
en
assessm
manual
^^ ^W« CO
o
5 o
t^b < 3
int if
^F I ^B *u ^
||
community
involvement
-------
CHAPTER 3 - COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Prepared by: Public Participation Project Staff-Region I 3:1
-------
CHAPTER 3 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
3.0 INTRODUCTION
Community involvement is perhaps the most crucial aspect of
the facilities planning process, even though it is often
taken for granted. Technical reports, maps and engineering
plans to be worth anything at all must be understood and
accepted by the citizens in a community. The best means of
ensuring understanding and acceptance is by having the
citizens share in the development of alternatives and recom-
mendations for their community through an effective community
involvement program. Community involvement is really communi-
cation—two-way communication—and it makes good planning
sense.
This chapter provides facility planners and those conducting
environmental assessments with practical advice and informa-
tion on how to make community involvement an integral part
of their efforts. First, the regulatory status of public
participation in facilities planning/ environmental assess-
ment is reviewed. Then there is a brief discussion of
current practice as well as EPA's expectations for the
future. Next, evaluating the effectiveness of community
involvement is addressed and then communication and organiza-
tion skills are discussed, with particular emphasis on
"scoping" a community involvement program. This is followed
by a list of techniques and "guides" noting how they best
fit into the facility planning/assessment process. Finally,
two "case studies" provide examples of how the careful
application of skills and techniques can bring about effec-
tive community involvement.
3.1 REGULATORY STATUS
In the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, Congress declared:
"Public participation in the development, revision and
enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation,
plan or program under the Act shall be provided for, encour-
aged, and assisted..." (Section lOle)
Regulations to implement Section lOle of the Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 on public participation were
published in the Federal Register, August 23, 1973 (40 CFR,
Part 105) and are incorporated in the Construction Grants
Regulations, published February 11, 1974 (40 CFR, Part 35
917-5) their "intent...is to foster a spirit of openness and
sense of mutual trust between the public and the State and
Federal agencies in efforts to restore and maintain the
integrity of the Nation's waters."
June 1978 3:2
-------
In addition, Section 5 of EPA's Guidance for Preparing a
Facility Plan states that "the public should participate
from the beginning in facility planning so that interests
and potential conflicts may be identified early and are
considered as planning proceeds." Several measures for
involving the public are then listed.
Finally, early public involvement in the NEPA process is
required by CEQ Guidelines (40 CFR, Part 15) and EPA Regu-
lations (40 CFR, Part 6).
3.2 PAST PRACTICES/FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Traditionally, the only mechanism used to involve citizens
in facilities planning has been a formal public hearing held
near the end of the planning process. While the engineering
consultant may have been in regular contact with an official
board or commission, the only communication with community
interest groups and residents has occurred at this hearing.
In many cases adversary relations and conflict have developed
because major decisions have been made without consulting
major community interest groups.
In an attempt to bring about earlier communication with the
public in the facilities planning process, EPA Region 1 is
encouraging additional community involvement measures.
While recognizing the importance of flexibility in developing
appropriate community involvement measures, Region 1 expects
that a few basic elements will be carried out for specific
kinds of Step 1 projects. For "first time" community pro-
jects; for projects which involve significant expansion of a
sewer service area or treatment plant; for projects which
involve reconstruction of a treatment plant on a new site;
and for multi-community projects the following elements will
be expected as a minimum community involvement program:
A. Informational materials distributed to the public
and media at key points in the planning process.
B. At least two well publicized public meetings or
workshops held prior to the formal public hearing. The
first meeting should be held early in planning to
review and discuss community goals and wastewater
treatment needs. The second meeting should be held
when alternative solutions are being analyzed.
C. A public hearing, also well publicized in advance,
should be held after all the alternatives have been
analyzed. The purpose of the hearing is to record
community preferences for consideration in selection of
the final plan.
June 1978 3:3
-------
The sections which follow discuss criteria, skills and
techniques for adequate community involvement in facility
planning.
3.3 SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY
3.31 Evaluation of Adequate Community Involvement
If fifty citizens come to a public hearing on a facility
plan, it may mean only that fifty chairs were used. What
did the people have to say? What did they know before they
came to the hearing? Were they representative of all the
major interests in the community? Were citizens' comments
considered in the environmental assessment of the final
plan? Did the final plan gain general support in town
meeting or a bond issue referendum? Only by asking these
questions can we determine whether community involvement in
a given project was adequate. Community Involvement does not
guarantee wide acceptance of a facility plan. It only
guarantees that the plan WILL be as suitable to local condi-
tions and as widely understood as possible.
There is no question that documenting the "success" of a
community involvement program is difficult. However, good
record keeping throughout the planning process can be very
useful when the time comes for plan review. It is strongly
recommended that those conducting facilities planning and
environmental assessments keep a thorough and accurate file
with records of each contact with the public during the
planning process. This file could include summaries of
meetings, results of surveys and questionnaires, fact sheets,
brochures, newsletters and press clippings. Most important
it should demonstrate responsiveness to public questions and
preferences. It is also recommended that EPA and the State
be kept informed of community involvement activities and of
problems which arise.
Finally, in terms of EPA's expectations, it should be remem-
bered that a "summary of public participation shall be
submitted as part of the facility plan. Each summary of
public participation shall describe the measures taken by
the agency to provide for, encourage, and assist public
participation in relation to the matter; the public response
to such measures; and the disposition of significant points
raised.
Basically EPA will want to be sure that appropriate measures
are taken to inform the community throughout the planning
and to elicit ideas and viewpoints from community residents.
In addition, EPA will want to see how and why these views
and preferences are or are not used in project decisions.
June 1978 3:4
-------
3.32 Skills Required to Conduct a Community Involvement Program
A good community involvement specialist is a good organizer
and a good communicator. The good organizer finds represen-
tatives of the various publics in the community and gets
them interested in serving on an advisory committee and/or
attending meetings and workshops. The good organizer knows
how to run committee meetings, public meetings and public
hearings; how to identify and clarify issues; how to get
opposing factions to reason together; how to build and use a
mailing list; how to organize a press conference or other
event for the news media.
The good communicator writes clearly, speaks convincingly
and listens accurately. The communicator absorbs technical
information and reduces it to non-technical English without
distortion; accurately summarizes public comments; conducts
personal interviews in a pleasant, competent manner; under-
stands the needs of the news media and provides press re-
leases, news conferences and interviews that meet these
needs; understands the use of news letters, fact sheets and
other mailings and handouts to keep the public informed and
interested; knows the value of controversy as a means of
heightening interest in the issues, and knows how to mediate
controversy or break a deadlock.
Where to find such people and how to put them to work?
First, EPA will pay the reasonable costs of organized public
participation. Some consulting engineering firms have public
participation specialists on their staffs. But this is not
the only way to go. The necessary skills can be hired on a
temporary or part-time basis. Professional public relations
counselors with experience in community relations often are
available. The regional planning agency to which the commun-
ity belongs can be retained, or the community's planning
staff might possess the requisite skill and experience.
Free-lance writers and even news reporters can be hired for
the writing jobs without conflict of interest, provided the
individual is not also assigned to write about the project
for a newspaper or broadcast station. A local citizen
experienced in community organizing may be an ideal choice.
In many cases it may not be possible to obtain additional
staff to plan and manage the community involvement activi-
ties, and the consultant will have to use existing staff,
with or without special communication and organization
skills. The following section is meant to help the consul-
tant in such a position to "scope out" or design a community
involvement program which is best suited for each local
situation.
June 1978 3:5
-------
3.33 Designing a Community Involvement Program
When putting together a community involvement program, keep
in mind that good program design and management mean more
than planning a series of required informational materials
and meetings. Community involvement must be of a vital part
of the overall planning program.
Three basic steps are necessary in program design: (1)
development of a community profile which identifies issues,
key persons and constituencies, (2) analysis of the commun-
ity profile and (3) definition of program scope, emphasis
and methods. These steps are described in more detail
below.
3.331 Developing a Community Profile
First, identify whether the community is likely to experience
the following impacts as a result of the project: a signifi-
cant change in land use; a significant increase in treatment
plant interceptor capacity; substantial cost to users; a new
treatment plant; a significant increase in sewered area; a
significant adverse impact on environmentally sensitive
areas; intermunicipal agreements with neighboring communi-
ties; a significant impact on local population growth.
Next, identify and interview by phone or in person represen-
tatives of local boards and committees related to the pro-
ject.
Solicit from those interviewed their opinion on how the
program should address the issues you have identified; their
identification of town residents and organizations or
interests who are actively concerned with these issues;
their opinion on whether any of the issues identified will
be controversial; their identification of important issues
which you have not mentioned; their preferences as to how
they would like to be involved in the program; information
on communication resources available in the community (e.g.,
an organization's newsletter for information, a grange hall
for workshops, an active representative to an advisory
committee). Next interview those residents identified for
you by the officials and ask them the same questions. These
people should represent a cross-section of community interests
The local reporter is usually an important resource. Note
that while the primary purpose of interviewing is to obtain
information about issues, secondary results of the interview
process include informing key people in the community about
the project and finding out about local resources which
could be of assistance in the program. The interviews will
also provide key people with a first impression of the
program and their role in it.
June 1978 3:6
-------
3.332 Analysis of Community Profile
Try to form an overall impression of how the concerned
interests and individuals will react to each phase of the
program.
3.333 Definition of Program Scope, Emphasis, and Methods
A. Scope: The amount of resources invested in a community
involvement program should be directly related to the
significance of the issues involved and to the extent
of public interest anticipated. If the interviews
demonstrate that the impacts of the project will be
substantial and if they also indicate that there is a
lack of public understanding of these impacts or no
community consensus on the issues, the community in-
volvement program described on page 3:3 should be ex-
panded. In other words, if apathy or controversy exist
on an important project, a more extensive community
involvement program is required.
B. Emphasis: Once the scope or level of community involve-
ment has been determined, it is essential to recognize
the four functions of effective community involvement
activities: (1) information giving, (2) community
liaison, (3) listening and (4) decision-making. The
next step is to define the decision points in the
program. Use the results of interviews to determine
when extra information, community organizing or listen-
ing will be required in relation to the decision points.
Keep in mind the two problems of apathy and controversy
in deciding how and when in the program each of the
four functions should be stressed. For example, commun-
ity residents are often relatively unconcerned about
program impacts initially but will find alternative
solutions very controversial once presented. This
community forecast suggests that an early emphasis on
information and community liaison techniques, followed
by workshops which facilitate listening, could help to
prevent both apathy and controversy.
C. Methods: Use guides like Figures 3-1 and 3-2. First
list the decision points. Next, list the four functional
elements which must precede each decision: information,
community liaison, listening and decision making.
Finally, using knowledge of the community and the
required scope and emphasis, select appropriate methods
for each function listed. (See Section on Techniques -
page 3:8). Be aware that generally the easiest task is
to inform the public about the project. Also, well
established political procedures in the community will
June 1978 3:7
-------
usually dictate the formal decision-making process for
the project. However, community liaison and listening
(which includes responding to community concerns in
decision-making) require more community knowledge and
the greatest ability to work with people. These func-
tions should normally receive special attention because
they are the most difficult to manage.
3.34 Planning Guides (Figures 3-1 and 3-2)
The two guides are provided to help you plan the use of
community involvement techniques to meet these standards.
Brief descriptions of these common techniques are discussed
in the following section.
3.35 Techniques for Getting the Community Involved
A. The Mailing List (community organizing)
This is one of the first steps in organizing a community
involvement program. It is needed for sending notices and
invitations, fact sheets, summaries of task force reports,
progress reports, news letters and copies of news releases,
etc. A mailing list starts with official boards, commissions
and committees of the community and the unofficial civic,
business, fraternal, environmental and recreational clubs
and organizations. The list should include individuals
known to be interested in water quality and environmental
improvements as well as members of the news media. The list
grows as additional organizations and individuals make
themselves known by signing up at meetings, calling up or
writing in with questions and comments.
B. Depositories (information giving)
A complete collection of documents about the wastewater
facility plan must be available for inspection at a central
and easily accessible place such as the community library.
Here a citizen should be able to read the basic laws and
regulations applying to the project, along with reports,
plans, maps, press releases, brochures, newsletters, illus-
trations, displays and similar material. Not many will use
the depository unless it is publicized. Its existence can
be mentioned at all meetings and referred to in printed
material and news releases, and an attractive poster can be
displayed at the site of the depository.
C. Publications (information giving)
Brochures, fact sheets and technical bulletins can be pre-
pared for general public information. They may be placed in
June 1978 3:8
-------
FIGURE 3-1
Community Involvement Planning Guide
Planning Phases And
Decisions
Functions
Methods
Prepare Plan of Study;
Community Involvement
Program Design
Information Giving
Community Liaison:
Listening:
Decision Making:
Determine Needs and
Problems
(Assess Current and
Future Situations)
Information Giving
Community Liaison:
Listening:
Decision Making:
Develop and Evaluate
Alternatives
(Environmental Assessment
and Cost Effective Analysis)
Information Giving
Community Liaison:
Listening:
Decision Making:
Determine whether EIS
is needed
Information Giving:
Community Liaison:
Listening:
Decision Making:
Select Plan
Information Giving:
Community Liaison:
Listening:
Decision Making:
Costs
Personnel (man days)
Printing and Mailing
Meeting and Hearing
Expense:
Other (specify):
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
FIGURE £-2.
Community Involvement Planning Guide
Planning Phases And
Decisions
Prepare Plan of Study;
Community Involvement
Program Design
Information Giving
Community Liaison:
Listening:
Decision Making:
Methods
Determine Needs and
Problems
(Assess Current and
Future Situations)
Information Giving
^Community Liaison:
Listening:
Decision Making:
Develop and Evaluate Information Giving
Alternatives Community Liaison:
(Environmental Assessment •$*• Listening:
and Cost Effective Analysis) Decision Making:
' ^
PU&L.IC
Determine whether EIS
is needed
Information Giving: lUpOKHATiuiJAU N\AltlM«ii
Community Liaison: } MeeTIMdl& ; PU6U|C. AMP
Listening: r*
Decision Making: J}
Select Plan
Costs
Information Giving :
Community Liaison: (SI£L.P
Listening: "7 PUBLIC,
Decision Making: r &y A'
Personnel (man days) :
Printing and Mailing:
Meeting and Hearing
Expense :
Other (specify) :
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
the depository, handed out at meetings, enclosed with mail-
ings and supplies to the news media. A brochure describes
the need for the project, the state and federal laws and
regulations and the planning phases. Fact sheets deal with
single planning issues such as secondary impacts, septic
system maintenance, treatment methods, and analysis of
alternatives, using laymen's language. Technical bulletins
do likewise, but in detail for those with the necessary
knowledge of the subject. Publications should be readable
and attractive.
D. Newsletters (information giving)
Unlike the other publications, a newsletter is a periodical.
Published at regular intervals, it is used to announce
meetings, report progress, outline planning issues and
generally build interest in the plan. Again, the newsletter
should be designed and written to get and hold attention.
It can be sent to the mailing list as a separate piece, or
along with other mailings, used as a slip sheet in the
mailings of other organizations, and handed out at meetings.
A newsletter will prove to be one of the best ways to get
new names for the mailing list, because people will get
interested and ask to be kept informed. Typical newsletter
topics are feature articles explaining alternative plans and
technologies; notices of meetings; letters to the editor;
interviews with key citizens and officials; summaries of
hearings and workshops; position statements; maps and illus-
trations .
E. News Media (Information giving)
News must be important information. Important to enough
readers to make it worth publishing or broadcasting. Readers
like to know how the nation and the world are going, but
most of all they need to know about events or plans that
will affect their financial condition or their avocation/life
style. This can never be forgotten in working with the news
media. People, and news media, are interested in whether or
not a river or lake can be used for fishing and boating and
swimming, whether well water will be affected by septic
tanks, how much a treatment system will cost and how much of
this will be on the tax/mill rate, whether industry can tie
into a treatment system and save jobs.
With this basic principle in mind, the techniques are
— Media list. More than a mere list of newspapers and
broadcast stations and their addresses, the list should
include deadlines, names of editors and reporters,
region covered by the signal or paper deliveries,
special requirements of each (especially TV stations).
Do not overlook weekly newspapers, magazines, college
papers and business or institutional house organs.
June 1978 3:9
-------
— News Conferences. Consult newspapers and broadcast
stations on date and hour. Hold a news conference only
if you are expecting questions and are prepared to
answer them. Do not hold one just to make an announce-
ment or issue a statement. Send press releases and
other background information to those news organizations
that do not attend the conference, as well as to those
who do. Keep direct quotes to 100 words or less to
avoid destructive editing.
— News releases. Put your most interesting and impor-
tant information in the first paragraph. Example:
"Plans for a sewage treatment plant that may cost the
city $6 million and up to one dollar on the tax rate
will be reviewed at a public meeting tonight in the
high school." Leave out the money and watch the crowd
dwindle.
— Public service spots. Their greatest value is in
repetition. Try to have them played on the air for
several weeks. Make sure that public service announce-
ments do not go on playing after the event.
— Radio and TV interviews and talk shows. Talk plain
English. Use short, familiar words. Eschew complexity.
If the law and regulations are complex, or the equipment
is elaborate, talk about the intent of the law and the
things the equipment can do. On TV, wear makeup, and
pastel colors, avoid fine patterns in clothing, sit
straight, look at your interviewer or at the designated
spot off camera, and talk in a conversational manner as
you would in a private home.
— Feature stories. Timeless articles which can be
used to dramatize environmental issues; profile of an
activist, description of a new treatment process,
interview with an expert. The planning agency can
write the article and submit it with pictures, or talk
to the editors about assigning a reporter and photogra-
pher.
— Special events. A canoe trip or "fishing contest"
in a dirty river will get a lot of press and broadcast
coverage. These are useful to build support for a bond
issue or other referendum question and increase general
awareness, rather than to encourage more active partic-
ipation at meetings and hearings. Consult the media on
timing and logistics.
F. Interviews (listening and community liaison)
The planner should get to know the people and agencies most
affected by wastewater treatment plans, establish rapport,
June 1978 3:10
-------
and obtain information, ideas and opinions. Members of
agencies, boards and active citizen groups can provide
insights into the political feasibility of various alterna-
tives. Very early in the project, interviews with local
officials, citizen leaders and news reporters can produce
much valuable information on the community, including local
controversies, general community attitudes, a list of key
participants and suggestions for the public information and
participation program. These interviews can also establish a
rapport with important people in the community.
G. Questionnaires and Surveys (listening)
Less personal than interviews, questionnaires and surveys
provide an opportunity to gauge public opinion on important
community issues on a broad scale. A general survey, con-
ducted by mail or through the local media, can help to
pinpoint community values and preferences regarding proposed
treatment alternatives. Questionnaires can also be used to
determine the nature and extent of existing pollution or
public health problems in specific areas of the community.
(See Chapter 2 - Needs Analysis).
H. Contact with Citizen Groups (community liaison,
listening, info giving)
Many organized citizens groups can make a contribution to
the planning of treatment facilities if good liaison is
provided. Some organizations will encourage their members
to participate in the planning and publish articles on
planning issues in their newsletters. Those involved with
conservation, recreation, land development and economic
development issues, as well as civic associations, tax-
payer's groups and service clubs are the most likely to take
an interest.
I. Advisory Commtttee (community liaison, listening,
info giving & decision making)
A thoroughly representative advisory committee can bring
constructive advice from important community interests to
the planning process and, at the same time, serve as inter-
preter and advocate for the plan in these same sectors. A
typical advisory committee may comprise official representa-
tives from the sewer commission, board of health, planning
board, conservation commission, finance committee, industrial
development board and citizens representing major interests
in the community such as environmental protection and economic
development. The advisory committee can tell the planner
what the public is thinking and at the same time be the
forum for achieving a consensus on what the community
June 1978 3:11
-------
should do. To get the most out of an advisory committee,
adopt simple, clear bylaws on how it will function. (For
details on advisory committees see Working Effectively
with Advisory Committees -Bibliography at the end of this
Chapter.)
J. Public Meetings (comm. liaison, listening, info giving
& decision-making)
Public meetings afford an opportunity to stimulate interest
in the wastewater treatment study and give concerned citizens
a chance to raise questions and present varying points of
view. Meetings should be scheduled as needed throughout the
planning process to provide information and sound out citi-
zens' opinions. It is especially important to have public
discussion early in each phase of the planning process, so
that strongly-held preferences can be taken into account in
the ensuing technical work. Discussion is also timely near
the end of planning phases before recommendations are made.
Public meetings can be elaborate conferences, consuming most
of a weekend, and located on a university campus; they can
be extensions of the selectmen or council meeting; the
sponsor may be a civic association, or coalition of organi-
zations which makes a major effort to bring citizens to the
meeting.
Appropriate publications, fact sheets, technical reports,
brochures and newsletters should be available at the meeting.
Public meetings are also opportunities to secure additional
names for the project's mailing list. The news media should
always be invited. (For details see Effective Public Meet-
ings - Bibliography at the end of this chapter.)
K. Workshops (comm. liaison, listening, info giving &
decision making)
Workshops are particularly useful in the middle stages of
the planning process when the basic facts are known, but the
alternative proposals have not yet hardened into their final
form.
A typical workshop sequence may be:
— Problem-Setting: Short presentations ending with a
charge to the working groups to discuss particular
problems and come back with a report.
— Small Working Groups: These small discussion groups
are given specific agendas to cover and/or group leaders
are briefed in advance so as to hold the workshop on
course. A reporter is selected to speak for the group
during the whole group session.
June 1978 3:12
-------
— Whole Group Session: Reporters feed back salient
features of the small group discussion to the whole
group. Often a single speaker will be asked to observe
and sum up the small group reports.
L. Public Hearings (decision-making, information giving
and listening)
Public hearings may be held early in the planning process so
that interested people can convey both facts and opinions
about wastewater treatment to the hearing officer. A hear-
ing must be held late in the process on alternative plans,
evaluation, and the environmental assessment.
Publish the formal announcement at least thirty days in
advance and begin preparations well in advance of the meet-
ing date. Build public interest in the hearing with news-
paper articles, letters to interested groups, citizens and
officials. Information on alternatives should be made
available to the public well in advance of the hearing and
at the hearing a clear set of alternatives should be
presented.
The place of the hearing should be convenient for as many
people as possible and familiar to the citizens. A school
auditorium or community center is a good choice. If
possible, hearings should be held in the evening or on a
weekend to give the greatest number of people an opportunity
to attend.
Local and State laws may require a set format for a local
government's formal public hearing on a facility plan. If
so, the Federal requirement that a public hearing be held
before a plan is selected can probably be satisfied by the
hearing required under State or local law, providing other
Federal requirements are met too.
Interested persons may well come to the hearing with a
prepared statement. Written statements should not be re-
quired, but are always welcome.
Remarks by local government officials should be as brief as
possible to allow time for comments, questions, and sugges-
tions from the public. The hearing should be an opportunity
for the public and the local government to learn from each
other. Try to respond to all questions. If you don't have
the answer at hand, tell the questioner you will get the
information and send it along as soon as possible.
June 1978 3:13
-------
If the project covers a large and heavily populated area,
the local government should consider holding more than one
hearing in different locations within the project area.
Do not be disappointed if only a few people turn out for the
hearing. In the absence of controversy, many public hearings
on proposed facility plans are attended by only a few dedi-
cated souls. Moreover, a thorough public education and
information program may satisfy many members of the public
in advance and make them decide not to attend the hearing.
3.36 Costs
An effective community involvement program requires a signi-
ficant commitment of resources—approximately three to six
weeks of one person's time, depending upon the size of the
community and the complexity of the issues. Use of an
advisory committee requires extra staff time but can result
in enlisting volunteer help to compliment staff effort.
To some extent the level of finances required depends upon
how many free resources are available in the community, for
instance a meeting place or mailings by a civic group.
Every effort should be made to use these resources when they
are available. Assuming no free help is provided, printing,
distribution of informational materials and meeting and
hearing expenses will cost between $2500 and $5000. These
costs could be higher depending upon the nature and extent
of the informational materials (drafting, clerical, secre-
tarial time) and how they are distributed (first class mail,
bulk mailing, town distribution of data).
3.37 Conclusion
There is unfortunately no precise "formula for success" for
a community involvement program. As has been suggested
here, each community is different and community involvement
programs should reflect these individual situations. There
is a need for flexibility even when the core program is
applied. However, a performance standard is necessary to
assess the adequacy of community involvement in facility
plans. At the beginning of the facility planning process,
evaluators will look for measures to carry out the four
functions discussed above (information giving, listening,
community liaison and decision-making) throughout the pro-
gram. At the conclusion of the facility planning process,
the community involvement program will be assessed in terms
of whether the final product reflects the needs, concerns
and preferences of the community's residents.
June 1978 3:14
-------
3.4 CASE STUDIES
3.41 Exeter, New Hampshire
The following example illustrates how a public hearing can
be made interesting. In order to be sure that the residents
of Exeter, New Hampshire were well aware of the issues
involved in modifying their facilities plan, the State used
the services of an experienced public information/participa-
tion specialist. Due primarily to his efforts, fifty-six
well-informed people came to the hearing on a very stormy
winter night. The effort was a "success" not because the
room was filled, but because the citizens in attendance knew
the alternatives, were able to ask relevant, important
questions, and could discuss the key issues. Although a
hearing summary is not yet available, the hearing resulted
in a general endorsement of the Modified Holding Pond Alter-
native.
The hearing was held on December 14. The following is a
brief outline of the work schedule of the public informa-
tion/participation specialist prior to the hearing.
— 1st week of November: draft official hearing
notice, distribute to area papers and post.
— 2nd week of November: meet with Exeter sewer
committee and town manager to discuss alternative plans
and town issues. Draft feature news article based on
above discussions.
— 4th week of November: Feature article placed in
area papers. PSA's distributed to area radio. Slide
show prepared on two alternatives. Informational mater-
ials distributed locally.
— 1st week of December: follow-up on press placement.
-- December 14 Hearing: intro by selectmen; general
discussion of alternatives by WSPCC staff, including
handouts and overhead slides; slide show on the
existing problem and alternatives to it; open hearing
to discussion.
This example includes the following material:
— a formal hearing notice (Figure 3-3)
— two pre-hearing news stories based on the feature
article (Figures 3-4)
-- two handouts which were distributed at the hearing
(Figures 3-6 and 3-7)
-- two follow-up news articles describing the hearing
(Figures 3-8 and 3-9)
June 1978 3:15
-------
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEARING
EXETES, HEW HAMPSHIRE
PROPOSED COMBINED V/ASTEWATER
POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES
Notice ut hereby given that a public hearing will bo hold
by tha Board of Selectman of the Town of Ezetar, N.H., at
tha Lincoln Street Elementary School, 35 Lincoln St., on tha
14th day of Docamber, 1977. at 7:3) p.m.
The purpose of this hearing is (or the consideration and
discussion of the proposed plan for abating the Overflows of
combined wastewater to ihe Squamscort River estuary. It is
proposed to reduce both the existing hyfi.-aulic and orr;.-:r:c
loadings to the casting stormwatcr holding ponds by extending tr.e
proposed Railroad Interceptor from Salem St., Southwest to
Rockingham St., separating the existing combined sewer on High
St. and separating the combined system in the Hobart-Crestview-
McKinley St. area. The stormwater treatment system as proposed
would require the construction of a low-lift pumping' station
adjacent to the holding ponds which would return the stored
combined wastewater to the Town's Pollution Control Facility ior
complete treatment and disinfection.
One of the purposes of the hearing is to discuss the potential
environmental impact of the proposed stormwater treatment
system and the alternatives to the recommended plan.
The Environmental Assessment Statement, plans, and other
detailed information which will include a complete description of
the works, costs, and alternatives to the proposed works, are
available for public inspection at the Ottice of Selectmen in the
Exeter Town Hall during normal business hours.
All interested persons, businesses, industries, groups, organiia-
lions, and agencies, both public and private, are encouraged to
participate in this hearing. Questions and statements relative to
the project will be welcomed.
Written statements concerning the project addressed :o the
Board of Selectmen will be accepted up until midnight of the 7th
calendar day after the day of the hearing, and if pertinent to the
hearing will become pan of the hearing record. Signed
statements received prior to the close of the hearing will be read
at the hearing.
Representatives of the New Hampshire Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission and the Town's consulting
engineers will be in attendance at the hearing to assist the Board
in answering tjucstions concerning the project.
This hearing is in compliance with the National Environment
Policy Act of 19G9, the Federal Water Pollution Control Acts of
1972, and subsequent rules and regulations adopted by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Minutes of the Hearing, including all properly submitted
written statements, will become part of the required
Environmental Assessment to bo submitted by the Town to the
Stalo and Federal agencies, puisuant to the aforementioned
National Environmental Policy Act, as part of tho Application for
State and Federal Construction Grants for the proposed project.
Dated this eighth day of November. 1977.
Ethel Doo. Clerk.
Board of Selectmen.
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
Exeter to hold hearing on water
EXETER - Local town-
speoplf uill have an opportunity
la improve the water Quality of
the Sruamscott River and may
save IVMl.oro in the bargain.
A public hearing will be held
Ore 14 nl 7:30 p m. in the
Lincoln Slrrrl rlrinrnt.-irv
school lo discuss a proposed
modification to the town's plan
for treating overflows of
combined w.istcwater to the
Squamscott River estuary.
At issue is a modification of a
state and federally-approved
facilities plan which would
require complete separation of
the town's sewage and stor-
mwatcr. Town officials are
proposing a modified plan
which would require only
partial stormwater separation.
According to local officials
complete separation under the
present plan would mean
tearing up many of [he streets in
Exeter to install new slorwater
sewers. The costs for complete
separation would approach J2
million. The town's share of
these costs would be ap-
proximagtely $616.000.
The modilien plan, wincn was
developed in cooperation with
the N.II. Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission.
would require only partial
separation of the stormwater
and would eliminate !)0 per cent
of the street excavation. Partial
separation would cosl the town
approximately $172.000.
The most important issue,
according to Town Manaccr
|)I>M.I!I| Chick, is u.ilri' ,|ii:mu
"Tlii- prim.in goal is In mivl
iVdiT.il and stale standards for
water (|'jnliiy in the Squamscott
River." said Chick. "We must
do th;it or we'll be in violation of
both state and federal
regulations, as we are now.
"Qualified engineers have
said that either system is going
to meet those standards, and we
must now line up the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of
total separation versus partial
separation. That's what we
want to discuss at the hearing."
One of the major disad-
vantages of total slnrmwaicr
separation is cost, according In
Charles Knibhs. a member of
the Exeter sewer committee.
"There's no comparison." said
Knibbs. "If we go to total
separation, we're talking better
than $r>ir,.ooo in costs to the
town. If we go to partial
separation, we're in the best
economic position. We're
spending $172.(100 as opposed to
at least sr.ir,.non."
And, according to Knibbs. the
$172.01X1 for the costs of partial
separation is already available
in a socci.nl limn sewer fund.
"U I- h.uv 1 hr MiriH'v ir. thr Kir.U
now through our N-ucr fiuu!
he staled. "We aren't asking the
townspeople to produce dollars.
We're asking them for an
opinion as to whether this is a
practical approach to our
problem and whether it is
sufficient to satisfy slate and
federal clean water standards."
Chick emphasized thai Exeter
was fortunate lo he able to
utilize partial separation as .nn
alternative and still meet water
quality standards. "Nobody
knows how fortunate we are
that we're not being compelled
to go to total stormwater
separation." he said. "We could
be told to separate, or else.
Exeter is fortunate in being one
of the few communities in the
state which can go to partial
separation and still meet stale
and federal clean water stan-
dards.
"But." Chick stressed, "we
have to have a good turnout at
the Dec. H hearing to demon-
strate to state and federal of-
ficials that partial separation is
what the citizens of Exeter
want."
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
Exeter Hearing on Siormwater Plan Called
EXETER — Exeter citizens
will have an opportunity to im-
prove the water quality of the
Squamscott River and may save
$500.000 in Ihe bargain on Wed-
nesday. Dec. 14.
A public hearing will be held at
7:T:0 that evenine in the Lincoln
Elementary School to discus a
proposed modification to the
town's plan for treating overflows
of combined wastewaier to the
.Squamscolt River estuary. •
At issue is a modification of a
state and federally-approved
facilities plan which would
require separation of the town's
sewase and stormwaier. Town of-
ficials are proposing a modified
plan which would require only
partial slorrmvalcr separation.
According to local officials.
complete separation under the
present plan would mena-mean
tearing up many of the streets in
Exeter to install new stormwater
sewers. The costs for complete
separation would approach two
million dollars. The town's share
of these costs would be ap-
proximately J616.000.
Tne modified plan, which was
developed in cooperation with
the N.H. Water Supply and Pollu-
tion Control Commission, would
require only partial separation ol
the stormwaier and would
eliminate PO percent of the siroet
excavation. Partial separation
would cost the town ap-
proximately S172.000.
The most important issue, ac-
cording to Exeter Town Manager
Donald Chick, is water quality.
"The primary goal is to meet
federal and slate standards lor
water quality in the Squamscolt
River." said Chick. "We must do
that or we II be in violation of
both state and federal regula-
tions, as we are now.
"Qualified engineers have said
that either' system is going to
meet those standards, and we
must now line up the advantages
and disadvantages of total separa-
tion. That's what we want to
discuss at the liiMnnE."
through our sewer fund." he
stated. "We're not asking the
townspeople to produce dollars.
We're asking them for an opinion
as to whether this is a practical
approach to our problem am!
whether it U sufficient to satisfy
state and federal clean water
One of the major di
of total separation is cost, accor-
ding to Charles Knibhs. a mem-
ber of the Exeter Sewer Commis-
sion. "There's no comparison."
said Knibbs. "If we go to total
separation, wr're talking better
than $616.000 in costs to the town
If we go to partial scpar.'tiion.
we're in the best economic posi-
tion. We're spendinc S 172.000 as
opposed to at least S616.000."
'And according to Knibhs. th-
$172,000 for the costs of parti;
separation is already available
a special town sewer fund. "V
have the money in the bank km
Other sower
also favor partial stormwater
separation as the best alternative.
"Complete separation is j:ist
prohibitive in cost," said one
commissioner. "To do this we
would have to dig up most of the
streets in town to put in new
sewer lines. It's more than the
town can afford to pay. Total
separation just isn't practical."
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
PROS
flF REPLACED BY SEPARATION.
O&M COSTS ARE APPROXIMATELY
• 'I8.00O PER YEAR LESS THAN THE
HOLD/NG POND ALTERNATIVE.
SOME LONG TERM IMPROVED CAP-
• AB/UTY FOR DRAINING TOWN
STREETS DURING STORM EVENTS
• NO POTENTIAL FOR ODOR PROBLEMS
NO 'CLEANING ON DEMAND' SERVICES
REQUIRED.
THE TOWNS SHARE OF THE CAPITAL
• COST COULD BE APPROPRIATED ON
A PHASED BASIS THROUGH 1982.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WOULD
NOT BE MET UNTIL 083
SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTION TO TRAFFIC
• PATTERNS AND TOWN SJHtk 75
DURING SEPARATION PROJECTS.
MAXIMUM POLLUTION IMPACT ON
ESTUARY DUE TO URBAN RUNOFF.
TOWNS SHARE OF THE CAPITAL COST
• IS APPROXIMATELY'500.OOO MORE
THAN THE HOLDING POND ALTERNATIVE.
EXETER NEW HAMPSHIRE
D SEPARATION
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
-------
S 3 »
|
-------
Stormwater Separation
Plan Outlined at Exeter
EXETER — A proposed
modification in Exeter's plan for
treating overflows of combined
waste water to the Squamscott
River estuary was presented to
residents here Wednesday
evening at a public hearing in the
Lincoln Elementary School.
Nearly 50 residents braved the
elements to hear the plan which
would improve the water quality
of the Squamscott River and save
taxpayers nearly $500,000.
Town officials are proposing a
modification of a state and
federally-approved facilities plan
requiring separation of the
town's sewage and stormwater.
Under the modified plan, only
partial stormwater separation
would be required.
The modified plan, which was
developed in cooperation with
the-NH Water Supply and Pollu-
tion Control Commission, would
require only partial separation of
the stormwater and would
eliminate 90 percent of street
excavation in the original project.
Complete separation, accor-
ding to local officials, would
mean tearing up many streets in
Exeter to install new stormwater
sewers.
The costs for complete separa-
tion would approach $2 million
with the town's share of the cost
to be approximately $616,000,
while partial separation would
cost the town approximately
$172.000.
"The primary goal is to meet
federal and state standards for
water quality in the Squanscott
River," said town manager
Donald Chick. "We must do that
or we'll be in violation of both
state and federal regulations, as
we are now."
Robert Cruss of the NH Water
Supply and Control Commission
yeslerday said he felt the meeting
went well and that there was
"general agreement with the
whole concept."
Engineers have told town of-
ficials that either syslem would
meet the federal and state stan-
dards, according to Chick, who.
said "we must now line up the
advantages and disadvantages of
total separation."
One of the major disadvantages
of total separation is cost accor-
ding to Charles Knibbs, a mem-
ber of the Exeter Sewer Commis-
sion.
"There is no comparison," he
said. "If we go total separation,
we're talking better than $616,000
in costs to the town. If we go to
partial separation, we're in the
best possible economic position.
We're spending $172,000 as op-
posed to at least $616.000."
Knibbs noted the costs for
partial separation is alrc;
available in a special town se*
fund.
"We have the money in
bank now through our se
fund," he said. "We're not asl
the townspeople to proc
dollars."
Most of the residents atten
the hearing questioned tow
ficials concerning the effect
project would have on the
budget and if the modified
would be sufficient to s
state and federal clean
standards.
Cruss snid the next step I
project is for the town seU
to request ihe MI Water
and Control Commission
proval and to forward the
the Environmental Prc
Agency for approval.
W. H.
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
Exeter has choice of sewer plans
EXLTEK - The town has •,-
improve its sewer system but ai
least it has a choice ol twowava
to doll.
This point came out at a pub-
lic hearing here Thursday on
oneof the alternatives.
Robert Crucss of the stale's
Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission stji'f ex-
plained that m 1073. a facilities
study plan for Exeter had called
for new aerated lagoons and
also separation of storm and
wastewaler systems.
The town manager and the
sewer study committee had
reservations concerning
separated systems. Crucs«
continued, and as a result, the
WSPCC made a study to see ii
there were any alternatives to
separation. The slaff came up'
with one allcrnativc. the modi-
Tied holding-pond alternative.
Another member of the stale
staff, Paul lleirlzler. a sanitary
engineer, said rain and snow
contribute to pollution. They
can scour pollulanls from the
surface of the canh as they
move to catch-basins
In Exeter, said Heirtzler.
there is an excess amount of
water during storms and this
bears a relation to sewer and
pump capacity, i Storm and
wastewaJcr are in a combined
system at this point.)
Currently the holding pond is
used for combined overflows in
cases where the pump is at
capacity. However, sea water
comes into the pond, mixes, and
is allowed to be flushed out. he
explained.
Crucss said the problem is
Uiat slormwalcr is discharged
directly into the estuary, which
violates water quality stan-
dards.
(The Squamscntl River will
have to meet certain water
quality standards mandated by
the federal government.)
Crucss said the water quality
for which the town is aiming is
Class B — "you should be able
to swim" in it.
Gordon Hoffman, head of the
local sewer committee, said the
committee endorsed the
modification or holding-pond
concept for severaI reasons.
The holdJng pond would be
used; the town would avoid
digging up miles of streets: the
town would have an interceptor
lire through which waste would
travel by gravity to the treat-
ment plant, thus the town will be
pumping one-third less sewage.
and eventually (he interceptor
will serve twothirds of the
town; the town will save ap-
proximately 5500.000 in capital
costs by choosing the holding-
pond alternative plan instead of
the plan which involves large-
scale separatic:'. of .storm and
waslewater.
Cruess said the plan with the
holding-pond .would produce
better water quality, especially
in the upper part of the river
estuary, than would the
separatcsysterr.
He said the interceptor line
proposed to run along the rail-
road tracks from Salem to
Rnckingham Streets would pro-
vide the opportunity for the
town in Ihc future to drain a
marshy are-a.
Heirt7.lcr explained the al-
ternative plan as follows: The
holding pond would be used as a
holding pond, and the discharge
structure '.\ould be sealed The
slormwaler. after being held.
would be pumped back to the
pump station and then sent to
the treatment lauoons off Hi. 10]
>thc lagoons having been up-
graded I.
Kvcn under the alternative
plan, two places in town would
have sepuralc storm and waste-
water lines. High Street and the
.McKinlev-Wentworlh-Hubart
area The latter area already
experiences overflow, and
>eparn'.iun here would take
pressure off the From Street
pumpstntion.
Cruess said High Street had a
large number ol catch-basins
and a lol of the load going to the
holding pond could be eliminat-
ed by separating storm and
wastewalcron that street.
Upgrading the lagoons, where
waste will be treated, is an idea
that officials agree is a good
one.
Sherman Chester, chairman
of the local selectmen, said the
upgrading is in the design phase
by Jones & Beach Engineers
lnc..Slralham.
On the issue of the hearing.
the cost differences are Ih.it
separation would cost more ini-
tially hut there wouldn't be a
yearly cost, whereas the
holding-pond alternative would
cost less to establish but would
involve yearly operation and
maintenance costs cf ap-
proximately SIH.ono.
Capital costs arc VJ.OG'J.700 (or
the separated system as com-
pared with Sl.200.0im for the
alternative system. Cruess said.
Of these, the town's share
would be S616.000 in the
separated system and SITJ.uoo
in the modified holding-pond
alternative.
Answering a question o.n
odors were the holding-prwi
allcrnativc plan chosen. Crue:.s
said odor probably would be ^5
to 40 percent less ihan last sum-
mer.
I With a separated syslem. the
holding pond is eliminated and
with it. the potential for odor.
but there would be discharge
into the river for a period while
the system was being installed.
so that water quality standards
wouldn't be met until 198.1 In
the case of the holdinp-por.d
alternative, the river would
meet the standards by 19RI. as
the federal government wants. >
Donald Chick. io\vn manager.
said the lown has more Ihan
$21.1.00) set aside lor capilai
improvements and pollution
abatement. The figures civcn
by the state for the cosl of
capital improvements are
based on calculations two years
ago when the 1375 study came
out
There probably wouldn't he a
bond issue for the town for the
holding-pond alternative. Chick
said
To have the separated sys-
tem, the town probably would
have to have a bond issue, he
said.
To install a separated system
would involve digging up ip
miles of streets, as it is figured
by town officials. Chick made
the point that this might be
better sewer planning if the
town thought to extend the
sewer system, but it would
involve digging up streets.
many of which had been paved
recently.
Cruess mentioned that storm
drainage would be put in at the
town's expense— 100 percent.
The town will start construc-
tion of aerated lagoon:; probably
in 1979, said Chick, and the
town's share of that appears io
bcSlOO.OOO.
Cruess said if the town agrees
with the modified holding-pond
alternative, the plan would be
submitted to the federal En-
vironmental Protection .Agency
to see if it would agree to it I in
place of the system involving
large-scale separation).
A report will be made, which
includes a recommendation by
the state, and if the tovin of-
ficials concur, the plan will be
sent to EPA, according to
Crucss.
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
3.42 The Torrington Experience
A Wastewater Facilities Plan for Torrington, Connecticut
called for the reconstruction of a central interceptor (the
back-bone of the existing system) and interceptor extension
to the north of the central business district. Substantial
controversy relating to the interceptor extension was evident
before the Environmental Impact Assessment began.
The City's consultant, having had experience with controver-
sial projects, recommended a public participation program.
The program was to be initiated with a workshop designed to
identify the specific concerns of the public. The Impact
Assessment could then be prepared with these concerns in
mind. The Federally mandated public hearing at the conclu-
sion of the Impact Assessment could later be used as a forum
to describe how controversial issues were dealt with.
A workshop, held before environmental analysis began, con-
firmed that an impasse had been reached between City offi-
cials and'opponents of the project. The desirability of the
central interceptor was recognized by all participants.
Interceptor extensions to the northeast and northwest were
strongly opposed, however. The northeast interceptor was
opposed by labor groups who feared that it would have the
secondary effect of attracting large numbers of new resi-
dents, presumably adding to the labor force. The need for
this interceptor was also questioned by many. The northwest
interceptor was opposed by environmental interest groups who
questioned the need for the facility and the ecological
effects of increased development induced by the project.
The participants were advised that their concerns would be
carefully addressed in the Impact Assessment. During prepa-
ration of the Impact Assessment special emphasis was placed
on the evaluation of wastewater collection needs and induced
population growth along both interceptors, analysis of
residential and labor market effects in the vicinity of the
northeast interceptor and the forecasting of ecologic impacts
in the vicinity of the northwest interceptor. The Impact
Assessment determined 1) that no major adverse primary or
secondary impacts would arise from the northeast interceptor
and 2) that existing or future conditions did not support
the need for a northwest interceptor.
The consultant's statement at the public hearing reported
that the initial proposed action had been modified as a
result of the Impact Assessment and citizen participation.
The conflict with opponents of the northwest interceptor was
resolved when plans for the northwest interceptor were shelved,
The conflict with opponents of the northeast interceptor was
resolved when it was reported that suspected adverse
environmental impacts would not occur.
June 1978 3:16
-------
When plans for the northwest interceptor were shelved,
conflict was resolved with a large number of citizens. This
action had the potential of creating conflict with those in
support of the northwest interceptor. Since proponents of
the northwest interceptor were small in number, no further
conflict was articulated.
Conflict with the opponents of the northeast interceptor was
resolved because the Environmental Impact Assessment was a
credible document and the majority of opponents chose to
believe its findings.
3.421 Letter from Torrington Mayor
The following letter of invitation was sent out by the Mayor
of Torrington to invite interested citizens to the Environ-
mental Assessment workshop:
Dear
The City of Torrington is preparing an Environmental
Assessment for the proposed expansion of wastewater collec-
tion facilities. The area of study includes the proposed
extensions of the existing sewerage service area northeast
to Burrville and northwest to Drakeville.
We are planning a workshop meeting that is intended to
assist us in determining issues of critical concern relating
to alternate measures for collecting and treating wastewater.
The workshop is scheduled for Wednesday, August 11,
1976 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall auditorium.
You and a number of other community leaders are being
invited by letter to attend the workshop. Your participation
will be invaluable to us. Our consultants, Anderson-Nichols
and Company, Inc., of Boston, have developed an interesting
format for this workshop.
We look forward to meeting with you on August llth.
Very truly yours,
Mayor of Torrington
June 1978 3:17
-------
3.422 Torrington Workshop Agenda
The following agenda was used at the Torrington Environmental
Assessment Workshop:
WORKSHOP AGENDA - AUGUST 11, 1976.
CITY OF TORRINGTON, CONNECTICUT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
PARTICIPANTS
SUMMARY PRESENTATION
WORKSHOP INSTRUCTIONS
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS
GROUP REPORTS
QUESTIONNAIRE
ADJOURN
June 1978 3:18
-------
3.423 Torrington Questionnaire
The following questionnaire was filled out by all Environ-
mental Assessment workshop participants following the pre-
sentation of group reports:
TORRINGTON QUESTIONNAIRE
1. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE SEPTIC
SYSTEM PROBLEMS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? (IF SO, THEN
PLEASE INDICATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH YOU LIVE. IF
APPROPRIATE, CHECK MORE THAN ONE.)
ODORS
WATER AT SURFACE IN LEACHING FIELD AREA
WELL CONTAMINATION
FREQUENT PUMPING REQUIRED
RECENT RECONSTRUCTION
WATER USE RESTRICTED
DIRECT CONNECTION TO WATERCOURSE
2. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY POLLUTION PROBLEMS ELSEWHERE IN
THE CITY? (IF SO, THEN PLEASE INDICATE WHERE AND THE
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM.)
3. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION REGARDING NEED FOR SEWERS IN THE
BURRVILLE SECTION? (IF APPROPRIATE - CHECK MORE THAN
ONE. )
NEEDED NOW
WILL BE NEEDED IN FUTURE
WILL NEVER BE NEEDED
SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED BY STRICT ZONING CONTROLS
AND SANITARY CODE ENFORCEMENT
SHOULD BE USED AS CATALYST FOR NEW INDUSTRIAL
GROWTH
DON'T KNOW
4. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION REGARDING NEED FOR SEWERS IN THE
DRAKEVILLE (NORTHWEST) SECTION? (IF APPROPRIATE -
CHECK MORE THAN ONE.)
NEEDED NOW
WILL BE NEEDED IN FUTURE
WILL NEVER BE NEEDED
SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED BY STRICT ZONING CONTROLS
AND SANITARY CODE ENFORCEMENT
DON'T KNOW
June 1978 3:19
-------
5. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION REGARDING THE NEED FOR CONSTRUC-
TION OF THE CENTRAL INTERCEPTOR AND REHABILITATION OF
THE EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM?
NEEDED
NOT NEEDED
6. WHAT DO YOU FEEL WOULD BE THE MAJOR IMPACT(S) OF A
SEWER SYSTEM SERVING THE BURRVILLE AREA (RANK BY IMPOR-
TANCE - 1 - MOST IMPORTANT, 2 - SECOND, ETC.)
NONE
INDUCE RAPID GROWTH
ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CHANGE COMMUNITY CHARACTER
INCREASE COSTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS
ENCOURAGE HIGHER HOUSING DENSITIES
CORRECT SURFACE WATER POLLUTION
CORRECT GROUND WATER POLLUTION
OTHERS (PLEASE LIST)
7. WHAT DO YOU FEEL WOULD BE THE MAJOR IMPACT(S) OF A
SEWER SYSTEM SERVING THE DRAKEVILLE AREA. (RANK BY
IMPORTANCE, 1 - MOST IMPORTANT, 2 - SECOND, ETC.)
NONE
INDUCE RAPID GROWTH
CHANGE COMMUNITY CHARACTER
INCREASE COSTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS
ENCOURAGE HIGHER HOUSING DENSITIES
CORRECT SURFACE WATER POLLUTION
CORRECT GROUND WATER POLLUTION
OTHERS (PLEASE LIST)
8. WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF THE NORTHWEST INTERCEPTOR
EXTENDING ONLY SO FAR AS TO SERVE THE UNIVERSITY OF
CONNECTICUT CAMPUS?
YES
NO
DON'T KNOW
9. DO YOU THINK SEWERS WOULD ACCELERATE GROWTH IN BURRVILLE
AND DRAKEVILLE SECTIONS OF TORRINGTON?
YES
NO
DON'T KNOW
June 1978 3:20
-------
10. WOULD YOU FAVOR STRICTER ZONING AND SANITARY CONTROLS
AND ENFORCEMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO SEWER CONSTRUCTION?
YES
NO
DON'T KNOW
11. IN CONSTRUCTING SEWERS, PRIORITY SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO
THE FOLLOWING: (IF APPROPRIATE - CHECK MORE THAN ONE.)
SERVING PROBLEM AREAS
ENCOURAGING NEW BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
BROADENING HOUSING OPPORTUNITY
12. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADD ANY
REMARKS OR CONCERNS YOU MAY HAVE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
ADEQUATELY COVERED BY THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.)
June 1978 3:21
-------
3.424 Torrington Workshop Summary
On Wednesday, August 11, 1976, a Citizen's Environmental
Workshop was held to discuss the proposed expansion of
wastewater collection facilities in Torrington. Community
leaders and decision makers were notified and invited to the
meeting by written announcement from the Mayor's office.
All other interested citizens were notified and invited by
press.
The purpose of the Workshop was to help the consultant
determine the areas of critical public concern relating to
alternative measures for collecting and treating wastewater.
Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc. prepared an agenda, including a
brief introduction to explain the work on the proposal to
date. Participants were randomly seated around several
large tables, forming five discussion groups of four to
eight people, and for the next hour, these groups were asked
to consider five discussion questions designed by ANCo to
identify the issues and areas of significant public concern.
A chairperson of each table was to be selected by the table
members to direct the discussion and summarize the discussion
on the five questions after one hour of discussion. During
the hour of discussion, ANCo representatives circulated from
table to table to answer any questions or provide assistance.
After the reports from the chairmen of the tables, each
participant was asked to fill out a questionnaire prepared
by the consultant. A general question and answer period
followed, after which the meeting was adjourned.
It was explained at the beginning of the meeting that a
workshop is not the same as a public hearing, but is a
preliminary means of monitoring the opinions and concerns of
the public to be affected. The consultant felt the workshop
format would allow for public input during the process of
writing the impact assessment, rather than after it was
completed at the time of public hearing. Such a preliminary
public workshop is not required or suggested by the guide-
lines for writing impact assessments, but the consultant
found it a practical and valuable way to incorporate public
concern into the assessment rather than to contact it for
the first time at public hearing with the assessment completed.
The proceedings of the workshop were instrumental in the
development of the assessment. Copies of the agenda, the
questionnaire and the letter of invitation sent by the
Mayor's office were presented in the three preceding sections
(3.421, 3.422 and 3.423).
There were five discussion groups with a total of 29 people
taking part. Present were city officials, Chamber of Commerce
members, Conservation Commission members, citizens, health
officials, League of Women Voters, and labor representatives.
June 1978 3:22
-------
The results of the discussion questions showed that three of
the five groups felt a present need for all three (NW, NE,
Central) interceptors; one of the five groups said only the
central is necessary now; one cited a present need for the
northeast and Central only.
Regarding future need, three groups mentioned Drakeville as
an area of need; two groups mentioned Burrville; one group
said there is no future need for the northwest interceptor.
In regard to favoring stricter development controls, such as
zoning, subdivision or sanitary codes to minimize future
sewer needs, four of five groups said they would not favor
stricter controls.
Major concerns regarding the extension of interceptors from
Torrington to Burrville and Drakeville include: finance,
lack of provision for growth of industry and residential
development if interceptors are not built, whether Torrington
is ready for the growth interceptors would induce, and how
it will control such growth.
Areas which the groups felt required special attention in
the environmental assessment include: University of Connec-
ticut, Norfolk Road, wetlands along Route 8, Central City,
Burrville, Torringford West Street.
In response to the written questionnaire, there were 26
replies: In answer to the question on septic failures by
neighborhood, 21 people said they were not aware of any; four
said they were aware of such problems and listed odors,
water at surface in leaching field area, well contamination
and recent reconstruction. One person could not answer. In
response to pollution problems in the city outside of home
neighborhood, ten people did not know of any, one could not
answer, and 15 cited areas including:
Norfolk Road (7 people)
Drakeville (4 people)
Torringford West St. (3 people)
Burrville (4 people)
West Branch Naugatuck River (2 people)
Litchfield Road (1 person)
Sewage Treatment Plant (1 person)
Newfield Road (I person)
June 1978 3:23
-------
Regarding need for sewers in the Burrville section:
19 people said they were needed now.
10 people said they should be used as a catalyst for
new industrial growth
6 people said they would be needed in the future.
1 person said they will never be needed.
1 person said they should be replaced by strict zoning
controls and sanitary code enforcement.
Regarding need for sewers in the Drakeville section:
17 people said they were needed now.
10 people said they would be needed in the future.
3 people said they would never be needed.
1 person answered "don't know."
Regarding the need for construction of the Central Interceptor
and rehabilitation of the existing sewer system:
26 people said it was needed.
None said it was not needed.
When asked whether they would be in favor of the northwest
interceptor extending only so far as to serve the University
of Connecticut campus:
14 people said they were in favor.
8 people said they would not favor such an extension.
8 did not know, and one person did not answer.
When asked if they thought sewers would accelerate growth in
Burrville and Drakeville sections of Torrington:
20 people said yes.
4 people said no.
2 people did not know.
In response to the question of whether they would favor
stricter zoning and sanitary controls and enforcement as an
alternative to sewer construction:
5 people said yes.
20 people said no.
1 person did not answer.
In a question to determine the priorities for sewer construc-
tion:
23 people named "serving problem areas" a priority
issue.
June 1978 3:24
-------
20 people named "encouraging new business" a priority
issue.
11 people named "broadening the housing opportunity" a
priority issue.
22 people had no added comments. Of the four people
who did add comments:
1 wanted controlled growth of industry only.
1 called for the building of the Central only saying
that even if funds were available for the NE and NW,
it would be foolish to build them if there is really
no need for them. One commented that the citizens
of Torrington do not want growth. One reemphasized
the future need of sewers on Newfield Road.
In addition to the workshops, opportunity for public partici-
pation was provided at public hearings.
June 1978 3:25
-------
3.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Working Effectively With Advisory Committees
Working With The Media
Effective Public Meetings
These guides prepared by EPA Headquarters for use in the 208
Program offer excellent, practical advice. They are avail-
able from EPA Region I's Public Participation Project.
A Manual for Communities on Public Participation in Planning
for Wastewater Treatment
This manual, prepared by EPA Region I, discusses a full
range of public participation issues and techniques.
June 1978 3:26
-------
environmental
assessment
manual
0)
•D
•o
land
application
-------
CHAPTER 4 - LAND APPLICATION
Prepared by: Anderson-Nichols 4:1
-------
4.0 INTRODUCTION
The environmental assessment of land application systems
requires consideration of probably the broadest range of
environmental considerations of all the alternatives in the
wastewater treatment field. The three basic land applica-
tion methods: spray irrigation; overland flow; and rapid
infiltration can affect the subsurface and groundwater
environments as well as surface and air environments.
Public health, social and economic aspects must also be
evaluated for each land treatment alternative and further
emphasizes the importance of developing both accurate and
timely environmental assessments during the facilities
planning stage. Early warning indicators of potentially
significant environmental impacts that can be identified
during the initial phases of a facilities plan are, perhaps,
the most useful tool of the environmental impact assessment
of land application systems. Furthermore, if these poten-
tially significant land application impacts are identified
early in the facilities planning process, a smooth coordina-
tion of planning and/or Environmental Impact Statement
efforts can be instituted to concentrate on and resolve
major environmental issues associated with the land treat-
ment alternatives under consideration.
Therefore, it is the purpose of this chapter to provide both
a checklist of the potential impacts of land application
systems,as well as early warning indicators by which these
impacts may be identified and possibly resolved.
4.1 REGULATORY STATUS
4.11 Federal Regulatory Status
The statutory basis for consideration and funding of land
application systems for the treatment of municipal waste-
water is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (Public Law 92-500). This is solidly reinforced by
the recent passage of the 1977 Amendments (PL 95-217).
In addition to the legislation contained in Public Law
92-500 and 95-217, a number of regulations have been issued
pertaining to land application. They are:
4.111 Areawide Waste Treatment Management (Section 208)
The regulatory basis for Section 208 is contained in 40 CFR
35, subpart F, published in the Federal Register, May 13,
1974. As one policy variable required by this regulation,
land application systems could be a significant part in
June 1978 4:2
-------
development of areawide planning management alternatives.
Also, disposal of residual waste using land application
should be considered.
4.112 Grants for Construction of Treatment Works (Section 201)
Sets forth procedures for award of grant assistance and
includes land application as an alternative waste management
system.
4.113 Guidance for Facilities Planning (May 1975)
Provides guidance for planning and evaluation of various
waste management alternatives which include an assessment of
the environmental impacts of the alternatives.
4.114 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines
Regulations for cost-effectiveness analysis are 40 CFR 35,
Appendix A published in the Federal Register on September
10, 1973. Information on cost-effectiveness screening of
waste treatment alternatives is given, including systems
using land or subsurface disposal techniques.
4.115 Secondary Treatment Information (Section 304(d)(f))
Information on, and requirements for, secondary treatment
(40 CFR 133) were published in the Federal Register on
August 17, 1973 and include land application systems with
point source discharges.
4.116 Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best Practicable
Waste Treatment (Section 304 (d)(2))
Required publically-owned and funded waste treatment works
(POTW) to utilize best practicable waste treatment works and
contains information on best practicable waste .treatment
technology (BPWTT). The proposed (BPWTT) for land applica-
tion was published in the Federal Register on February 11,
1976, and specifically requires that land application sys-
tems, where the effluent results in permanent groundwaters
which can potentially be used for drinking water shall not
contain organic or inorganic pollutants above those specified
in the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
4.117 Other Related Federal Laws and Resolutions
In addition to the existing Federal statutes and regula-
tions, the Administrator of the EPA, in his letter of
October 3, 1977, has further defined EPA policy on land
application. In this letter, he requires regional adminis-
trators to preferentially consider land application as an
June 1978 4:3
-------
alternative wastewater management technology; if an appli-
cant for construction grant funds does not recommend a
method that encourages water reclamation and reuse, then the
applicant should be required to provide complete justifica-
tion for the rejection of land treatment.
The previously listed Federal statutes, regulations and
policy guidelines attributable to PL 92-500 and PL 95-217,
emphasize both the requirements and overall need for accur-
ate and timely environmental assessments of the land appli-
cation waste treatment alternative in meeting the goals and
objectives of those Acts.
Other related federal laws which affect the feasibility of
the land application waste treatment alternative are:
A National Environmental Policy Act (PL 91-190)
B Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-532)
C Toxic Substances Control Act (PL 94-469)
D Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580)
4.12 State Regulatory Status
The individual states within Region 1 have also adopted a
wide range of technical requirements in reviewing land
application systems. In most cases, however, specifics of
these requirements are not published and approval of land
application systems is on a case-by-case basis. A summary
of state agencies in Region 1 which are involved in review
and approval of land application waste treatment systems are
given in Table 4-1.
4.2 PAST PRACTICES
A review of approved facilities plans recommending land
application of municipal wastewaters indicates that a wide
range of efforts have been used in the preparation of envi-
ronmental assessments. A "typical" environmental assess-
ment, however, usually has involved approximately 3-4 man-
weeks of labor performed at the end of the facilities plan-
ning effort and, therefore, relies heavily on data already
developed in the plan. Also, conclusions and recommenda-
tions of the facilities plan, at this stage, are fairly well
set and so environmental assessments have tended to empha-
size justification of the chosen alternative rather than a
systematic evaluation of potential environmental impacts.
In order to utilize the environmental assessment procedure
more fully in the development of cost-effective and environ-
mentally sound land application wastewater treatment alter-
natives, a concurrent planning and impact evaluation system
June 1978 4:4
-------
TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY OF MAJOR STATE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR
LAND APPLICATION WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
REGION 1
Region 1
State Water
Pollution
Control Agencies
* Current State Regulatory Requirements (1978)
Spray
Irrigation
Overland
Flow
Rapid
Infiltration
Connecticut
Water Compliance and Hazard-
ous Substances
Dept. of Environ. Protection
State Office Building
165 Capital Avenue, Rm. 129
Hartford, CT 06115
(203) 566-7168
Case by Case Case by Case Case by Case
B. Maine
Bureau of Water Quality
Control
Department of Water Quality
Control
State House
Augusta, ME 04330
(207) 289-2591
Case by Case Case by Case
(State License
Required)
Case by Case
C. Massachusetts
Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Pollution
Control
110 Tremont Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 727-3855
and
Division of Environmental
Health
600 Washington Street
Boston, MA 02111
(617) 727-2655
Case by Case Case by Case Case by Case
Based on the Based on the Based on the
results of results of results of
hydrogeologic- hydrogeologic- hydrogeologic-
al investiga- al investiga- al investiga-
tion tion tion
* Major current requirements only - subject to State Legislative and regulatory
changes.
June 1978
4:5
-------
TABLE 4-1 (cont'd)
SUMMARY OF MAJOR STATE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR
LAND APPLICATION WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
REGION 1
Region 1
State Water
Pollution
Control Agencies
* Current State Regulatory Requirements (1978)
Spray
Irrigation
Overland
Flow
Rapid
Infiltration
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission
P.O. Box 95 - 105 Loudon Road
Concord, NH 03301
Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Division of Water Pollution
Control
Health Building
Davis Street
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 271-2234
Vermont
Agency of Environmental Con-
servation
Department of Water Resources
Msntpelier, VT 05602
(802) 828-3345
1. Max. appli- Case by Case Case by Case
cation rate,
2"/week
2. Buffer Zone
(case by case)
3. Pretreatment -
secondary dis-
infected efflu-
ent
4. Min. storage -
8 months
5. Max. Spray
season - 20
weeks
6. Max. Slope -
10%
Case by Case Case by Case Case by Case
1. Max. appli-
cation rate -
8 gpd/ft
2. Tertiary pre-
treatment
3. No storage
1. Max. appli- Case by Case
cation rate -
2"/week
2. Buffer zone
200' (around
wetted area)
3. Pretreatment -
well oxidized
disinfected
secondary efflu-
ent
4. Min. storage
3 months
5. Max. spray
season winter
spraying
allowed
* Major current requirements only - subject to State Legislative and regula-
tory changes
June 1978 4:6
-------
is required. As a minimum for the land application alterna-
tive, the process should include at least the following
elements:
A Early identification of potential land application sites
and their required capacities.
B Early identification of potential adverse environmental
impacts from land application.
C Early incorporation of more detailed facilities planning
effort or environmental impact statement methods to resolve
any potential adverse impacts attributable to land applica-
tion during the facilites planning process.
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND CASE
STUDY
This section presents a summary of potential environmental
impacts of land application systems and an early warning
procedure for identifying and assessing probable severe
impacts.
The steps in the procedure are:
A. Preliminary development of land application alternatives.
B. Preliminary identification of land application environ-
mental impacts.
C. Assessment of the probable degree of adversity or benefit
of each potential impact.
D. Employment of measures to resolve the most potentially
severe impacts.
It should be emphasized that this procedure is intended only
to highlight potential environmental impacts and methods for
their assessment to be considered by the environmental
planner during the facilities planning stage and should not
be used as an all inclusive summary of planning or design
criteria.
4.31 Preliminary Development of Land Application Alternatives
The first step common to both the environmental assessment
process and facilities planning efforts, is the preliminary
development of waste treatment alternatives. In the case of
land application, this can be further divided into "process"
alternatives and "system" alternatives. Land application
process alternatives refer to the basic process, i.e., spray
irrigation, overland flow, etc. System alternatives, on the
June 1978 4:7
-------
other hand, include all elements and unit processes of the
land application facility, i.e., storage, transmission, etc.
In addition, the final means of disposal can include dis-
charge to ground, surface waters, or combinations of land
application process prior to final disposal. Figure 4-1
illustrates schematically, these various "process" and
"system" alternatives.
4.311 Land Application Process Alternatives
The preliminary development of land application alternatives
can be simplified in the early stages of the assessment
effort by considering only the three major process alterna-
tives :
—spray (slow rate) irrigation
—overland flow
—rapid infiltration
The land application of wastewater can employ all three
process alternatives, while sludge disposal is usually
limited to the use of slow rate irrigation and overland
flow. In addition, sludge can be applied in either the
liquid or moist solid form. A brief description of these
major land application processes is given below (1,2,3,4):
A Spray Irrigation or Slow Rate Irrigation
The most common method of land treatment in use today is
spray irrigation or slow infiltration. Irrigation is usually
defined as the controlled discharge of wastewater effluent
on land for ultimate uptake by the soil matrix and plant
biosysterns, loss to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration,
and/or percolation to the groundwater environment. Irriga-
tion has been used for three distinct purposes: optimiza-
tion of crop yields, maximization of effluent application,
and landscape irrigation. Three application techniques
employed in irrigation systems are spraying, ridge and
furrow, or flooding.
Spraying involves the discharge of partially treated effluent
above the ground either through nozzles or sprinkler heads.
Spray systems are best suited for a uniform flow distribution
of effluent wastewater and have a high degree of flexibility.
They may be either portable or permanent, stationary or
moving. A major disadvantage with spray irrigation systems
is that high wind can lower the efficiency of distribution
and spread aerosol mists.
June 1978 4:8
-------
ANP
• PHVSI6AU
ANP
•->:
UANP
A.
RATE)
t:
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
Ridge and furrow irrigation is the application and flow of
wastewater effluent by gravity through furrows which allows
the wastewater to seep into the soil. This method is usually
used on relatively flat lands which have had extensive site
preparation. Ridge and furrow irrigation is normally used
in conjunction with row crops which can adapt to periods of
inundation. The main disadvantage of the ridge and furrow
method of irrigation is the lack of application flexibility
and uniform distribution of the wastewater.
Irrigation by flooding, as the term implies, is the inunda-
tion of land by wastewater to a certain depth. The site has
to be fairly level so that a uniform depth can be maintained.
In addition, the crop grown has to be able to withstand
periodic flooding.
All three methods of irrigation can generally be expected to
have a high potential for renovation of the effluent applied
by removal of most wastewater pollutants by uptake in the
harvested crops.
Spray irrigation or slow rate treatment is generally capable
of producing the best results of all the land treatment
systems and is suitable on both crops and forest lands.
Organics are reduced substantially by biological oxidation
within the top few inches of soil. Filtration and adsorption
are the initial mechanisms and biological oxidation is the
ultimate treatment mechanism in BOD removal. Filtration is
the major removal mechanism for suspended solids. Volatile
solids are biologically oxidized and fixed, or mineral
solids become part of the soil matrix.
Nitrogen is removed primarily by crop uptake, which varies
with the type of crop and the crop yield. To remove the
nitrogen effectively, the portion of the crop that contains
the nitrogen must be physically removed from the field. De-
nitrification can also be significant, even if the soil is
in an aerobic condition most of the time.
Phosphorus is removed from solution by fixation processes in
the soil, such as adsorption and chemical precipitation.
Removal efficiencies are generally very high for spray (slow
rate) irrigation systems and are usually more dependent on
the soil properties than on the concentration of the phos-
phorus applied. A small portion of the phosphorus applied
is taken up and removed with the crop. Because of required
lower loading rates, the spray (slow rate) irrigation process
utilizes the largest land area. As a result, however,
adverse impacts to the soil and vegetation are minimized by
the wide dispersion of pollutants. Since irrigation systems
rely heavily on crop renovation efficiencies, the actual
June 1978 4:9
-------
application periods for this process will coincide with the
growing season. The particular nutrient needs of the selected
crops must be consistent with the effluent characteristics
and the desired water quality objectives. This limitation
generally results in larger storage and agricultural monitoring
requirements, thus increasing the overall operating cost of
the system.
B. Overland Flow
Overland flow is the controlled discharge, usually by spraying,
of wastewater effluent onto the upper reaches of a slope
which results in renovation of the wastewater as it flows
down the hill. The runoff is collected at the bottom of the
slope for ultimate discharge to a surface waterbody or
reuse. This is usually a substantial portion of the origi-
nally applied effluent. The remaining wastewater is lost to
evapotranspiration and infiltration.
The major renovation mechanism of the overland flow process
is the filtration and oxidation of wastewater as it passes
over the soil surface and through the vegetative litter.
The normal plant cover used is grass which serves both to
protect the soil from erosion and to maximize wastewater
renovation potential by physical, chemical, and biological
means.
Biological oxidation, sedimentation, and grass filtration
are the primary removal mechanisms for organics and suspended
solids.
Nitrogen removal is attributed primarily to denitrification
resulting from an aerobic-anaerobic double layer that exists
at the surface of the soil and allows both nitrification and
denitrification to occur. Because this process depends on
two stages of microbial activity, it is sensitive to environ-
mental conditions. Plant uptake of nitrogen can also be a
significant removal mechanism, however, permanent nitrogen
removal by plant uptake is only possible if the crop is
harvested and removed from the field. Ammonia volatiliza-
tion can be significant if the pH of the wastewater is above
7.
Phosphorus is removed by adsorption and precipitation in
essentially the same manner as with the slow rate method.
Treatment efficiences are somewhat limited because of the
incomplete contact between the wastewater and the adsorption
sites within the soil. Increased removals may be obtained
by chemical treatment prior to appplication. Since the
overland flow method of land treatment relies heavily on
biological mechanisms and does not have the buffering capacity
and time lag benefits of processes utilizing passage through
the soil profile, it provides only limited renovation of
June 1978 4:10
-------
wastewater pollutants. As is the case with other biological
treatment steps, the overland flow process is subject to
temperature effects and shock loads. Overland flow, therefore,
may not be a feasible alternative in areas with cold climates
unless storage is provided to retain wastewater flows during
cold weather. Overland flow is typically used on 2 to 8
percent slopes. Soils which are well drained are usually
better suited to other land treatment alternatives.
C. Rapid Infiltration.
Unlike the spray (slow rate) irrigation and overland flow
methods of land treatment described above, rapid infiltration
is primarily a method of wastewater disposal by recharging
the groundwater resource. Higher loading rates are used
with rapid infiltration systems than with the irrigation
process. The wastewater is applied to rapidly permeable
soils, such as sands and loamy sands, by spreading in basins
or by spraying and is treated as it travels through the soil
matrix, which may have a vegetative cover. In spreading the
wastewater effluent, several basins are used and are sub-
jected to alternate periods of flooding and drying (resting).
Spraying is normally used with a water tolerant plant species
to protect the surface of the soil and prevent runoff at the
higher application rates encountered. The rapid infiltra-
tion process allows wastewater to infiltrate at a relatively
high rate through the surface root system and soil matrix
with some loss due to evapotranspiration. Because of this
high infiltration rate there is only a minimal potential for
removal of wastewater pollutants. Removals of wastewater
organic and solid constituents are primarily accomplished by
biological oxidation and the filtering and straining action
of the soil. Nitrogen removals are generally poor due to
the lack of significant plant uptake. It should be noted,
however, that although total nitrogen removals may be poor,
rapid infiltration is an excellent method for achieving a
nitrified effluent and so nitrate contamination of ground-
water aquifers is a prime concern. Phosphorus removals are
dependent on the physical and chemical characteristics of
the soil. As with spray irrigation systems, the primary
phosphorous removal mechanism is adsorption with some chemical
precipitation, so the long-term wastewater renovation capacity
is dependent on the mass of soil in contact with the wastewater.
Removals are related also to the residence time of the
wastewater in the soil and the travel distance. Heavy metal
removal may be limited by the physical/chemical properties
of the soil structure.
A well-drained soil and a permeable subsurface environment
are critical to the success of rapid infiltration land
treatment schemes. Rapid infiltration requires the least
land area of all land treatment alternatives.
June 1978 4:11
-------
Extensive site groundwater control in the form of underdrains
or wells may be needed, however, to ensure hydraulic func-
tioning of the system and to protect groundwater quality
where best practical waste treatment technology (BPWTT)
standards prevail.
Other, less common land application processes available
today are the use of wetlands, peatlands and subsurface
disposal. These are special cases of the basic processes
and so will not be listed separately in the preliminary
screening procedure.
4.312 Preliminary Identification of Land Application Sites
It is apparent by inspection of Figure 4-1 that there can be
many variables and options associated with land application
thereby requiring use of a general but systematic approach
to initially identifying potential land application sites.
An outline of such an approach is shown schematically in
Figure 4-2. It is important to remember that the first
screening of potential sites should utilize broad and general
suitability criteria, with emphasis on including as many
"potential" sites as possible, and leaving detailed judgments
of each site for the latter phases of the environmental
assessment/facilities planning procedure. Also, the subse-
quent steps in the environmental assessment evaluation
procedure can be used as tools to focus in on the most
promising of land application sites as well as provide early
warning indicators of the methods and study efforts which
will be needed to fully evaluate each site.
The key features of the preliminary site identification
procedure shown in Figure 4-2 are the emphasis on categoriz-
ing sites initially by process suitability i.e. spray irriga-
tion, overland flow, etc., as well as their general suitabil-
ity to meet water quality discharge requirements and land
use constraints. The quantitative screening elements of the
procedure, i.e. slopes, soils characteristics etc., will be
dependent on continuing advacements in the state-of-the art
of land application as well as unique features pertinent to
specific study areas. The environmental planner, therefore,
can incorporate more or less detailed site selection cri-
teria within the basic screening methodology. A summary of
published operational data on the three major land applica-
tion processes is given in Table 4-2 and may be used as a
baseline guide by the environmental planner in the initial
site identification procedure. A brief description of the
key elements of the preliminary site identification procedure
and relevent features pertinent to New England (Region I)
follows.
June 1978 4:12
-------
UAKJP
eu-MlMATfc
< -fe
£»UlTAe>iu|-TY
£*)
UAKIP
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
TABLE 4-2
SUMMARY OF PUBLISHED SITE OPERATIONAL DATA
FOR
LAND APPLICATION PROCESSES
(Source: References 1, 2, 3, 4)
Process
Operational Data
Spray Irrigation
(Slow Rate)
Overland Flow Rapid Infiltration
. Site characteris-
tics
a) Soil
Texture
Permeability
(in/hr)
Cation exchange 13 - 27
capacity
(meg/lOOg)
b) Topography
clay loams to sandy
loams
0.06 - 20.0
Clays and clay
loams
0.2
22 - 63
II. Wastewater Load-
ing
a) Annual Applica- 2-20
cation Rate
(ft/yr)
b) Weekly applica- 0.5 - 4.0
tion Rate
(inches)
c) Storage 3-8
(months)
10 - 70
2.5 - 16.0
3-8
Sands and sandy loams
2.0 - 20.0
0 - 6.0
c)
d)
Slope
Relief
Flood potential
Vegetation
Geology
Depth to Bed-
rock
Depth to
groundwater
Land Use
Buffer zones
0 - 20% cultivated
20 - 40% non-
cultivated
Varies
Minimal
Field and forage
Crops
Woodlands
5.0' min.
2.0' min.
May conflict
200 - 1000'
2oO "*
— 0*0
Varies
Minimal
Perennial
Grass
2.0' min.
N/A
May conflict
200 - 1000'
5%'
Varies
Minimal
N/A
15.0' min.
10.0' min.
May conflict
200 - 1000'
20 - 560
4.0 - 120.0
Usually none
1. Requires impervious strata at shallow depths.
2. Greater slopes are possible but require extensive earthwork.
3. Overland flow slope lengths typically 120 to 150 feet long.
June 1978
4:13
-------
A. Define constraints on the development of land treatment
alternatives
No constraints: All land within the study area can be
evaluated for the entire range of land application processes
and various system combinations.
Site constraints: Only predetermined sites can be used and
land application processes are evaluated to match the given
sites.
Process constraints: The study begins with a limitation on
the land application processes which can be used and potential
sites are identified only for those processes.
B. Land Use Suitability
Sites should not conflict with existing land use but should
reinforce land use patterns. The drainage basins of surface
water supplies, national parks, heavily used recreational
areas, developed urban areas and historic sites may be areas
of exclusion for land application systems because of commit-
ted land use or sensitive environments. Political boundaries
may also represent possible areas of exclusion due to the
uncertainty of implementation authority. Local conditions,
such as Indian land claims, historical commissions and
recreational preserves can pose additional legal uncertain-
ties to the land use suitability of potential land applica-
tion sites.
C. Identify Potential Sites by Process Suitability
The next step in the preliminary site identification proce-
dure requires relating specific features of potential sites
to major land application process suitability according to
the following basic characteristics:
Soils
Physical properties
Permeability (hydraulic capacity)
Chemical properties
Crop feasibility
Topography
Relief
Flood potential
June 1978 4:14
-------
Geology
Bedrock
Groundwater levels
General soil, physical, chemical and hydraulic properties
should be identified within the planning area. Important
physical properties are texture, structure and soil depth
while important hydraulic characteristics include infiltra-
tion rates and permeability (1). Chemical characteristics
that may be useful in relating process suitability to poten-
tial sites include: pH, cation exchange capacity, nutrient
levels and adsorption and filtration capacities for various
inorganic ions. The Soil Conservation Service, as the coor-
dinating agency for the National Cooperative Soil Survey, is
the primary source of information on soil properties and
geologic formations within New England. The SCS also pro-
vides information on the general suitability for most kinds
of crops grown within a specific area. In addition, Hill
(6) has classified a number of Connecticut soils as to
their wastewater renovation potential and suitability for
land application.
Since many of the New England soils are generally categorized
as either products of glacial action or outwash deposits of
glacial meltwaters, technical reports on the general suita-
bility of specific soils for land application in one state
may be easily related to soils characteristics and suitabil-
ity in the other New England states.
Key topographic features that affect land application suit-
ability include: slope, relief and susceptibility to flood-
ing. Excessive slopes encountered in New England increase
surface run-off and erosion and may make crop cultivation
difficult. Relief, or the difference in elevation between
parts of a land application system, directly affect the cost
of pumping wastewater to potential sites. Flood potential
or the location of land application sites within flood
plains can be either a benefit or a liability. On the one
hand flood damage and uncertain drainage characteristics
seem to preclude use, while delta formations and alluvial
deposits may provide the only deep soil formations within a
given area for land application of wastewater. The United
States Geological Survey (USGS) is a primary source of
information on hydrologic and topographic characteristics
within the New England States. Also the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has completed a number
of Flood Insurance Studies which delineate topographic
features and flood boundaries within many of the communities
in New England.
June 1978 4:15
-------
Geologic and groundwater characteristics which are important
to the preliminary site selection process include: depth of
soil above bedrock, discontinuities in the bedrock, fractured
or crevassed bedrock (limestone, etc.) occurence of imper-
vious layers (hardpan, etc.) or perched water tables, and
the depth to the seasonal high groundwater table. Hardpan
layers and perched groundwater at shallow depths are a
fairly common occurence in the glacial tills of New England
which significantly affect the feasibility and suitability
of many sites for land application processes. Outwash sand
deposits which may be suitable for rapid infiltration systems
can be found along major river beds throughout New England
but these same deposits are frequently also the primary
groundwater resources for an area. The USGS and State
Geological Surveys have completed studies and maps of key
geologic and groundwater characteristics of many areas
throughout New England which are readily available to the
environmental planner.
D. Define Buffer Zone Requirements for Potential Land
Application Sites
Buffer zones are usually provided around land application
sites for aesthetic purposes and/or protection from patho-
genic transmission via aerosols or run-off wastewater.
Although detailed information on prevailing wind direction,
wind speed, down wind development, disinfection practices,
irrigation system design and local and state regulations are
normally used to determine final buffer zone requirements,
the environmental planner should include an approximate
allowance for buffer zones around the preliminary land
application site locations under study. Typical values of
buffer zones for land application sites in New England range
from 200 to 400 feet.
E. Water Quality Standards and Discharge Limitations
In the case of the climatological conditions in New England
(i.e., precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration), the two
major receiving waterbodies for the effluent from land
application systems are the groundwater and surface water
environments. The quality of land application effluents
must logically meet the prevailing discharge standards for
each receiving waterbody if water quality goals are to be
met. Table 4-3 presents a summary of current surface water
discharge limitations for wastewater effluents and Table 4-4
contains effluent limitations for groundwater discharges.
Although detailed analyses are required to determine if a
given land application site can produce an effluent in
compliance with specific water quality standards and dis-
charge limitations, the following preliminary land
June 1978 4:16
-------
application discharge criteria may be used in the initial site
development procedure to generally evaluate potential sites
for water quality suitability:
In general, all land application processes will produce an
effluent of secondary quality suitable for discharge to
major water courses.
June 1978 4:17
-------
TABLE 4-3
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
FOR LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS
I. "Water Quality Limiting" - Effluent discharge limita-
tions to be determined by federal and state agencies.
II. "Effluent Limiting" - Effluent discharge to be at least
secondary treatment level.
SECONDARY TREATMENT STANDARDS
Average Average
Parameter 30 Consecutive Days 7 Consecutive Days
BOD5 (mg/1) 30 45
Suspended Solids
(mg/1) 30 45
Fecal Coliform
(#/100 mi) 200 400
pH 6-9 6-9
June 1978 4:18
-------
TABLE 4-4
GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE LIMITATION FOR
LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS
I. Permanent, groundwaters which result from land application
effluents and can potentially be used for drinking water
shall meet the National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for organic and inorganic chemicals.
NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Parameter Maximum Level (mg/1)
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.0
Cadmium 0.01
Chromium 0.05
Copper 1. o
Iron 0.3
Lead 0.05
Manganese 0.05
Mercury 0.001
Nitrate (as N) 10.0
Nickel No Standard
Selenium 0.01
Silver 0.05
Zinc . 5.0
II. Permanent groundwaters which result from land applica-
tion effluents and which will have uses other than
drinking water will have standards established by the
Regional Administrator of the EPA.
III. The provisions of the Clean Drinking Water Act prohibit
any discharge to the groundwater which could potentially
contaminate a "sole source" aquifer used for drinking
water supplies.
June 1978 4:19
-------
Water quality limiting water courses of medium to small size
are most probably suitable for spray (slow rate) irrigation
and rapid infiltration discharges.
Small environmentally sensitive water bodies including Class
A streams, lakes and groundwater aquifers most probably can
receive effluents from spray (slow rate) irrigation systems
which utilize harvested crops for maximum renovation of
applied wastewater.
It should be emphasized that the above general screening
criteria are only a tool which may be of use during the
preliminary site identification procedure and should not be
the basis for final exclusion of any given site.
F. Climatological Factors
An evaluation of climatic factors, such as precipitation,
evapotranspiration, temperature and wind is used during the
facilities planning effort to determine the water balance,
length of growing season, down time of the land application
system, storage requirements and quantity of stormwater to
be expected. Since New England is generally characterized
by long cold winters, warm summers and abundant precipita-
tion where "changeability" is the major feature of each
season, certain general Climatological considerations can be
incorporated in the preliminary site identificaiton and
development procedure. In general, land application sites
which utilize crop or plant uptake for wastewater renovation
(i.e, spray irrigation, overland flow) will limit wastewater
application to the growing season. Also, those processes
which may be adversely affected by freezing must operate
during the warmer periods of the year.
These Climatological factors in essence require storage of
wastewater during certain periods of the year with actual
loading or treatment of wastewater occuring during suitable
periods. The end result is higher wastewater or sludge
loadings on potential sites than that which would be dic-
tated by annual average flow rates. This effect and its
impact on the evaluation of the land application alternative
within the planning area will be covered in more detail in
the following sections.
G. Construct a Composite Site Selection Map
The combined effects of land use, soils, topographic, geo-
logic and hydrologic characteristics and water quality
limitations of an area can be simply organized to determine
June 1978 4:20
-------
the suitability of land application sites, on a preliminary
basis, using three basic map overlaps as tools:
a. United States Geological Survey Quandrangle Maps
b. Soil Conservation Service Soil Maps
c. Land Use Maps
The first overlay, constructed from the USGS quadrangle map,
will provide topographic, water resource and general location
data. This overlay may also serve as a composite site
selection and evaluation map on which other important land
application suitability criteria can be consolidated, thus
simplifying the subsequent facilities planning and environ-
mental assessment procedures.
SCS soil surveys maps of the planning area will delineate
the boundaries of various soil types giving general descrip-
tions of texture and certain other physical, chemical and
engineering properties of the parent soils. The soils map
overlay can consolidate soils by major soils series or major
soils groups.
Land use maps of a planning area include aerial photographs,
zoning maps, USGS quadrangle maps and land use maps from
regional and state planning agencies.
A grid system will normally prove useful in transfering data
from the individual map overlaps to the composite site
selection map.
4.313 Preliminary Development of Wastewater or Sludge Loading
Rates
Wastewater or sludge quantities and quality must be accur-
ately determined during the planning effort in order to
fully assess the suitability and environmental impact of the
land application disposal sites which have been previously
identified. However, since both the quantity and quality of
municipal wastewater and sludges can vary from location to
location, an approximate estimate of the more significant
items will be used in this initial assessment procedure.
Table 4-5 and Table 4-6 contain a summary of the more impor-
tant "typical" constituents in domestic wastewater and
sludge respectively.
The relationship between wastewater or sludge applied to a
given site and the probable degree of severity of potential
environmental impacts are covered in the following sections.
June 1978 4:21
-------
TABLE 4-5
TYPICAL WASTEWATER QUALITY AND
QUANTITY CHARACTERISTICS
(Source: Reference 1, 5)
I. QUANTITY
Wastewater Flow - 100 gallons per day per capita
II. QUALITY
Constituent
BOD5
Suspended Solids
Total Nitrogen (as N)
Total Phosphorus (as P)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Untreated
Wastewater
(mg/1)
200
200
40
10
0.003
0.004-0.14
0.02-0.700
0.02-3.36
0.9-3.54
0.05-1.27
0.11-0.14
0.002-0.044
0.002-0.105
0.030-8.31
Primary
Effluents
(mg/1)
140
140
35
9
0.002
0.004-0.028
0.001-0.30
0.024-0.13
0.41-0.83
0.016-0.11
0.032-0.16
0.009-0.035
0.063-0.20
0.015-0.75
Secondary
Effluents
(mg/1)
30
30
30
8
0.005-0.01
0.0002-0.02
0.010-0.17
0.05-0.22
0.04-3.89
0.0005- 0.02
0.021-0.38
0.0005-0.0015
0.10-0.149
0.047-0.35
June 1978
4:22
-------
TABLE 4-6
TYPICAL SLUDGE QUALITY AND
QUANTITY CHARACTERISTICS
(Source: Reference 5, 7)
I. QUANTITY
SLUDGE GENERATED
Primary sedimentation
Biological secondary
Chemical precipitation
.125 Ibs dry solids/capita/day
.225 Ibs dry solids/capita/day
0.330 Ibs dry solids/capita/day
II. QUALITY
Sludge
Constituent
, Range
(lb/10 Ib. dry solids)
"Typical"
(lb/10 Ib. dry solids)
Total Nitrogen (as N)
Total Phosphorus (as P)
Arsenic
Boran
Barium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Strontium
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
16,600-60,000
6,600-17,600
10-50
200-1430
nd-3000
nd-1100
nd-800
22-30,000
45-16,030
80-26,000
100-8800
0.1-89
nd-2800
nd-2230
10-180
nd-2100
51-28,360
30,000
11,000
10
430
1500
90
350
1800
1250
2000
1200
7
410
440
26
510
3500
Refractory Organics
Patrogens
Radioactive Substances
nd
nd
nd
June 1978
4:23
-------
4.32 Preliminary Identification of Potential Environmental Impacts
The second phase of the initial environmental assessment
procedure requires a thorough listing of the potential
environmental impacts of the land application alternatives.
Table 4-7 can be used as a guide in developing and identify-
ing these impacts (3). As was the case in initially identi-
fying potential land application sites, the emphasis in the
initial listing of potential environmental impacts should be
to include as many impacts, both positive and negative as
possible, leaving detailed judgments and evaluations for the
later phases of the planning effort.
June 1978 4:24
-------
3
TABLE 4-7
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM LAND APPLICATION OF
WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE
CD
MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL
P'.PACT COMPONENTS
DESCRIPTION
A. 2r.viron.Tentai Effects
1. Soil
2. Vegetation
3. Grouncvater
4. Air G-uality
5. Aniral arc! Insect Life
6. din-ate
7. Surface '-.'ater
8. Geologic Forr-rations
3. Public :-:ealth Effects
1. Grou.-xJ.oter
2. I-xe-ts a.-.~ Itoder.ts
3. Site Sunofr
4. ;\aro!5ois and Odors
5. Crops/Food Chain
6. :toise and Traffic
7. Surface '.-.'ater
C. Social/Aesthetic Effects
1. Lard Use
2. Ccrr^unity Growth
3. Relocation of Residents
4. Grearie Its/Open Space
5. Recreational Activities
D. Economic Effects
1. Less of Tax Revenues
2. Land Devaluation
3. Energy Con-itteient
4. Resource Corrittnent
5. <~,rouridvater
6. Surface Kater
7. Sever.ues
Charges in groundwa cer levels, drainage areas, local climate, orgor.ic/irorgar.ic effects or. soil hydraulic capacity,
soil chemistry and toxic elements
Toxic effects, changes in grour.dwater levels, local clirates, reduced growth due to hydraulic loadings or poor
aeration
Effect gro-jndwater levels, rate and direction of flow, chances in quolicy and build up of toxic contaminants
Forrrvition of Aerosols and odors
Disr\:pt food chain, migratory routes and habitats cf certain species, altor grour_:"^-a;er cables, encroach sites cf
rare and endangered species
Lncrease local hudidity and decrease temperature, changes in microciirjite near application site
Increases or decreases in rates of flow, changes in water quality, change in drainage basin hydrological
characteristics
Transmission of contaminants through bedrock discontinuity creation of discontinuity by peroolatir.g wastewstar
Build up of toxic contaminants, pathogens, heavy nereis, reiucuior. L-. qamtity of poter.tia-i dri.-^:ir.g Vv-acer supplies
Ccnta.Tir.ation of insects (rcsquitoes) and roder.rs froc wastevater/sl^co ccnta,Ti.-.ar.ts , ireocing pathoger^.c \«x^rs
Contairir^tion of — >pulaced areas
Transmission of pathogens in aerosols, odor effects on general hoalch
Build up of toxic contaminants in the food chain via direct consumption or food chain interreciate (i.e. pigs, beef
Crop harvesting activities, prrrary and secc.Tcary croi^th effects, pretreat^cnt facilities
Changes in quality and quantity of potential surface driving '.i-acer supplies
Possible conflicts with surrounding land use: residential, conmerciai, incust±.-ial , recreational, urbar., agriciil-
tural, uiidemess and green belts
Increases in growth due to sewer systez: availability, decreases in gra%-th due to resource or local services,
Possible relocation of rssic-antial, cormercial ana ftinr. buildings, scixiols, censteries and churches
Disruption of local scenic character, erJianosrant of local scenic character
Effects on wild and scenic rivers, archeolocical, historical and geological sites
Loss of taxable land as a result of govemrer.tal purchase
Change in value of land 'jsed or adjacent land
Pretreateie.it facility, transmission of wastewater fo application area, harvesting crops
Land, cherrdcals, supplenra-.tal fertilization
Increase or decrease in quantity of grcundater, c.har.ge in quality of grour.dv-'awar
Increase or docroese in "Tuantity cf surface water, c:-^ngc ir. quality of s'urface water
Sales of crops, renovated water, irrigation water or leasehocr: of purchased lar^i
£>
(SJ
E. Legal Effects
1. '.s'ater Rights
2. Lrplenentation Authority
3. Existing Regulations ard
Plans
Conflicts with Riparian, aporopriative or ec-Tbir-ition water rights of natural watercourses, surface waters,
percolating groundwater
Ability to purchase and use land application area, conflicting or overlapping political jurisdiction,
public information and acceptance
Possible ocnfliccs with comprehensive master plans, -oning, waste\-.-atcr trsatrcr.t regi_J.3tic.-.s and st^.-.dirds
-------
4.33 Early Assessment of the Probable Degree of Severity of
Potential Environmental Impacts
As outlined in the previous sections, the land application
alternative can include an extensive list of options and
areas for investigation. In order to insure that sufficient
efforts are focused on significant land application impacts
at an early stage in the facilities planning/environmental
assessment process, a systematic but flexible early warning
system should be developed and used as a "tool" to optimize
planning efforts rather than as an additional planning
requirement.
The first step in the early warning procedure requires
development of a single map of the planning area and ad-
jacent communities with overlays of the following basic
characteristics.
Location of preliminary land application sites and
suitability by process type(s).
Approximate boundary of major developed areas by land
use.
Location of surface and groundwater drinking water
supplies and surface drainage divides.
Approximate downstream center of the wastewater collec-
tion system.
Secondly, establish preliminary wastewater quality and
quantity projections and approximate loading on land appli-
cation sites using the data in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 unless
other information is readily available. A reasonable percent
increase in population (such as 50%) can be assumed during
the planning period for this initial assessment procedure.
It should be emphasized that this initial population projec-
tion is for preliminary assessment procedures and that
detailed projections of wastewater and sludge quantities
will be performed during the facilities planning effort.
Major industrial or commercial wastewater loadings must be
included even if extremely rough estimates are used. Waste-
water pollutant and hydraulic loadings on land application
sites in New England can be roughly approximated by using a
hydraulic loading factor (H.L.F.) as described below:
H.L.F. = Wastewater Applied/Unit average daily flow equivalent
loading of application site.
June 1978 4:26
-------
A. Wastewater Applied
Spray Irrigation
, „, ^—, = Annual Average daily
-- Overland Flow ^ flow rate
Rapid Infiltration
B. Unit Average Daily Flow Equivalent of the Application
Site
The equivalent hydraulic capacity, in terms of the annual
average daily flow, of the application site area if waste-
water was applied at 1 inch per week during the application
period.
Spray (slow rate) irrigation, 6 month application period -
1940 gpd/acre
Overland Flow, 6 month application period - 1940 gpd/acre
Rapid Infiltration, 12 month application period - 3880
gpd/acre
Adjustments to the unit average daily flow equivalent values
can be easily made to account for shorter application periods
(i.e., specific crop growing seasons, state requirements
etc.) by using the following relation.
Unit Average Daily Flow Equivalent = A x B where:
26
A = Unit Average Daily Flow Equivalent for a 6 month
(26 week) application period (i.e. 1940 gpd/acre).
B = Assumed application period in weeks
Table 4-8 was developed on an approximate guide in relating
environmental impact components to the H.L.F. Environmental
impact identification factors, in Table 4-8 indicate in-
creasing degree of adversity of the various impacts on a
scale from 1 to 3 with "+" or "-" for emphasis. Beneficial
impacts are indicatd with a value of 1.
It should be noted that the H.L.F. is essentially the appli-
cation rate in inches per week which would be required on a
specific site area to dispose of hydraulically the average
daily wastewater flow from a given community. A similar
relation for sludge loading of a land application site can
June 1978 4:27
-------
also be developed, perhaps in terms of a solids loading
factor (S.L.F.) in which annual application of sludge in
tons of solids per acre per year is calculated for each
potential site and from which another set of environmental
impact identification factors can be assessed. It should
also be emphasized again that the early warning rating
system is basically a subjective tool and not a substitute
for detailed facilities planning analyses. As such, the
environmental planner may modify the basic procedure as he
feels necessary to more accurately reflect actual conditions
in a given planning area. The results of this procedure,
however, will both highlight potential environmental impacts
early in the facilities planning stages of evaluating land
application alternatives as well as provide direction to
optimize the subsequent planning efforts.
June 1978 4:28
-------
TABLE 4-8
EARLY ENViroNMENTAL IMPACT IDENTIFICATION FACTORS*
FOR REGION 1 -NEW ENGLAND
Major Environmental
Impact Components
A. Environmental Effects
1. Soil
2. Vegetation
3. Groundwater
4. Air Quality
5. Animal and Insect
Life
6. Climate
7. Surface Water
8. Geologic Formations
B. Public Health Effects
1. Groundwater
2. Insects and Rodents
3. Site Run-off*
4. Aerosols and. Odors
5. Crops/Food Chain
6. Noise and Traffic
7. Surface Water
C. Social/Aesthetic Effects
1. Land Use
2 . Community Growth
3. Relocation of Residents
4. Greenbelts/Open Space
5. Recreational Activities
D. Economic Effects
1. Loss of Tax Revenues
2 . Land Devaluation
3. Energy Commitment
4 . Resource Commitment
5. Groundwater
f). Surface Water
7 . Revenues
E. Legal Effects
1. Water Rights
2. Implementation Authority
3. Existing Regulation and
Plans
Spray Irrigation
(Slow Rate)
H.L.F.
*1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2+
2+
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
H.L.F.
1-4
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2+
2+
2
9
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
H.L.F.
> 4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3+
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
.?+
2+
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
2
Overland Flow
H.L.F.
<5
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2+
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
H.L.F.
5-10
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2+
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
3
3
2
H.L.F.
> 10
2
3
1
2
2
1
3+
1
1
3
3+
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2+
2
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
2
Rapid
Infiltration
H.L.F.
£20
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
H.L.F.
20-40
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
H.L.F.
>40
3+
1
3
2
2
1
1
3
3+
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
* Rating values will vary with socio economic and site location factors . Environmental
impact identification factors indicate increasing degree of adversity from 1 to 3 with
+ or - added for emphasis. Beneficial impacts are indicated with a value of 1.
June 1978
4:29
-------
TAB I,!.-: 4-9
(SOURCE: REFERENCE 2
INFORMATION NEEDS AND SOURCES FOR
LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER
LOCAL COUNTY
STATE
REGIONAL
w
a
D
O
10
o
H
H
i
o
fe
H
INFORMATION NEEDS
Climatic Data
Soil Classification - Mapping
Soil Infiltration-Permeability
Soil Depth 0-5 Feet
Soil Drainage & Water Table < 5 Feet
Soil Properties (Chemical & Physical)
Agricultural Land Use Capability
Depth to Bedrock
Unconsolidatcd Materials
Bedrock Type & Structural Characteristics
Jointing & Permeability of Rock
Rock Outcrops
Surface Slope, Categories (ex. 0 - 3%)
Flood Plain, Flood Hazard
Streamf lows
Ground Water Yield
Ground Water Elevation & Contours
Ground Water Aquifers
Irrigation Methods
Crops
Interpretation of Soil Suitability
Interpretation of Ground Water
Land Ur.o
Land Values
Guidelines for Land Application
Sensitive Environmental Areas
Socioeconomic Factors
Institutions (any organization)
Aesthetics
Biota
Consultants
Municipal/Community Planning
Chamber of Commerce
NOAA, U.S. Weather Station
Library
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
9 •
•
•
•
»
•
•
•
•
• • «
•
• •
• • •
• •
• •
0 • •
Agricultural Extension Service
County Planning
Public Health
Assessor
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
•
• •
« •
•
•
• •
• • •
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• »
• •
• •
• • •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
Environmental Protection and/or Public Health
Historical Society
State Geological Survey
State Div. or Dept. of Water Resources
State University Extension Specialists
State Planning Office
«
•
•
•
•
•
• •
o
•
•
» »
• •
• •
•
»
•
• •
•
•
» • •
•
• «
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Planning Agency (COG, River Basin Resource
Management Districts)
«
•
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
• «
• •
•
• «
•
• •
•
•
«
•
« •
• •
•
•
•
June 1978
4:30
-------
4.34 Measures to Resolve Environmental Impacts
Once the relative probable degree of severity of land appli-
cation environmental impacts has been rated, the subsequent
planning efforts can focus on those deemed most severe.
Data needs and sources for the various impact components are
given in Table 4-9. In addition, specific references in the
Appendix are cited which contain additional information on
the various impact components. In some cases, however, the
results of the preceding early identification procedure will
indicate the need for an increase in the scope of the facili-
ties planning effort or the need for a concurrent environ-
mental impact statement (EIS) analysis to successfully
resolve any environmental, public health or socioeconomic
issues which were noted during the preliminary evaluation of
the land application alternatives. The following hypothe-
tical case study will demonstrate the use of the early
warning procedure described on the foregoing pages.
4.4 CASE STUDY
4.41 Case Description
Tinkersville, New England is a rapidly growing town in the
northeast section of the state. The town is currently under
federal and state orders to cease raw sewage discharges to
the Green River. Also, since the Green River eventually
flows into Lake Olga, a eutrophic waterbody which is present-
ly experiencing seasonal algal blooms, wastewater treatment
requirements include removal of nitrogen and/or phosphorus.
Land application, therefore, is considered a viable waste-
water treatment alternative as are the various modes of the
activated sludge process. Land application of sludge from
the activated sludge alternatives will also be considered in
the facilities planning work. Key environmental, socio-
economic and geographical features of the planning area are
shown in Figure 4-3 and briefly described below.
4.411 Population and Wastewater Flows
Tinkersville has a current population of 15,000 people. The
major employer in town is Nutrient Products, Inc., an indus-
try which will discharge approximately 0.2 million gallons
per day (MGD) of nitrogen-laden process wastewater to the
new collection system.
4.412 Water Quality and Discharge Standards
The Green River is a Class B waterbody and effluent limiting.
Pleasant Lake, a hydroelectric water storage reservoir, is
owned by Tinkersville Utilities and is classified as a
June 1978 4:31
-------
Class A waterbody (no wastewater discharges allowed). Water
supply to Pleasant Lake is by tributary streams and natural
groundwater inflow. A number of small streams and brooks
characterize the northeast section of town and are considered
Class A waterbodies. Major water resources include a ground-
water aquifer in the southern part of town and a regional
surface water supply reservoir in the northern section. The
northern drainage basins are potential future water supplies.
4.413 Geographical and Legal Considerations
A regional water supply authority owns and operates the
water supply reservoirs within the town boundaries. Tinkers-
ville Utilities owns water rights to Pleasant Lake for
hydroelectric power.
4.42 Environmental Assessment Procedures
A preliminary map overlay of the planning area was developed
according to the early impact identification procedure
described in the previous section and is also shown in
Figure 4-3. Potential land application sites, drainage
divides and the approximate downstream center point of
wastewater collection are shown as are radial distances to
potential land application sites. Preliminary wastewater
flow projections are given below:
Design Flow - 10,000 x (1.5)* x 100 gpd/capita
=1.5 MGD
*Population Increase of 50% Assumed
Major Industrial Flow = 0.2 MGD
Total Annual Average Daily Flow =1.7 MGD
An early warning impact rating of each potential site within
the georgraphical boundaries of Tinkersville is shown in
Table 4-10.
Using site No. 4 as an example the table values were deter-
mined as follows:
a. Area - 200 acres
b. Process Suitability - Spray Irrigation (slope,
soils)
c. Hydraulic loading factor (H.L.F.)
H.L.F. - Wastewater applied/unit average daily flow
equivalent loading of application site
June 1978 4:32
-------
EVALUAri^KJ
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
H.L.F. = 1.7 MGD x 10 6/(1940 gpd/ac.) (200 AC) = 4.4
Site No. 4 is a moderately high hydraulically loaded site,
far distant from the main wastewater collection area, sur-
rounded by small brooks and streams of excellent quality.
The site will recharge percolating groundwater outside of
the drainage basin of the existing ground water supply.
The results of the environmental impact early warning proce-
dure, as shown in Table 4-10, for all the sites identified
in Tinkersville, highlights the following preliminary assess-
ment components as having potentially severe impacts worthy
of detailed study during the facilities planning effort.
A. Environmental Effects
Soil - high wastewater loadings
Vegetation - high wastewater loadings
Groundwater - increased levels, changes in basin
and directed flow
Air Quality - Aerosols and odors
Surface Waters - Class A stream discharge standards
B. Public Health
Groundwater - drinking water supplies
Insects and Rodents - high wastewater loadings
Surface water - existing and future drinking water
supplies
C. Social and Aesthetic
Land Use - urban areas, abutting states and towns
Community growth - potentials to accelerate and
retard growth with various sites
D. Economic effects
Loss of Tax Revenues - high community land values
Energy Commitment - remote sites, high energy
demanding pumping requirements
E. Legal
Water Rights - land application sites will change
water balance in potable groundwater supply drainage
basins. Abutting towns and states surface waters.
Implementation Authority - Abutting towns near
highly developed areas.
June 1978 4:33
-------
4.43 Future Study Areas and Methods to Resolve Potentially Severe
Environmental Impacts
The results of the environmental impact early warning proce-
dure (Phase 1) shown in Table 4-10 indicate the major study
areas which should be focused on during the detailed environ-
mental assessment/facilities planning efforts (Phase 2) for
Tinkersville, New England. In addition, the results of the
procedure also indicate, on a preliminary basis, that rapid
infiltration sites 16 and 17 and spray irrigation site 7 are
the most promising land application alternatives to be
investigated. In order to fully evaluate sites 7 and 17, a
comprehensive and detailed wastewater and soils renovation
analysis will most likely be required to insure protection
of the groundwater aquifer to the south. A similar effort
is indicated for site 16 to insure protection of the small
Class A streams and future surface water supplies. Energy
demands and operational costs are also highlighted at site
16.
The extent and degree of detail to which these study efforts
are employed may require an amendment to the existing facili-
ties planning engineering contract or implementation of a
concurrent environmental impact statement (EIS) to resolve
adequately the major socio-economic or technical issues
involved. In either event, the environmental planner has
the basic tools for early environmental impact assessments
of land application systems for a given area and firm guide-
lines to assist in judging the most environmentally produc-
tive directions in which these additional efforts should
proceed.
June 1978 4:34
-------
TABLE 4-10
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EARLY WARNING
INDICATORS FOR TINKER3VILLE
ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACT COMPONENTS
(A) (B) (C) Social
ite I.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Acres
70
65
50
200
120
60
312
90
100
80
110
90
220
70
275
150
160
140
120
80
65
40
150
160
120
PRELIMINARY MAJOR
Suitability
SI
SI
SI
SI
OF
SI
SI
OF
SI
OF
OF
OF
SI
SI
SI
R.I.
R.I.
OF
SI
SI
SI
SI
RI
SI
SI
IMPACTS
SI
OF RI
12.5
13.5
17.5
4.4
7.3
14.6
2.8
9.7
8.7
11.0
8.0
9.7
3.9
12.5
3.2
2.9
2.7
6.3
7.3
10.9
13.5
22
2.9
5.5
7.3
Environmental
12345678
3+3+3 3222+3
3+3+3 3222+3
3+3+3+32 2 2+3
2+2+3 322 2+2+
4.
22112131
3+3+3 3222+3
4.
22222112
22112131
3+3+3 3222+3
2312+2 1+3++1+
2312+21+ri+
2+2+3 322 2+2+
3+3+3 3222+3
2+2+2+2+2+1+1+2
21211122
21211122
1+2122131
3+3+3+3+3+2+2+3+
3+3+3+3+3+2+2+3+
33332+2 2+3
3+3+3+3 2+2+2+3
21311122
33333223
3 3 3+3+2 2+2+3+
* * * * *
Public Health
1
3
3
3
3
1
3.
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
3
23456
32+332
32+332
32+332
2 2+2+2+2
4.
23222
3 2+3 3 2
21322
23+222
32+332
•1- 4
-------
4.44 Level of Effort
In order for the environmental planner to properly evaluate
the land application alternative for a given community,
adequate budgets should be established for both the facili-
ties planning elements as well as the concurrent environ-
mental assessment efforts. Also, New England (Region 1)
poses unique budget requirements for the evaluation of land
application alternatives particularly with regard to site
specific characteristics including soil, groundwater and
bedrock conditions.
Table 4-11 was developed to emphasize the relationship, in
terms of manpower and resource commitment, between the Phase
1, preliminary development of land application alternatives
and the subsequent Phase 2, detailed evaluations of specific
sites. The range of values shown in Table 4-11, roughly
corresponds to communities with sewered populations of less
than 1000 to greater than 30,000 for the Phase I tasks as
well as Phase 2, detailed sited investigations for applica-
tion areas of less than 50 acres and land treatment pro-
cesses without storage to application areas of 500 acres,
utilizing processes that do require wastewater storage. It
should be noted that any given site chosen for Phase 2
evaluation may not require all the tasks indicated in Table
4-11 and conversely other sites within a given study area
may require additional study efforts. In any case the
environmental planner must include sufficient levels of
efforts in evaluating the land application alternative to
define both the technical and environmental feasibility
of the land application alternative as well as its viability
as practical wastewater treatment alternative.
June 1978 4:36
-------
TABLE 4-11
CONSULTANT AND SUBCONTRACTOR MANPOWER COMMITMENT
FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE LAND APPLICATION ALTERNATIVE
ITEM
Phase 1, Preliminary Site
Screening and Development
*Phase 2, Detailed Site
Evaluations
Surveys
Borings
Cadastral
Quantify Wastewater
Characteristics
Soils Mapping ^v^
Groundwater Mapping f
Bedrock Mapping I
Soils Renovation Capacity'
Soils Hydraulic Capacity
Report
Public Hearing /
FACILITIES PLANNING
BUDGET
10-20 man days
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT BUDGET
5-10 man days
230-1400 man days
30-110 man days
*Includes an approximate range of manpower effort to completely
evaluate a single site
June 1978
4:37
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Waste-
water", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture EPA 625/1-77008
(COE1110-1-501) October 1977.
2. "Design Seminar for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Effluents - Design Factors, Part II", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, September 1975.
3. "Evaluation of Land Application Systems", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Techni-
cal Bulletin EPA 430/9-75-001, March 1975.
4. "Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application - Volume
II", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, EPA-660/2-73-006b, August 1973.
5. "Wastewater Engineering, Collection, Treatment and Disposal",
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New
York, 1972.
6. Hill, David E., "Evaluation of Wastewater Renovation Potential
in Litchfield County Soils", Connecticut Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, New Haven, Special Bulletin Soils 32.
7. "Municipal Sludge Management: EPA Construction Grants Program -
An Overview of the Sludge Management Situations", U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency EPA-430/9-76-009, April, 1976.
June 1978 4:38
-------
environmental
assessment
manual
secondary
impacts
Oi
•
V)
•o g
to 3
0 9
t-*- Q)
-------
CHAPTER 5 - SECONDARY IMPACTS
Prepared by: Anderson-Nichols 5:1
-------
CHAPTER 5 SECONDARY IMPACTS
5.0 INTRODUCTION
The environmental assessment process for wastewater collec-
tion and treatment facilities involves an evaluation of both
primary and secondary impacts. EPA's Rules and Regulations
for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements
(April 14, 1975) define primary and secondary impacts as
follows:
Primary Impacts
Primary impacts are those that can be attributed
directly to the proposed action. If the action is a
field experiment, materials introduced into the
environment which might damage certain plant com-
munities or wildlife species would be a primary
impact. If the action involves construction of a
facility, such as a sewage treatment works, an
office building or a laboratory, the primary impacts
of the action would include the environmental im-
pacts related to construction and operation of the
facility and land use changes at the facility site.
— Secondary Impact
Secondary impacts are indirect or induced changes.
If the action involves construction of a facility,
the impacts would include the environmental impacts
related to:
Induced changes in the pattern of land use, popula-
tion density and related effects on air or water
quality or other natural resources.
Increased growth at a faster rate than planned for
or above the total level planned by the existing com-
munity.
The distinction between primary and secondary impacts is
clearly stated in the previous definitions. A major differ-
ence between the two, as stated in EPA's Program Guidance
Memorandum #50 is "Secondary effects can be of great impor-
tance to the environment but normally are much more diffi-
cult to predict in advance than primary impacts".
It should be pointed out that a secondary impact is accom-
panied by an impact, either positive or negative, in another
area. That is, induced growth in one area takes the place
of growth that would have occurred elsewhere. Sewers do not
June 1978
5:2
-------
create growth, they only influence the geographic distribution
of development in a given economic area.
This chapter of the manual will provide guidance in practical
ways to predict induced changes or increased growth as part
of the environmental assessment process for wastewater
facility planning.
5.1 REGULATORY STATUS
The following legislation and regulations apply to the
evaluation of secondary impacts:
5.11 Federal Regulations/Guidelines (EPA)*
5.111 Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan
EPA/MCD-46, (May 1975)
5.112 Program Guidance Memo No. 50, Consideration of Secondary
Environmental Effects in the Construction Grants Process
(June 1975)
5.113 Land Use and New England's Environment, Region 1 EPA (1975).
Strong statement regarding evaluation and protection of New
England environment.
5.114 Guides to Environmental Planning, Assessments and Impact
Statements for Water Quality Management Plans and Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Projects, Region 1, EPA, Revised August
1975.
5.115 EPA Policy on Secondary Impacts
The essential document covering EPA's policy on secondary
impacts is Program Guidance Memorandum 50. The major pro-
visions of this memorandum may be summarized as follows:
A. Localities must identify and assess potential secondary
impacts as an integral part of the Step 1 facilities plan-
ning process, using "best available data and analytical
techniques."
B. The critical determination is whether or not any poten-
tial secondary impacts will result in contravention of
any existing Federal, state or local environmental law
or regulation, or any plan or standard required by such
laws or regulations.
*NOTE: Many of the Federal regulations cited elsewhere in
this manual have application to secondary impacts.
June 1978 5:3
-------
C. Where secondary impacts resulting from a wastewater treat-
ment facility "can reasonably be anticipated" to contra-
vene an environmental law or regulation, plan or standard,
the EPA Regional Administrator shall withhold approval
of Step 2 or Step 3 construction grants until the local
applicant either (a) revises the Step 1 facilities plan,
(b) initiates steps to mitigate the adverse effects, or
(c) agrees to special grant conditions requiring actions
to minimize the effects. Furthermore, the locality must
demonstrate "good faith" and be "clearly moving toward
proper mitigative action" before a Step 2 grant is awarded.
D. Any special grant conditions imposed by the EPA Regional
Administrator must be "reasonable", and the local appli-
cant must possess the requisite authority to fulfill the
conditions.
E. EPA follow-up of grantee compliance with any special condi-
tions is required once the Step 2 grant is awarded. If
an applicant fails to abide by grant agreement conditions,
the Regional Administrator may take a number of actions,
including:
— withholding grant payments
refusing to process subsequent grant applications
from the locality
refusing to approve grants for future phases of the
same project
entering an injunction against the grantee
suspending all work on the project
terminating the grant and recovering unexpended EPA
funds
5.12 State/Local Legislation
Each New England State has a variety of environmental or
environmentally related legislation. Specific legislation
relating to secondary impacts are discussed in the related
chapters of this manual. The preparation of an environmen-
tal assessment in accordance with EPA's requirements should
satisfy most state or local regulations concerning secondary
impacts.
June 1978 5:4
-------
5.2 PAST PRACTICE
In 1974 Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc., under
contract to the Council of Environmental Quality, prepared a
two volume .study entitled "Interceptor Sewers and Suburban
Sprawl: The Impact of Construction Grants on Residential
Land Use." Their conclusions after studying a number of
assessments were as follows:
"In most of the projects studied, the assessment of the
environmental impact of the interceptors was inadequate. In
only a few instances were Environmental Impact Statements
prepared—in the vast majority of projects a negative declar-
ation was made on the basis of a superficial environmental
impact assessment prepared by project engineers. In most
cases, the engineers disregarded all secondary land use
effects in this assessment in order to enable EPA to render
a negative declaration of environmental impact. Even in
those few instances where EPA prepared an Environmental
Impact Statement, adverse secondary impacts were given scant
consideration, and appeared to have no influence over EPA's
decision to fund the project."
As a result of the issuance of Program Guidance Memorandum
50 and other EPA regulations and reports subsequent to 1974,
more attention has been given to the consideration of secon-
dary impacts in the environmental assessment process. On
the whole, however, the results have been uneven.
Where growth related issues are of local concern the assess-
ment process has given limited attention to the changes to
be induced by a wastewater facility. Where these concerns
are not raised or the implications of sizing the facility or
pipe are not perceived as controversial by the local commun-
ity, secondary impacts generally are given lip service in
the assessment.
There appears to be a need to even out the process so that
good professional judgment rather than the sophisticated
nature of the community become criteria for a thorough
evaluation of secondary impacts.
A key constraint in the past has been the limited funds
which many of the New England states have authorized for
environmental assessments during the Step 1 facility plan-
ning. Over the past 5 years the average fee for preparing
an EA ranged between $2,000 and $10,000. It is safe to
assume that less than 10 per cent of these amounts covered
secondary impact evaluations.
The major corrective measures proposed are:
June 1978 5:5
-------
A. More adequate funding for EA's. (This now appears to be
taking place. )
B. The use of sound and uncomplicated methodologies which
allow the identification of secondary impacts and their
quantification.
C. The development of procedures which will allow early
identification of significant secondary environmental
impacts warranting a switch to a "piggyback" EIS.
5.3 SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this section of the manual is to provide
overall guidance in assessing the secondary impacts of waste-
water treatment or collection facilities to be constructed
using funds under the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972. Although this section is directed at a wide range
of projects, it of necessity focuses on the typical community
situation to be faced by a consulting engineer, planner or
state or Federal official in New England. In general these
fall into the following categories:
— A suburban community in a metropolitan area with its own
existing or proposed collection and treatment system or
its own existing or proposed collection system with
treatment in adjoining communities.
A small or moderately sized town or city which is located
outside a metropolitan area with its own existing or
proposed collection and treatment system or its own
existing or proposed collection system with treatment in
adjoining communities.
The secondary assessment techniques discussed herein are not
directed at the large regional treatment facilities or trunk
sewers which may be constructed in a major metropolitan area.
For the most part such facilities will require the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Statement and generally will not
be evaluated at the Environmental Assessment level.
5.31 Facilities With Potential For Secondary Impacts
The following types of facilities and/or environmental
conditions generally will have the potential to generate
secondary impacts:
— Construction of a new or expanded treatment facility to
serve, or with a potential through expansion to serve
sewering needs in excess of needs generated by present
development within the service area.
June 1978 5:6
-------
Construction of or replacement of collection facilities
to serve or with a potential to serve, due to under-
utilized capacity or extensions, areas where development
presently is constrained by topography, soil conditions,
sewer moratoria, zoning, or local or state regulations
requiring sewers.
Construction of collection or treatment facilities to
serve areas adjacent to or including sensitive areas such
as wetlands, water bodies, ground water recharge areas,
flood prone areas, archaeological or historic sites and
prime agricultural lands.
As a general rule of thumb it can be concluded that most
collection systems have a capacity to induce growth.
Facilities such as the following generally have limited po-
tential for generating secondary impacts:
Upgrading of treatment facility from primary to secondary
or advanced treatment.
5.32 Step by Step Incremental Analysis
The procedures outlined below represent a general methodology
that can be utilized by the engineer, planner or environ-
mentalist in predicting the induced changes or induced growth
that can be anticipated from the construction of a wastewater
facility. Several overall guidelines are in order at the
outset. They are:
The proposed procedures do not represent an EPA Region 1
policy in the evaluation of secondary impacts.
The reader must check to determine if Program Requirements
Memoranda issued after the effective date of this manual
would alter any of the procedures.
— The determination of induced growth is not a science.
It relys heavily upon good professional judgments
utilizing readily available information.
The procedures require the utilization of simple mapping
techniques and require contact with individuals and
agencies concerned with and, knowledgeable in an area's
growth and development.
5.321 Step 1, Describe Facility Alternatives.
For each proposed treatment or collection alternative the
following information is required:
June 1978 5:7
-------
Description of proposed treatment facility and its
expansion potential.
Description of and a map overlay (on USGS or other
comparable base maps being used in planning) showing
interceptor and collector sewer system and existing and
future service area of the collection system.
Answer the following questions:
— Does the proposed or potentially expandable treatment
facility have the capacity to serve needs in excess of
needs generated by present development within the
service area?
Does the proposed or potentially extendable collection
system have the capacity to serve needs and/or areas where
development is constrained by the lack of sewers?
Do the proposed or expanded service areas include or abut
sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands, flood
plains, reservoir watersheds or prime agricultural lands?
A yes answer to any of the above questions would indicate a
potential for secondary impacts.
A no answer to all of the above questions would indicate the
impacts are primary in nature and the subsequent steps de-
scribed below need not be performed.
5.322 Step 2, Determine "Prime Area" of Potential Secondary Impacts.
The "prime area" of potential secondary impacts is defined
to include the proposed service area of the facility alter-
native and such competing areas within a larger economic area
from which growth may be attracted because of the facility.
The actual delineation of a "prime area" of potential secondary
impacts calls for a combination of good judgment and common
sense. There is no single scientific methodology which can
be used as every area will have its own unique characteristics.
Step 2, therefore, will generally be accomplished by following
the procedures outlined below:
Review USGS maps, topography constraints, land use pat-
terns, recent construction trends and local or regional
planning studies and regulations to form a general opinion
of how the area has grown and how it might be expected
to grow in future.
June 1978 5:8
-------
Talk with local developers, realtors, businessmen, and
newspaper publishers to obtain their opinions on any
potential redistribution of private investment activities
as a result of a facility alternative.
— Talk with local and regional planning agencies. Virtually
the entire New England area is covered by and served by
a regional planning agency. These agencies, due to their
regional perspective, can provide valuable assistance in
defining the overall economic growth area for a particular
community and the prime area of potential secondary
impacts.
— Use USGS or similar maps of the subject community or
communities, and such adjoining communities as may reason-
ably be considered to be within the same market area for
development, to show prime areas suggested by information
review and interviews.
Using a series of overlays or various colored pencils on
a print of the maps being used, develop a general con-
census line which represents the assessors best judgement
of a "prime area" of potential secondary impacts.
The following guidelines are suggested:
— Wherever possible the prime area delineations should be
coterminous with municipal boundaries. This will
facilitate the review of population and building trends
as called for in subsequent steps.
In many regions, particularly within an SMSA (Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area as delineated by the U.S.
Census Bureau) there will be sections or corridors,
generally following major highways, which constitute
market areas for economic and residential growth. These
market areas might include one or more communities.
Such market areas have potentials for different rates or
distribution of growth depending on many factors - includ-
ing the availability of sewers.
— For a smaller economic growth area outside of an SMSA
(generally a core community, and possibly several sur-
rounding towns) the entire economic area may be the
prime region within which the spatial distribution of
development will be influenced by a wastewater facility.
In considering "prime area" definition the possibility
of "leap-frog" development should not be overlooked.
"Leap-frogging" can occur when a combination of lower
land costs and the availability of a facility such as
sewers, which ease construction constraints, attract
June 1978 5:9
-------
development at a distance somewhat removed from employment
centers. In the process closer-in areas with a potential
for growth may be by-passed. This situation applied in
a recent assessment of secondary impacts in the Danbury,
Connecticut region. Due to the high cost of housing south
of and immediately adjacent to Danbury (partially due to
the influence of the New York City and lower Fairfield
County economic activities) it was anticipated that
middle income housing development would be attracted by
sewer facilities proposed in New Milford, some 12-15
miles from major employment centers.
The potential for inducing "leap frog" development compli-
cates the delineation of the "prime area". In order to keep
the analysis manageable in the steps which follow, it is
suggested that the prime area not include the more distant
communities from which "leap frog" development might be at-
tracted. The "leap frog" area should be shown in a general
nature on a regional map. In most cases it may represent a
larger and possibly overlapping economic area. The delinea-
tion of the larger surrounding "leap frog" area will facili-
tate the rough environmental growth approximating called for
in step 6B below.
5.323 Step 3, Map Potential Growth Areas
This step includes the mapping of potential growth areas
within the previously defined prime area of potential
secondary impacts.
As a general rule of thumb, land with the following character-
istics can be considered as potential growth areas:
— Slopes ranging from 0 to 10 per cent.
— Soil conditions suitable for development as determined
by SCS or similar studies.
Private ownership.
— Absence of water related constraints such as wetlands,
flood plains or a high ground water level.
— Absence, particularly in the case of housing, of nearby
adverse influences such as an airport, dump site or heavy
industry.
Reasonable access to existing road system and community
facilities.
June 1978 5:10
-------
The potential growth areas can be shown on USGS maps or similar
type maps which may have been used in the preceding steps.
The most useful documents in undertaking this analysis are
USGS maps, SCS soil surveys, zoning regulations and local or
regional planning studies. In many cases the planning
studies will have carried out an analysis and a mapping of
future growth areas. Recently completed 208 studies may
prove to be an invaluable resource.
5.324 Step 4, Map Growth Constraint Areas
This map will identify those portions of the potential growth
areas mapped in Step 3 where growth should be constrained
but is not presently constrained by existing zoning or other
adopted development regulations. Examples might include:
Prime agricultural land. A dwindling but potentially
valuable resource in New England.
Flood plains where development may be allowed if certain
building requirements are met. (See chapter 6)
Sites proposed for public facilities by local, regional
or state agencies but not as yet acquired for same.
Lands adjacent to important wetlands. (See Chapter 7)
Aquifer recharge areas. (See Chapter 6)
Endangered species habitats.
Valuable archaeological resource sites. (See Chapter 8)
The potential growth constraint areas should be identified with a
color on the growth areas map prepared in Step 3.
5.325 Step 5, Determine Current Carrying Capacity of Growth Areas.
The current carrying capacity represents the amount of growth
that can take place under existing zoning. It will be
estimated and reported as follows after making appropriate
deductions for roads and public facilities such as schools
and playgrounds;
USE ACRES/UNITS
GROWTH AREA GROWTH CONSTRAINT
UNITS ACRES
AREA
UNITS ACRES
Residential
Single
Multiple
Commercial
Industrial
TOTAL
June 1978 5:11
-------
5.326 Step 6, Prime Area of Secondary Impact Incremental Growth
Analysis.
This step is directed at providing answers to the following
questions:
What will be the projected growth and distribution of
growth within the service area and the secondary impact
area without the proposed facility within 10 and 20
years?
What will be the projected growth and distribution of
that growth within the service area and the secondary
impact area if the proposed facility is constructed.
The projected growth without the facility can be accomplished
as follows (Step 6A):
Review growth experience in "prime" area of potential
secondary impacts using census documents and community
regional or state-wide population studies.
— Determine if there are any factors such as the completion
of a new highway, a shortage of water supplies, the in-
troduction of new industry, closing of a military estab-
lishment, high or low vacancy rates (low vacancy rates
often indicate a strong housing market stimulating
residential development), which could alter past growth
trends in secondary impact area.
Review present status of planning and zoning in secon-
dary impact area and known proposals for new subdivisions,
PUD's, industrial parks, etc. Determine if existing
planning and zoning reflect present public sentiments
toward growth. (This can be determined at the time
businessmen and planning agencies are contacted during
the preceding steps and as part of a community partici-
pation process described in Chapter 3) Has there been a
history of granting zoning variances allowing increased
densities not originally planned for?
— Determine if prior community master plans call for the
introduction and/or expansion of wastewater facilities.
If more than two communities are located within an area
of potential secondary impact it is important to deter-
mine if any other community has, is or will be preparing
a wastewater facility plan.
June 1978 5:12
-------
Review population projections for secondary impact area
made by local, regional or state planning agencies,
utilities (electric, telephone, etc.) and chambers-of-
commerce. (Note: most population projections are made
for political areas such as towns or cities. If the "prime"
secondary impact area is not coterminous with municipal
boundaries estimate the percentage of growth which might
be attributed to the secondary impact area.
Determine if the projections prepared by others are
generally consistent with and reflective of present condi-
tions as determined above. Recent trends in building
permits, for example, might reveal a marked change over
longer period trends. If the projections are deemed to
be inconsistent with present conditions, prepare revised
population projection for ten and twenty year periods.
It is important that such revisions be accompanied by a
listing of the assumptions which were made in revising
the projections. (Note: It is anticipated that EPA will
soon establish procedures for disaggregating state popula-
tion forecasts at the regional, community and facility
planning level for the years 1980, 1990 and 2000. Any
deviations from the state projections will undoubtedly
require a check and approval by the responsible state
agency).
— Using three overlays of the map of potential growth areas
prepared in Step 3 estimate growth and its distribution
for 1980, 1990 and 2000. This growth should be
differentiated as follows:
o Growth within proposed service area of facility.
o Growth outside proposed service area of facility.
o Growth within growth constraint areas mapped in
Step 4.
o Growth within proposed sewer service area but out-
side of previously defined potential growth areas.
(This is land which may be opened for development
due to availability of sewers.)
The projected growth if a wastewater facility is constructed
can be accomplished as follows (Step 6B):
Utilizing the three overlays developed in 6A above,
reallocate growth between proposed service area and
balance of "prime" secondary impact area. The assump-
tions made in any reallocation should be identified.
Examples could include the following:
o There are potentials for lower cost housing, at
greater densities with fewer environmental constraints.
Studies have shown that sewers represent approximately
June 1978 5:13
-------
25 per cent of the total influence on development.
It is important to realize that the decisions on where
and what will be built are made by developers. It
is vital to talk with development firms operating in
the area to determine how the proposed wastewater
facilities might influence future decisions. Their
key determinants on where to build are land availa-
bility and price. Two of the most influential deter-
minants of land price in a development area are sewer
service and allowable development densities.
o There are potentials for increased land values. As
a rule of thumb, sewered land is worth four or five
times unsewered land. Often land values will begin
to increase in anticipation of sewering and lead to
pressures for development and changes in land owner-
ship.
o There may be potentials for the development of land
which, because of soil, slope or other characteristics,
would have been difficult to develop without sewers
and was not shown as a potential growth area in Step
3.
o There may be potentials for attracting job generating
commercial or industrial development due to sewer
availability.
o "Leap frog" development from outside the prime area
(See Step 5). This will require some knowledge of
development trends in the "leap frog" impact area
previously defined in Step 5.
5.327 Step 7: Growth Increment Analysis
As a result of the growth analysis conducted in "6" above,
it will be possible to determine the location of and incre-
ments of growth estimated to be attributed to the proposed
wastewater facilities. A form of tabular summary is
recommended.
If the induced growth is slight or insignificant (less than
10 per cent redistribution of growth), it can be assumed that
impacts with and without the project essentially are the same
and no secondary impacts of conseguence are likely to be attri-
buted to the proposed facility.
If the difference is greater than 10 per cent it can be assumed
that there are opportunities for induced secondary impacts.
Given such a finding, the assessor should proceed to Step 8.
The 10 per cent figure is not a hard and fast threshold for
determining if secondary impacts will be of consequence.
Under certain conditions the threshold could be higher or
lower. The assessor has to use the known facts or condi-
tions to determine a reasonable point for discontinuing or
continuing the analysis.
June 1978 5:14
-------
5.328 Step 8: Determine Applicable Categories of Secondary Impact
With a finding of a potential for secondary impacts in Step
7, the task now becomes one of determining the type and severity
of impacts induced by the proposed facility alternative.
The following is an illustrative listing of many of the more
common secondary impact categories along with examples of
the nature of the impact and potential mitigating measures.
A. FLOODPLAINS (See Chapter 6)
— Nature of Secondary Impacts
Project may encourage development within defined
100-year floodplains.
— Mitigating Measures
Limit sewer hook-ups in floodplain area.
B. WETLANDS
— Nature of Secondary Impacts
Induced development adjacent to wetlands may over-
whelm or diminish ability of wetland to deal with
erosion or runoff.
Induced development may cause fill-in of wetlands
depending on regulations of individual communities
or states.
Mitigating Measures
Impose strict controls on regulating runoff and ero-
sion on lands adjacent to wetlands. These are some-
times referred .to as buffer area controls. The
buffer area may vary in width depending upon the
sensitivity or productivity of the wetlands (See
Chapter 7).
C. COASTAL AREAS
Nature of Secondary Impacts
Development will be induced in coastal zone area
defined by state CZM Agency, which is inconsistent
with proposed or adopted Coastal Zone Management
Program of State CZM Agency.
June 1978 5:15
-------
Mitigating Measures
Prepare acceptable alternative or controls in coopera-
tion with State CZM Agency.
D. SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT AREA
— Nature of Secondary Impact
Induced development may occur in unstable hillside
areas with resulting erosion, siltation, alteration
of natural drainage pattern, and loss of aesthetic
resources.
Induced development may occur in earthquake or similar
type of special hazard area.
— Mitigating Measures
Adopt slope/density provisions which state in effect -
the greater the slope - the less the development.
Adopt regulations precluding any intense development
in known hazard areas.
E. WILDLIFE HABITATS/ENDANGERED SPECIES
— Nature of Secondary Impacts
Wildlife habitat may be encroached upon by induced
development in adjacent lands and/or in habitat areas
which brings more intensive human activity (single
family homes with children, cats and dogs), fertilizers
and pesticides and other activities which could alter
species diversity or stability.
Mitigating Measures
Consult with regional office of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, State and local conservation agencies and
State fish and wildlife agencies.
F. AGRICULTURE
— Nature of Secondary Impact
Prime and unique farm lands will be subjected to
development or development pressures which increase
property values or taxes.
Increased taxes from development pressures may render
farming non-economic.
June 1978 5:16
-------
Non-point pollution might be reduced due to
conversion from agricultural to more intensive use.
— Mitigating Measures
Acceptance of special taxing measures to prevent tax
increases on agricultural land.
Adoption of special agricultural zoning provisions.
G. PARK LANDS
— Nature of Secondary Impact
Induced development may occur in areas designated
for parks or recreation but not publicly acquired or
protected for such use.
Increased land values resulting from induced growth
may render acquisition by a public agency more
difficult.
Induced development may tax carrying capacity of
limited supply of parks to serve community recre-
ational needs.
— Mitigating Measures
Develop capital budget programs to schedule park
acquisition well in advance of sewering.
Direct growth towards areas which may have under-
utilized park lands.
H. HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, OR CULTURAL
VALUES
Nature of Secondary Impact
Induced growth will impact properties or districts
.listed in the National Register of Historic Places
or eligible for such listing by changing the sur-
rounding environment with intrusions inconsistent
with the setting or encouraging actions leading to
new construction on the site and the destruction of
above or below-ground resources.
— Mitigating Measures
Alter elements which would induce growth on the site,
Develop preservation measures in cooperation with
State Historic Preservation Officer.
June 1978 5:17
-------
I. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Nature of Secondary Impact
Induced growth will occur adjacent to designated river
segment (exceptional natural, scenic, recreational
or other quality worthy of protection) with potentials
for damaging aesthetic qualities, impacting soil and
water quality, increasing traffic/noise/air pollution,
and increased recreational use.
— Mitigating Measures
Limit sewer hook-ups in adjoining areas to thwart
growth.
J. WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY (See Chapter 6)
Nature of Secondary Impacts
Induced construction activities and new development
will increase non-point source pollution and sedimen-
tation.
Induced growth may exacerbate existing or potential
water shortage.
Urban development increases peak and total runoff
volumes.
— Mitigating Measures
Regulations eliminating or retarding non-point source
pollution during or following construction are adopted.
If water supply is a limiting factor on growth, reduce
growth projections and scope of project.
Institute water conservation measures.
K. AIR POLLUTION
Nature of Secondary Impacts
Induced growth could increase pollution from auto-
mobiles, residential heating and new industries.
Mitigating Measures
Encourage concentrated growth to reduce pollution
from excessive automobile travel.
June 1978 5:18
-------
Amend zoning to preclude industries with an adverse
impact on air quality.
Allow development which is consistent only with the
States Air Quality Maintenance Area (AWMA) plans.
L. NOISE (See Chapter 10)
Nature of Secondary Impacts
More intensive noise producing development could be
induced adjacent to sensitive receptors.
Induced development could be encouraged in areas
with high noise levels such as near airports or
adjacent to highways or railroads.
Mitigating Measures
Preclude intensive induced development which would
increase noise levels adjacent to sensitive receptors
where possible.
Direct induced growth away from areas known to have
high ambient noise levels.
M. SOLID WASTE
— Nature of Secondary Impacts
Collection costs may decline if induced growth
results in a more concentrated growth pattern.
Existing solid waste facilities may be over-taxed by
increased solid waste generated by induced growth.
Mitigating Measures
Provide for expansion/replacement of solid waste
facility.which is consistent with anticipated growth.
Revise zoning to preclude certain types of solid
waste producing industries.
N. ENERGY DEMANDS
— Nature of Secondary Impact
Induced development resulting in higher proportion
of multi-family development may reduce overall energy
demands for heating and cooling and may reduce vehicle
miles travelled or increase use of mass transportation.
June 1978 5:19
-------
Induced development resulting in substantial amounts
of low density housing could increase energy demands.
Leap-frog induced growth could increase travel/energy
requirements between home and work.
Mitigating Measures
Adopt sewer extension/growth strategy which discourages
sprawl. As a general rule-of-thumb energy demands
decrease as density and concentration of development
increases.
Develop coordinated regional housing strategy to
prevent leap-frogging.
TRANSPORTATION
— Nature of Secondary Impact
Induced growth may place a strain on the capacity of
the present road system.
Higher density residential development adjacent to
community facilities may reduce need for vehicular
travel.
Induced, intensive residential growth may occur in
vicinity of local airport.
Mitigating Measures
Stage sewer extensions to coincide with street con-
struction and/or widening.
Lower densities to relate traffic flow to traffic
capacities.
Adopt regulations to preclude higher density resi-
dential use in vicinity of an airport.
SOCIP/ECONOMIC (See Appendix of this Chapter)
Nature of Secondary Impact
Property values will increase in anticipation of
growth induced and served by sewers.
Options for higher density housing to serve low or
middle income housing may be opened.
June 1978 5:20
-------
Concentrated development in sewered areas may provide
for more efficient provision of community services.
Induced growth or leap-frog development that comes
to the community because of sewer availability may
generate vital service costs (schools, protection,
utilities, snow plowing, waste collection, etc.) or
new construction which will strain the fiscal re-
sources of the community.
Mitigating Measures
Reduce scale of project. Develop growth strategy
which provides a balance of growth and a combination
of uses which gives the community fiscal stability.
The above listing certainly is not all inclusive but will
give the reader a general conception of secondary impacts.
Table 5-1 is proposed as a first-cut to determine if any of
the potential secondary impacts apply to the alternative being
evaluated. Most of the categories are self-explanatory.
The observant assessor who has carried out the preceding steps
should have a fairly good knowledge if any of the categories
apply to the alternative under consideration. In filling
put Table 5-1 it is suggested that a yes answer be checked
if there are doubts as to the impact. The validity of that
decision can be checked further in the following step. Ob-
vious decisions such as location outside of the coastal zone
or the absence of a scenic river can be handled expeditiously.
5.329 Step 9, Secondary Impact Evaluation
If "yes" is checked for any of the categories on Table 5-1
the assessor should prepare Table 5-2. This form is to be
used in conjunction with any of the maps and data developed
in preceding steps along with applicable materials developed
as suggested in other chapters of this manual. A separate
form is used for each of the categories checked. In some
categories the nature of the impacts may warrant more than
one form -i.e., water quality and water quantity.
The form is directed at determining if in fact there is a
secondary impact and the degree or severity of the impact.
The rating of the impact must of necessity be a subjective
evaluation tempered by consultation with public officials
and discussions carried out at community participation work-
shops .
It should be noted that the form calls for a rating without
mitigating measures as well as with suggested mitigating
measures which might preclude or lessen the impact. It also
should be noted that impacts may be beneficial or adverse.
June 1978 . 5:21
-------
On the final page of Table 5-3, the assessor is asked to make
a judgment if the nature of the impact warrants the prepar-
ation of a "piggy back" EIS. A yes answer is justified if
the impact would still be significant with the adoption of
mitigating measures.
5.3210 Step 10, Secondary Impact Profile
The final step is the completion of Table 5-3, secondary
impact profile, for each alternative. If certain categories
of impact show significant impacts with or without miti-
gating measures for all alternatives it can be assumed that
a "piggy back" EIS is warranted. Significant impacts which
apply to one or several alternatives may not require an EIS
but will help the engineer to eliminate a project with a
capacity to inflict significant harm on the natural or
man-made environment.
June 1978 5:22
-------
TABLE 5-1
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SECONDARY IMPACT DETERMINATION
ALTERNATIVE
CATEGORY APPLICABLE TO
OF ALTERNATIVE BASIS FOR
IMPACT YES NO DETERMINATION
A. FLOODPLAINS
B. WETLANDS
C. COASTAL AREAS
D. SENSTITIVE DEV. AREAS
E. WILDLIFE/ENDG. SPECIES
F. AGRICULTURE
G. PARK LANDS
H. HIST/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
I. WILD & SCENIC RIVERS
J. WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY
K. AIR POLLUTION
L. NOISE
M. SOLID WASTE
N. ENERGY DEMANDS
0. TRANSPORTATION
P. SOCIO/ECONOMIC
OTHER:
June 1978 5:23
-------
TABLE 5-2
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SECONDARY IMPACT EVALUATION FORM
ALTERNATIVE
ESTIMATED INDUCED GROWTH:
AMOUNT:
1980-1989
1990-1999
GEOGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS
POTENTIAL SECONDARY IMPACT:
NATURE OF IMPACT:
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT:
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS/PLANS CONTRAVENED:
FEDERAL
June 1978 5:24
-------
(Table 5-2 cont'd)
STATE
LOCAL
SPECIAL DISCUSSION
DEGREE OF IMPACT (WITHOUT MITIGATING MEASURES BEYOND THOSE
PRESENTLY REQUIRED BY LAW OR REGULATION):
NONE
NEGLIGIBLE
MINOR
SIGNIFICANT
BASIS FOR RATING
June 1978 5:25
-------
(Table 5-2 cont'd)
DEGREE OF IMPACT (WITH MITIGATING MEASURES DESCRIBED BELOW)
NONE
NEGLIGIBLE
MINOR
SIGNIFICANT
PROPOSED MITIGATING MEASURES
EIS WARRANTED: YES / NO
DISCUSSION
PREPARED BY:
DATE:
June 1978 5:26
-------
TABLE 5-3
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SECONDARY IMPACT PROFILE
ALTERNATIVE
A - Adverse Impact
B - Beneficial Impact
0 - No Impact
CATEGORY
OF
IMPACT
DEGREE OF IMPACT
WITHOUT MITIGATING
MEASURES
DEGREE OF IMPACT
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
EIS
WARRANTED
A. FLOODPLAINS
B . WETLANDS
C. COSTAL AREAS
D. SENSITIVE DEV. AREA
E. WILDLIFE/ENDG. SPECIES
F. AGRICULTURE
G. PARKLANDS
H. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
I. WILD & SCENIC RIVERS
J. WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY
K. AIR POLLUTION
L. NOISE
M. -SOLID WASTE
N. ENERGY DEMANDS
O. TRANSPORTATION
P. SO.CIO/ECONOMIC
OTHER :
__
--
NONE
INSIGNIFICANT
MINOR
SIGNIFICANT
•
M
K
O
£
INSIGNIFICANT
MINOR
SIGNIFICANT
June 1970
5:27
-------
5.4 CASE STUDY
The maps on the following pages have been prepared for the
discussion of secondary impacts at the workshops scheduled
in the various New England States. A brief summary of the
Tinkersville case study is presented.
5.41 Alternative !_
Figure 5-1 shows one of the alternatives developed to meet
Tinkersville1s wastewater needs. It follows the recommenda-
tions of the Master Plan calling for sewer service to the
older sections of the community and undeveloped areas on the
west side of town with soil limitations for on-site septic
systems.
The proposed treatment plant would serve an existing popula-
tion of 10,000 and one major industry, Nutrient Products.
The capacity of the treatment facility would be 1.2 MGD with
a potential for expansion to 2.2 MGD.
5.42 Prime Area of Potential Secondary Impacts
Figure 5-2 indicates that most development with or without
Alternative 1 will occur within the municipal boundaries of
Tinkersville. This was determined in accordance with the
procedures discussed earlier in this chapter.
There is, however, a potential for some induced "leap frog"
development. Discussions with developers indicate that most
of the small towns between Summerfield, the major city to
the west, and Tinkersville have adopted large lot zoning which
limits moderate income housing opportunities. Sewering along
with reduced lot sizes in Tinkersville would be a real attrac-
tion even though the travel times to job centers to the west
would be unusually high for that section of New England.
5.43 Growth and Growth Constraint Areas
Figures 5-3 and 5-4 show the growth and growth constraint
areas in Tinkersville as delineated in accordance with the
10 step process. The central section of the community is
almost completely developed or undevelopable due to streams,
wetlands and flood plains. Figure 5-3 also shows the present
zoning in the growth areas.
5.44 Potential Growth
Figure 5-5 and 5-6 show potential growth without and with
Alternative 1. Without the alternative growth would continue
expanding to the north and east. With the alternative growth
would be redirected towards the west side of town in accor-
dance with the Tinkersville Master Plan.
June 1978 5:2a
-------
O-ixgATUCKh- ri- uuTiUA-re
PLAUT ^ire ' ' &eevic6
1-
4
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
*.<2-AUfc ISI MlUfc
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
rK.IMg A^
-------
r^TfMTIAL ^f^O^VTH A^AS- NO ACTION AUT£|OJATIV6
R.6SIP6WTI AU
4
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
In addition new growth, not attributable to local economic
expansion could be anticipated under Alternative 1. This
would be in the form of lower cost single family housing to
serve an unsatisfied demand between Summerfield and Tinkers-
ville.
5.45 Secondary Impact Potentials
Figures 5-7 and 5-7A show in graphic form the impacts which
would be identified using Tables 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3.
Using Table 5-3 it was concluded that under this alternative
an EIS would be warranted. This conclusion was based on the
increased school and municipal service costs which would be
reflected in an induced growth of 1,500 over and above the
natural growth estimated by the Green River Regional Plan-
ning Commission.
5.46 Level of Effort
The consulting firm doing the Tinkersville assessment esti-
mated that about 15 man-days were related to the secondary
impact evaluation. Much of this effort consisted of activi-
ties which related to normal facility planning and included
some of the efforts described in other chapters of this
manual.
June 1978 5:29
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
51
z"
(A
£
A
,<—•>
A
WgTUANP
LANlP
MA|^4IKlAU UANP
- -7A
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
3- <
Q
fl> O
environmental
assessment
manual
hydrologic
impacts
-------
CHAPTER 6 - HYDROLOGIC IMPACTS
Prepared by: Anderson-Nichols 6:1
-------
6.0 INTRODUCTION
An Ad Hoc Panel on Hydrology of the Federal Council for
Science and Technology has defined hydrology as
"...that science which studies the waters of the Earth,
their occurrence, circulation, and distribution, their
chemical and physical properties, and their reaction
with their environment, including their relation to
living things."
Traditionally, the occurrence, circulation, and distribution
of water have been portrayed through consideration of the
natural "hydrologic cycle," which can be summarized simply
as the movement from ocean to atmosphere to surface and
subsurface to ocean. Figure 6-1 illustrates the key elements
of the basic cycle.
It is well recognized that many of man's activities can have
a substantial impact on different elements of the hydrologic
cycle. Although quantitative procedures exist to estimate
the magnitude of these impacts, it is important to remember
that no one element of the cycle can be substantially al-
tered without causing adjustments in most of the other
elements. Therefore, when evaluating a proposed sewage
collection and treatment facility, or any other major con-
struction project, the engineer must attempt to evaluate how
the proposed project will modify all existing hydrologic
conditions both in the vicinity of the project as well as
elsewhere.
So often in the past, facility planners and designers have
side stepped the hydrologic issues when preparing environ-
mental assessments on proposed wastewater facilities. This
avoidance has then provided legitimate grounds for challeng-
ing the viability of the project by environmental groups or
EPA. Thus, the engineer must address the hydrologic issues
related to any project early in its development. This
section of this manual is intended to aid in that evalua-
tion.
Four key areas of hydrologic concern are examined in this
chapter. They are: (1) Increased Rate of Runoff, (2)
Interbasin Transfer, (3) Modification to Water Table, and
(4) Transport of Groundwater Contaminants.
6.1 REGULATORY STATUS
The regulatory requirements for consideration of the hydro-
logic impacts of any federally funded project are based upon
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal
June 1978 6:2
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 as amended, the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973, and subsequent Executive Orders
implementing various provisions of these acts.
More specifically, the issue of increasing peak runoff is
related to the problem of non-point source pollution ad-
dressed in Section 208 of the Water Pollution Control Act
and directly tied to Executive Order 11988 relative to Flood
Plain Management.
Interbasin transfer is an issue considered as part of the
208 regional wastewater planning program under the Water
Pollution Control Act. Impacts on the quality of ground-
water aquifers are considered in the Water Pollution Control
Act, Section 304, and in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
6.2 PAST PRACTICES
Hydrology as a topic has all too often been relegated to the
periphery of planning processes when designing sanitary
sewer networks and treatment facilities. The general prac-
tice has been to consider hydrologic factors only when
designing storm sewers or hydraulic structures such as dam
spillways. Groundwater hydrology was considered relevant to
the development of well fields but irrelevant to sewer
design. These limited perspectives have neglected the close
inter-relationship that exists among all the water resources
of an area, whether pure or contaminated, and the signifi-
cant linkage between groundwater aquifers and stream flow.
In the past, major development projects were designed to
move runoff away from the development site with no real
consideration for conditions downstream. Freshwater and
wastewater have been transported in and out of major water-
sheds without full recognition of the resulting change in
the water balance both in the supplying and recipient basins.
Sewer trenches have served as effective drains to lower
water table elevations from their pre-sewered levels, and
wastewaters and sludges dumped onto the ground to dry without
a full understanding of the subsequent contamination of the
groundwater reservoir below the dumping site.
The damage done by past projects can only be rectified
slowly, if at all, but we can try to learn from these experi-
ences and apply this insight to future jobs. The purpose of
this chapter is to aid the facilities planner in identifying
hydrologic impacts that must be considered as part of an
environmental assessment. The key to satisfying prior
deficiencies is for each designer to better appreciate the
close inter-relationships that make up the hydrologic cycle
June 1978 6:3
-------
and assess each proposal in light of how it will interact
with the area's water cycle and budget.
6.3 SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY
6.31 Impact Identification
6.311 Increased Rate of Runoff
Sanitary sewers do not directly result in an increase in
peak runoff, but they provide the potential for increased
peak runoff due to the higher density development that has
historically followed introduction of sanitary sewers into
an area. Smaller lot sizes generally are permissible in
sewered areas and industrial and commercial facilities are
more likely to develop. The increase in peak runoff is
dependent on the density of development prior to sewering,
the saturation densities permissible under existing or
amended zoning ordinances, and construction code specifica-
tions for on-site retention basins, etc., required for new
construction.
In order to determine whether a given facility will result
in impacts to the runoff characteristics of a given area,
the following list of questions should be asked:
A. Within the service area, what is the current density of
development?
B. Within the service area under existing zoning regula-
tions, what is the maximum potential density of
development? Any restrictions on the type of
development?
C. Are there any construction code requirements to
maintain the existing runoff hydrograph, i.e. retention
basins, etc., for all new construction within the
watershed?
D. What percentage of the total drainage area contributing
to the main stream of the basin being sewered will be
included in the service area?
E. Are there any areas of development within designated
flood-prone areas downstream of the service area?
F. Are there any known stream constrictions downstream
where flooding typically occurs under current condi-
tions?
June 1978 6:4
-------
If it is determined that due to the combination of existing
development density and restrictions on development that no
increase in population density is anticipated, (i.e., the
sewers contain no excess capacity), then it may be concluded
that no significant impact on runoff characteristics will
exist as a result of the sewer facility plan. This deter-
mination is very closely tied to the concept of Secondary
Impacts as discussed in Chapter 5.
If it is determined that the construction code requires
adequate pn-site retention facilities as part of all new
construction within a community, it may be concluded that no
significant impact on runoff characteristics will exist as a
result of the sewer facility plan.
When the majority of a service area lies within one drainage
basin and only minor peripheral areas lie in adjacent basins,
the impact on the adjacent basins may be concluded to be
non-significant if the land area to be sewered is only a
minor portion of the contributing drainage area to the
nearest major stream.
If it cannot be concluded immediately that there will be no
impact, it is necessary to evaluate the significance of the
impact as discussed in section 6.321 below.
6.312 Inter-Basin Transfer
The issues under consideration in this topic are generally
related to development of large regional wastewater collec-
tion and treatment facilities. As noted in other chapters,
the larger regional facilities will, in many cases, be
covered by an EIS rather than an EA. Each drainage basin
can be viewed as a control volume under natural conditions.
The inputs are precipitation plus any subsurface inflow, and
the outputs are evapotranspiration, streamflow, and aquifer
discharge at the basin boundaries. When sewer lines are
installed to remove wastewaster from a given basin and
transport it to another basin for discharge, there is a net
loss to the sewered basin. The extent of the "loss" is
adjusted by the source of the domestic water supply for the
area. If the source is internal to the basin, the loss is
more severe than if the domestic water is imported to the
basin initially.
In order to determine whether a given facility plan will re-
sult in an impact on the total water balance of a given
basin the following list of questions should be asked:
A. Will the outfall of the treatment plant be located
within the basin being sewered or will the collected
wastewater be transported outside the basin for disposal?
June 1978 6:5
-------
B. What is the source of domestic water supply? Is the
water supply imported from outside the basin?
C. What is the current volume of wastewater subjected to
on-site disposal?
If the wastewater treatment plan is located within the same
drainage basin as the service area, then it may be concluded
that there will be no significant impacts regarding inter-
basin transfer of water.
If the wastewater disposal site is located outside the
drainage basin being serviced, then it is necessary to
evaluate the impact of this inter-basin transfer as dis-
cussed in section 6.322.
6.313 Modification to Water Table
The freshwater aquifers of the earth underlie the surface at
varying depths and in two basic categories. There are free
surface or water-table aquifers and confined aquifers. The
water surface of a water table aquifer is representative of
the actual elevation of the groundwater, usually measured
above some arbitrary datum. A confined aquifer's head is
reflective of the pressure head within the aquifer and
represents the elevation to which water would rise in an
unpumped well. (See Figure 6-2)
The heads of both confined and free surface aquifers are
significant since they represent the elevation from which
water would need to be pumped in order to utilize the
aquifer as a fresh water supply and thus determine the
energy cost of using the water.
The water table elevation is also significant in terms of
leakage into the basements of structures and the preserva-
tion of existing foundation systems, especially wooden
piles. Saturation of a previously dry area or dewatering of
a saturated area can adversely affect soil stability and
increase the rate of deterioration of subsurface structures.
The heads are relatively constant with time. Water tables
of unconfined aquifers will rise and fall with the seasons
responding to varying levels of precipitation, but the
changes are generally small; limited to less than 5 feet in
most cases.
In order to determine whether a given facility plan will im-
pact the water table of a given area the following list of
questions should be answered:
June 1978 6:6
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
A. Is land application proposed for the final wastewater
disposal scheme?
B. Will sewer lines and the trenches open to lay the
sewers fall below existing water table elevations?
C. What was the total volume of on-site wastewater effluent
prior to sewering the area? Was this waste evenly
distributed throughout the area or were there some
highly developed areas of high concentration?
If the water table is located well below the elevation of
the proposed sewer lines, and land application is not pro-
posed, and there were no areas where on-site disposal applica-
tion rates exceed natural recharge, it can be concluded that
no significant impact will result from the proposed facility
plan. If, however, these conditions are not met, an evalua-
tion of the potential impact must be made. (See section 6.323.)
6.314 Groundwater Transport of Pollutants
The final area of hydrologic impact is tied closely to the
water quality considerations discussed elsewhere. This
issue is how to evaluate the impact of pollutants once they
enter the groundwater system. The sources of pollution
associated with sewage treatment plants are normally land
application sites of wastewater and/or sludge-drying filter
beds.
The central problem is that we cannot readily watch or moni-
tor groundwater flow in a manner similar to riverine flow.
In addition, groundwater is not confined to a channel, and
thus, the aquifer can be as wide as it is long, and the pol-
lutant may spread in all directions. Finally, the rate of
dispersion of the pollutant depends in part on the chemical
make-up of the soil through which it is passing.
To determine whether or not there is a potential for impacts
on groundwater quality, the following list of questions
should be answered:
A. Will land application of treatment plant effluent be
used as part of the facility plan?
B. Will sludge be applied to sand filter beds for drying?
C. If sludge drying on filter beds is included, will there
be under drains to carry leachate back to the treatment
plant?
June 1978 6:7
-------
If land application and sludge drying are not included as
part of the facility plan, it may be concluded that no
impact on groundwater quality will occur. If sludge drying
is proposed, and the drying filter design includes an under-
drain system to intercept the leachate, it may be concluded
that no impact to groundwater quality will occur.
If, however, these conditions are not met, an evaluation of
the impact of the project on the groundwater quality must be
undertaken as discussed in section 6.324.
6.32 Impact Evaluation
6.321 Increased Rate of Runoff
As stated earlier, the construction of new sewer lines do
not directly result in an increased rate of runoff. The
increased rate of runoff results from changes in the
hydraulic character of the land surface that accompany
secondary development that often follows introduction of
sewers into an area.
The extent of the induced development area relative to the
total drainage area of the stream in question will determine
to a significant degree the net impact of a particular
project. In order to estimate the impacts of a project it
is necessary to estimate the extent of likely future
development as a result of the sewering, and the influence
of construction codes, which will be enforced during the
construction. The literature contains various techniques
for estimating the effects of changed land-use conditions on
natural flood hydrographs. The use of these procedures at
best provides approximate answers since the true effects are
so dependent on the proper assumptions concerning the nature
and extent of the hypothesized future development. The
chapter on secondary impacts includes a suggested methodology
to estimate induced growth and its geograpical distribution.
The impacts that result from an increase in peak runoff are
basically two-fold. The first is the potential for increased
structural damage from flooding and erosion of the stream
channel (and subsequent downstream deposition) due to higher
flows. The second is the problem of increased pollution in
the runoff due to the increase in potentially contaminated
impervious surfaces and the increased runoff velocities
which can transport more contaminated suspended material.
(See Figure 6-3) .
In order to evaluate these impacts it is necessary to deter-
mine an estimate of the increase in peak runoff that will
result from the secondary growth. To do this, certain
assumptions must be made and parameters established.
June 1978 6:8
-------
;,
MVPBOU^Id
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
A. Establish the density and type of development expected
at some future date in the basin.
B. Select the critical hydraulic constriction downstream
of the service area where comparisons in flow rates
should be made.
C. Develop peak runoff estimates at the point of comparison
for both current conditions and the hypothesized future
conditions.
The following notes on methodology are offered to aid the
facility planner in determining current and future peak run-
off values.
2
If the area is relatively small (less than 1-2 mi ) and the
engineer intends to use a common approach such as the Ration-
al Method for determining peak runoff, the best procedure
could be to perform the calculations twice. The first time
represents current conditions and the runoff coefficients or
"CC" values are weighted according to current land use pat-
terns. For the second evaluation to represent future condi-
tions the runoff coefficients are based on the assumed mix of
land use patterns that will develop in the future following
introduction of sewers.
If the engineer uses a regional peak flow equation such as
those developed by the USGS, it may be possible to adjust
for future development within the formulation. (In the New
England area this is true of the peak flow equations for
Connecticut but not for the other states.) For example, the
Connecticut formulation includes a parameter called "percent
of area serviced by storm sewers," which is usually indica-
tive of the degree of urbanization and can be estimated for
future conditions.
In those areas for which no specific equations have been
developed to provide estimates of peak runoff changes, a re-
view of various research studies performed in different sec-
tions of the country can yield some rough approximations.
The table below was developed from relationships given in
references 1 and 2 and indicates the sensitivity of flow to
percent impervious cover. The percentages given are the
increases relative to natural conditions expected for each
level of percent imperviousness.
June 1978 6:9
-------
0
18
33
47
60
73
86
98
0
14
25
35
45
54
63
72
0
13
33
31
39
47
55
62
Recurrence Interval of Peak Flow
Percent 10 Year 50 Year 100 Year
Impervious Percent Increase from Natural Peak Flow
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
As an example, if under current conditions the estimated
peak flow for the fifty-year recurrent interval was 1500 cfs
and the current percent impervious area was 20%, the future
peak with 40% impervious could be estimated as follows:
Future 50-year flow with 40% impervious will be 45% greater
than the natural 50-year flow for the basin. Qf = 1.45 Qn
where Qf is future flow with 40% impervious area and Qn is
natural flow with 0% impervious area.
The current peak flow has been estimated as 1500 cfs with
20% impervious area. To find the natural flow Qn we use the
relationship that a 20% impervious area yields a 25% increase
in 50-year peak flow.
Qc = 1.25 Qn where Qc = current flow
Qc = 1500 = 1.25 Qn
.. Qn = 1500
1.25
Substituting in the equation for future flow we have:
Qf = 1.45 Qn = 1.45 ( 1500
1.25 )
Qf = 1740 cfs
Increase in peak runoff due to development as a percentage
of the natural flow is lower for storm events with lower
probability and thus longer recurrence intervals. Stated
more simply, development will have a greater impact on a
10-year event than on a 100-year event. Thus, when evaluat-
ing the impacts of increased runoff, the facility planner
must establish what recurrence interval will serve as the
critical test. The National Flood Insurance Program has
been based upon a 100-year flood profile. Most New England
communities are basing flood plain zoning ordinances on the
100-year flood elevation. Thus, the 100-year event is a
June 1978 6:10
-------
logical choice from an administrative viewpoint, but from
the impact viewpoint more noticeable changes would be likely
to occur at the 5^- or 10-year recurrence level.
The best route to follow is to select the recurrence inter-
val^) for consideration following consultation with local
officials and planners.
The test of significance for the impact is site dependent,
depending on the geometry of the stream under consideration
and the extent of flood plain development downstream. At
constrictions to flow, the depth of water must be determined
for both current peak runoff and predicted future peak
runoff.
To determine flood depths at a given location basic hydraulic
calculations for open channel flow must be performed. At a
natural valley section this is a normal depth calculation.
At a dam or weir the calculation is to determine the driving
head behind the dam using the weir equation. At a bridge
the calculation may be either a normal depth, an orifice
calculation or a weir calculation, depending on whether the
given flow is found to cause pressure or weir flow.
If the increase in water surface elevation is sufficient to
inundate areas with development that under current conditions
are outside the flood plain, the impact is significant. If
the increased flow is still contained within the undeveloped
flood plain or at least no additional developed areas are
flooded, the impact is not significant.
6.322 Inter-Basin Transfer
The impact of an inter-basin transfer of wastewaters can
only be evaluated on a site-specific basis. The main concern
is whether or not minimum flows in surface streams can be
maintained and the sufficiency of those flows. In addition,
any adjustment to the water table elevation must be considered,
and this adjustment will be more fully discussed in the next
section. Regarding the minimum stream flow, the types of
issues involved are: pollution concentrations from discharges
are based on an assumed minimal flow, cooling water require-
ments of industry assume a minimal flow, aquatic biota
systems may be adversely affected if stream flows drop below
given threshold (see wetlands chapter).
Basically, a water balance for the inputs and outputs to a
given basin should be developed. (See Figure 6-4) The
inputs include precipitation, domestic water supplied from
outside the basin, and any groundwater flow that crosses
from one surface water basin to another. The outputs are
June 1978 - 6:11
-------
streamflow, evapo-transpiration, groundwater outflow, and any
wastewaters exported to another basin for treatment.
Under current conditions, the wastewater was adding to
stream flow either directly from outfalls, or indirectly as
base flow from the aquifer which was being partially re-
charged by on-site disposal systems.
If the existing total wasteflow approaches the deserved
stream flow during dry periods, it can be concluded that
removal of all wastewaters from the basin will significantly
impact the stream flows during periods of low flow. If the
reduction in flow is significant due to cooling requirements
or aquatic biota systems, then the inter-basin transfer must
be considered to have a significant impact.
6.323 Modification to Water Table
When evaluating the impact on the water table of a sewer
project, these questions must be answered:
A.
Is a water table map available for the project area?
(See Figure 6-5)
B. Are soil samples from boring logs or well logs available
to provide subsurface information on soil types?
C. Where are the nearest ponds or streams that may interact
with the aquifer?
D. If land application is proposed, what is the application
rate and where is the application site relative to
domestic water supply wells or natural groundwater
springs?
E. Have any groundwater studies on regional flow patterns
been performed by U.S.G.S. or a state agency?
To obtain data on the water table elevations it is necessary
to seek out the existence of any observation wells. An
observation well is simply a hole through which it is possible
to measure the depth to water. A pumped domestic supply
well does not serve this purpose since the water table is
drawn down around a well that is regularly pumped. The USGS
may have some observation wells in the area of concern, the
local water department will have them if they are pumping
from the aquifer, and abandoned private domestic wells can
serve as well. If there are no observation wells available,
the next best estimate is to compare the elevations of
natural as opposed to man-made ponds and assume that the
ponds reflect the water table in their vicinity.
June 1978 6:12
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
The soils data is normally obtained from well logs and can
be supplemented by construction site borings if they are
sufficiently deep. When evaluating the soils data, the
primary objective is to determine how much clear stratifica-
tion exists and whether or not any of the layers are imper-
meable to water and thus function as aquicludes above which
the groundwater is perched. Naturally, the deeper the soils
data, the better; but in some cases local data will not
penetrate to bedrock or any other obvious aquiclude. In
these cases it will be necessary to estimate the aquifer
thickness based on a regional literature search or collect
additional field data including some deeper holes.
The level of detail necessary to pursue with the basic data
is naturally dependent on the factors associated with the
proposed project. The potential projects can be subdivided
categories: (a) projects where the anticipated impact is
limited to a lowering of the water table, (b) projects where
land application is anticipated to raise the water table at
the application site in conjunction with lowering it in
newly sewered areas.
For the first group of projects the key question is whether
the sewer lines and surrounding trenches will serve as
drains. This would occur if the natural water table changes
rapidly along the direction of the proposed sewer and the
natural undisturbed soils are very compact with low
permeability. The sewer trench would then represent a path
of less resistance for the groundwater at the higher
elevation, and it would flow out along the trench. To
determine whether or not this is likely to occur a map of
the sewer network should be laid over the best groundwater
map available. Invert elevations of each manhold should
then be compared to the water table elevation to establish
which portion of the sewers are located below the water
table. Whenever the water table map indicates that a
significant hydraulic gradient exists along the direction of
a sewer trunk, groundwater flow in the trench can be
anticipated.
The significance of the potential for a drop in water table
depends on the use and character of the aquifer affected.
If the water table is connected to a wetlands area (see the
Wetlands section), the impact may be major. If any old
structure were built on wooden piles, a lowering of the
water table can severely shorten the life of the foundation.
If local residents are pumping domestic water from shallow
wells for household use or yard use, a drop in water table
may prohibit the use of suction pumps. Quantifying the size
of the drop in water table requires more detailed analysis
than an environmental assessment would permit, thus the
evaluation is limited to whether or not the potential for a
June 1978 6:13
-------
drop in water table exists and whether if a drop occurred it
would impact structures, wetlands, or users of the aquifer.
For those projects that include land application of waste-
water at a centralized facility it is necessary to conduct a
more thorough and involved analysis of the impacts of the
project. Any type of land application will result in a
large increase in recharge over a limited area. This concen-
tration will result in a groundwater mound around the re-
charge point which can be thought of as the inverse of the
"cone of depression" found at pumping wells. The magnitude
of the mound will depend on the aquifer thickness, soil
conductivity, and the application method and rate. There
are empirical methods available to evaluate local mounding
conditions. (Reference 3), but such methods cannnot
evaluate the interaction between the recharge site, pumping
wells, and discharge boundaries throughout the associated
aquifer. The best methodology for attempting to evaluate
the entire new equilibrium condition under alternative
scenarios is to develop a digital (or analog) groundwater
simulation model. This level of effort, however, is beyond
the scope of an Environmental Assessment, and thus, if land
application is evaluated as a viable alternative for the
facility plan (see the Chapter on Land Application), a
thorough analysis of the impact on the groundwater table
must be called for as part of the overall project.
6.324 Groundwater Transport of Pollutants
Predictions of pollutant flow in an aquifer are at best
estimates based on assumed dispersion and decay coefficients.
No real data is likely to be available for a prospective
site, and thus, all evaluations must be based on utilizing
ranges of data available from research studies conducted at
a limited number of sites.
The transport of a pollutant through an aquifer is the
combination of two forces. The pollutant is being carried
along with the main groundwater flow pattern (advection),
and it is spreading out from areas of high concentration
(polluted water) to areas of low concentration (clean water)
which is the process of dispersion.
The only effective method of fully analyzing this complex
situation is to solve second order differential transport
equations utilizing a computer model. This type of analysis
is beyond the scope of an Environmental Assessment. Thus,
at the assessment level if land applications or sludge
drying without underdrains is proposed, and any domestic
wells or ponds or streams with high quality water lie down-
gradient of the site, a thorough analysis of the impacts
should be recommended prior to approval of the project.
June 1978 6:14
-------
6.4 REFERENCES
(1) Stankowski, Stephen J., Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in New Jersey with Effects of Urbanization,
Special Report 38, prepared by U.S. Geological Survey
in cooperation with State of New Jersey, Department
of Environment Proection, Division of Water Resources,
1974.
(2) SCS National Engineering Handbook, 1972, Section 4-
Hydrology, Chapter 16-Hydrographs
(3) Hantush, Mahdi S., "Growth and Decay of Groundwater
Mounds in Response to Uniform Percolation," Water
Resource Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1967.
June 1978 6:15
-------
i
environmental
assessment
manual
wetlands
-------
CHAPTER 7 - WETLANDS
Prepared by: Anderson-Nichols 7:1
-------
7.0 INTRODUCTION
Each of the New England States has adopted regulations
governing the protection of wetlands. Although the regula-
tions and the extent of their enforcement varies, each state
has recognized the functional values of wetlands in affec-
ting water quality, water quantity and the natural ecology.
At the Federal level, Executive Order No. 11990 has been
issued by President Carter, mandating a careful considera-
tion of wetland impacts for all construction funded by the
government. The EPA, Army Corps of Engineers and other
federal agencies have issued new regulations designed to
implement this order and minimize loss of wetlands.
Since many wetlands are located adjacent to streams or
rivers, it is natural that they may be altered or impacted
by proposed wastewater facilities. Gravity flow sewers are
generally preferred, and the natural routes often cross
wetlands. Treatment plants, too, are usually located near a
stream or water body with a consequent potential for wetland
impacts.
In addition to the primary impacts of construction there are
the secondary impacts which result from development in the
vicinity of wetlands. Such impacts can include sedimentation,
siltation due to erosion, septic leaching, nutrient input
and rapid runoff. The capacity of a wetland to deal with
erosion and runoff from development may be overwhelmed if
adequate precautions are not taken.
Wetlands are made up of a variety of physical and biological
processes which interact in a complex, and often subtle,
fashion. Sophisticated models have been developed to
evaluate the environmental impact of development on such
processes. Those, however, require an extensive data base
and the use of computers.
The methodology proposed in this chapter has been developed
to enable the engineer or planner preparing the environmental
assessment to:
determine the value of the wetlands in his planning
area;
identify the types of impacts that might occur; and
assess the general significance of an impact to the
wetland.
This methodology enables a qualitative judgment to be made
on the significance of potential wetland impacts at an early
stage in the facility planning process. Alternatives which
June 1978 7:2
-------
minimize these impacts can be pursued in further detail and
the entire wetland assessment process incorporated into Step
I activities.
7.1 RELEVANT FEDERAL LEGISLATION INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING;
7.11 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500)
This Act established the program to clean up the nation's
waters by providing facilities construction grants (Sec.
201) to communities for wastewater treatment plants. The
Act also cites the crucial role of wetlands in serving
several important environmental functions (see part 7.32
below). The maintenance of these functions is charged to
the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 through permit
review of dredge and fill activities.
7.12 Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (Sec. 73)
The Act requires that in the survey, planning or design by
any Federal agency of any project involving flood protec-
tion, consideration shall be given to nonstructural alter-
natives to prevent or reduce flood damages, including the
acquisition of floodplain lands for recreational, fish and
wildlife and other public purposes.
7.13 Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972 (PL 92-583)
The Act includes tidal wetlands as one type of critical area
to be preserved through state-managed CZM programs. Each
New England coastal state is preparing draft management
plans for submission to the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration for approval and funding. At
this writing, none have been officially approved, and most
rely upon existing state wetland laws for implementation.
7.14 Executive Order No. 1190, May 1977
This Presidential Order reinforces earlier Orders which man-
date the avoidance of wetlands unless there is no practical
alternative. Federal agencies are required not to fund any
construction activity unless there has been a thorough
analysis of all possible options, and there are sufficient
measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may be impacted.
7.15 Draft EPA Policy, August 1977
This draft PRM was circulated to indicate the policies being
considered to implement Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands) and
11988 (Floodplains). Revised policies will be issued later
in 1978. The draft policy requires consideration of
June 1978 7:3
-------
alternatives outside of wetlands; evaluation of primary and
secondary impacts to wetlands; mitigating measures for both
primary and secondary impacts such as the effect of induced
growth on wetlands; public notification of wetland impacts;
and A-95 notice of impacts.
7.16 EPA Policy (38 FR 10834, May 2, 1973)
This policy statement, titled "Protection of the Nation's
Wetlands," provides that funding may not be granted for con-
struction that may interfere with the existing wetlands eco-
system unless no other alternative of lesser environmental
damage is found to be feasible. If adverse impact may
occur, the applicant must prepare an assessment that
delineates alternatives that have been considered and the
reasons for rejecting them.
7.17 National Environmental Policy Act regulations
NEPA regulations require full evaluation of any effects on
wetlands. Under 4 CFR 6.510(b) an EIS is required whenever
any major part of a treatment works is located in productive
wetlands or will have adverse primary or secondary effects.
The NEPA regulation (40 CFR 6.214(b)(l)) requires that if a
project may affect wetlands, the Department of the Interior,
Department of Commerce, and Corps of Engineers must be con-
sulted during the enviromental review in order to determine
probable impacts on the fish and wildlife resources and use
of the area.
7.2 STATE LEGISLATION CONSISTS OF:
7.21 Connecticut Wetlands Protection (CGS Sec. 22a-32, 22a-36)
Any proposed dredging, filling or development of tidal
wetlands requires a permit from the Commissioner of
Environmental Protection (Section 221-32). The Inland
Wetlands and Water Courses Act (Section 221-36) addresses
the value of these areas as flood storage areas, wildlife
habitats and recreation areas. Any dredging or filling and
many types of development require a permit from the municipal
inland wetlands agency, or, in its absence, the Department
of Environmental Protection.
7.22 Connecticut Stream Encroachment Program (CGS Sec. 25-4a)
The establishment of "stream encroachment lines" along
inland or tidal waterways beyond which, in the direction of
the waterways, no obstruction or encroachment is permitted
unless authorized is an additional protective mechanism for
wetland areas managed by the Department of Environmental
Protection.
June 1978 7:4
-------
7.23 Rhode Island Inland Wetlands regulation (RIGL Title 2, Chap.
1, Sec. 9)
Both local and state approval (from the Department of
Natural Resources) are required prior to alternation of any
fresh water wetlands. An inventory procedure and penalties
for violations of rulings have been amended to the Act.
7.24 Rhode Island Coastal Wetlands Act (RIGL Title 2, Chap. 1,
Sec. 13) and Intertidal Salt Marsh Act (RIGL Title 2, Chap
46, Sec. 1)
The Coastal Wetlands Act authorizes the Department of
Natural Resources to issue restrictive orders to stipulate
permitted uses. The Intertidal Salt Marsh Act requires
permits for constructon activities in a narrowly defined
area between the high and low tide line.
7.25 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGLA Chap 131, Sec.
40)
A permit is required from the local conservation commission
for any project which would occur within 100 feet of any
wetland, river bank, beach, waterbody, marsh or bog. Notice
of Intent is filed with the commission, local hearings are
held, and orders of conditions are set to regulate the
impacts of the proposed project.
7.26 Massachusetts Wetlands Restriction Program (MGLA Chap 131,
Sec. 40a)
The Department of Environmental Management restricts the re-
moval, filling, dredging or alteration of any wetland which
it has mapped and designated under this program. Deed
restrictions are filed with the county registries and become
permanent for that parcel of property. Certain public
projects are exempt.
7.27 Maine Coastal Wetlands Protection Act (MRSA Title 38,
471-478)
The Department of Environmental Protection, Board of En-
vironmental Protection administers the dredging and filling
of coastal wetlands under the Wetlands Act. A permit is
required for dredging or filling, and will not be granted if
such activities threaten public health, the value of adjacent
lands, public water supply or fish and wildlife habitats.
June 1978
7:5
-------
7.28 Maine Stream Alteration Act (MRSA Title 12, Sec. 2205-2212)
The Act requires permits for any activity along streams or
brooks and adjacent lands which would create soil erosion;
interfere with streamflow; cause harm to fish or wildlife
habitat; or affect water quality or water supplies. Exemp-
tions are provided for public works related stream crossings
where less than 150 linear feet on either bank (or a total
of 300 feet) would be altered.
7.29 New Hampshire Wetland Protection Legislation (RSA 149:c4,
482;41e, 483-A, 488-A)
These Acts regulate the development of inland and coastal
wetlands through local conservation commissions (where
formed) and the Water Resources Board, Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission. Notification of any project
that would affect a wetland must be sent to the town and to
the Water Resources Board. Hearings are held on the pro-
posal and permits issued for the project.
7.210 Vermont Act 250 (No. 250, Acts of 1969)
A permit is required from the Environmental Boards of the
District Commissions for major development projects.
Wetlands are one of the several factors which must be
considered when impacts are assessed. The proposed projects
must not cause "a reduction in the capacity of the land to
hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition may
result."
7.2 PAST PRACTICES
For many years wetlands had been thought of as wastelands
which hindered land development and posed health meances to
local residents. Widespread drainage and "reclamation"
projects have reduced the estimated original total of 127
million acres of wetlands in the continental U.S. to approx-
imately 70 million acres.
Wastewater collection systems are designed to function in
the most efficient and lowest cost manner possible. From
the standpoint of sewer interceptor layout and design, this
has entailed taking maximum advantage of existing topography
to provide necessary pitch and run for the system. Because
they lie in the lowest elevations along natural drainageways,
wetlands have almost always been ditched for construction of
gravity-flow sewer systems.
In certain instances the alignment of the interceptor, com-
bined with the layout of attendant laterals, has resulted in
June 1978 7:6
-------
the destruction of entire wetland systems. This has
especially been true in many expanding urban areas.
In those neighborhoods that were constructed in low-lying
areas, the natural drainage pattern was often under heavy
stress to begin with. Wetlands had often been reduced to a
fraction of their original size, with surface runoff veloci-
ties substantially increased. The wetland and surface water
remnants were also seriously degraded by nonpoint wastes,
pesticides, detergents, acids and alkalines. The density of
the private, on-lot septic systems often exceeded the
capacity of local soils to handle the effluent.
The design engineer responded to the public priority of
alleviating the sewage disposal problem under the municipal
and governmental priorities of minimum cost. The service
areas were delineated. Then the most expeditious collection
system was laid out, and the treatment facility was placed
as far downstream as possible. The interceptors ran back up
through the lowlands with the laterals running out to the
adjacent neighborhoods along the route. The streams that
may have meandered through the wetlands were deepended;
straightened and rip-rapped to take the increased storm
water flow. And the wetlands were generally drained to
accommodate the new development which could now tie in to
the sewer. So the wetlands were ditched, drained, filled,
and forgotten.
Recent wastewater collection projects, however, have faced
serious delays due to changing public priorities for
wetlands protection. Many projects had preceded well into
Step 2 - Detailed Design activities with portions of the
system routed through wetland areas. Oftentimes, the
preliminary reviews by state, sub-state regional planning
agencies, and local boards had not indicated any problems.
At the final public hearings on specific interceptor routes,
however, citizen groups would begin to question the effects
on this or that wetland. And, under recently passed state
or federal legislation, their concerns had to be addressed.
Projects ready to go out to bid had to be revised. Align-
ments had to be altered and interceptors re-routed. Service
areas had to be juggled, and, sometimes, even portions of
them lopped off in order to minimize potential harm to a
swamp.
The delays were frustrating, and the revisions were expensive,
The engineering time and the ecological surveys required by
the new legislation were not covered by the original Step 2
grants. Complex renegotiations were required, and contract
amendments had to be resolved. New procedures had to be
established, tested, and revised as the new legislation was
June 1978 7:7
-------
implemented. And when all was said and done, the revised
facility design had minimized the wetland impacts, but the
delay during redesign had generally cost the project dearly
in both time and money.
7.3 SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY
The methodology developed in this chapter is designed to be
incorporated directly into the Step 1 - Facilities Planning
process. By doing so, it is anticipated that serious delays
ca be eliminated from later design and construction phases.
The wetland assessment methodology is a 4-step process in
which you:
Locate wetlands;
Evaluate the wetlands;
Identify the construction impacts; and
Assess the significance of the impacts to the
wetland.
The following three sections elaborate on each suggested
step and provide references to supplemental sources of
information. Although these suggested steps are not EPA
reguirements under the facilities planning process, they are
consistent with draft wetland evaluation procedures being
considered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under their
"Secton 404" wetlands permit program. As such, they are
indicative of current state-of-the-art thinking by Federal
agencies on wetland evaluation techniques.
7.31 Locate Wetlands
The definitions of "wetland" can vary somewhat in technical
detail from state to state within New England. Each state
has adopted some form of legislation which incorporates
definitions for wetland preservation. The Massachusetts'
"Wetlands Protection Act," for example, has a set of
regulations which defines the specific vegetation com-
munities which are found in various types of wetlands.
These can be used to precisely establish the limit of any
one type of wetland. Section 7-2 of this chapter lists
these various state laws and regulatory programs. These
state requirements and their local interpretations should
always be incorporated as the first step in defining the
wetland and its boundaries.
An excellent reference which sets the standard for
delineating wetlands is Wetlands and Floodplains on Paper,
prepared by the Massachusetts Audubon Society. This brief
guidebook presents a clear and concise method for identi-
fying and mapping wetlands. Because it is designed for
June 1978 7:8
-------
local conservation commissions, it provides a useful tool to
guide the preparation of documents which may come under
review by local jurisdictions. It is consistent with many
of the procedures used in other New England states.
"Wetlands on Paper" suggests that the least expensive means
of determining the location of wetlands is to cull as much
as possible from existing sources. Local planning reports,
regional planning agency map atlases and certain state
agencies will often have information on wetlands. The RPA
(regional planning agency) may also have prepared fairly
specific data under the "208" Areawide Wastewater Planning
Program which sometimes cites wetlands of regional sig-
nificance. Some communities may have had their wetlands
mapped from aerial photographs onto assessor's sheets.
These are the best and most accurate sources of data.
As a last resort, USGS quad sheets can be photographically
enlarged to a scale of 1 inch to 500 feet to serve as base
maps. However, the ten-foot contour intervals are generally
much too vague and should be supplemented with more specific
2-foot contour maps, wherever available. SCS soils maps can
be interpreted, where available, for soils where the water
table is "at or near te surface for a significant number of
months per year" and then photo-enlarged to a best fit with
the quad sheet base map. If there are aerial photographs
available through the town, regional planning agency, or
state, they should be stereo-interpreted by texture, tone
and patterns for wetland boundaries. This requires training
and familiarity with air photo interpretation techniques,
however.
Once all available information has been collected, it can be
combined into a composite wetlands map (see Figure 7-1).
The boundaries can be averaged and later, if need be, field
checks can be made in the immediate vicinity of any po-
tential interceptor route. The composite wetlands map
should be prepared at a map scale that is consistent with
other inventory maps prepared during the early phases of the
facilities planning process. Examples of these other maps
would include land use, topography, drainage areas and
proposed service areas.
The proposed service area map is of critical importance to
the next step: evaluating the wetlands. As is noted in the
secondary impacts chapter of this Handbook, the service area
(...and those areas which may have secondary growth induced
by the facility) should be mapped very accurately.
Before going any further with wetlands analysis, the service
area map should be overlaid with the wetlands map. If any
June 1978 7:9
-------
wetlands are located within or continguous to a service
area, this should raise a read flag to the facilities plan-
ning team (see Figure 7-2). Alignments which avoid the
wetlands, yet still connect the service areas should be
explored.
Alternative treatment techniques that may be available to
specific "needs" areas (see Chapter 2, Needs Analysis) can
also be considered where the wetlands make traditional
gravity systems problematic. Once the various alternatives
have been considered by adjusting the configurations to
avoid the wetlands, those wetlands still within the service
area or along a potential interceptor route should be care-
fully evaluated to determine their value to the local
ecosystem. The following section presents one method of
determining the importance of a wetland.
7.32 Evaluate Wetland
Once it has been determined that the potential design
alternatives will overlap with a wetland area, the wetland
should be evaluated to determine its functional importance.
The U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resouces has
developed an excellent document which goes into great detail
on wetland evaluation. Chapters 2 and 3 of the Army's
Wetland Values, Interim Assessment and Evaluation Methodology
have been adapted and streamlined for purposes of this
manual. The simplified procedure presented here does away
with much of the complex biological detail suggested in
Wetland Values and, instead, focuses on the most widely
accepted functional characteristics of wetlands.
The legislation which provides facilities grants for the
clean-up of the nation's waters, Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (PL 92-500), cites the following important
public functions provided by wetlands:
A. Biological functions including food chain pro-
duction general habitat, and nesting, spawning,
rearing and resting sites for aquatic and
terrestrial species;
B. Functions which affect the natural drainage charac-
teristics, sedimentation pattern, salinity distri-
bution, flushing characteristics, or other environ-
mental characteristics of critical environmental
areas;
C. Functions which are significant in shielding other
areas from wave action, erosion or storm damage
such as those found or barrier beaches, islands,
reefs and bars;
June 1978 7:10
-------
••»
CHOOSE BASE MAP
ENLARGED
UNITED STATES GEOLOGIC
SURVEY QUADRANGLE MAP
r' = 500' 10'CONTOURS
TOWN TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP
1" = 200' 2' CONTOURS
GATHER EXISTING MAPS
WITH WETLAND DATA
SOIL CONSERVATION MAP
1" = 800"
MOSQUITO CONTROL MAP
1" = 800'
CHANGE SCALE OF EXISTING
WETLAND DATA MAPS TO
THE SCALE OF THE
CHOSEN BASE MAP
SOIL ENLARGED
CONSERVATION SOIL CONSERVATION
MAP MAP
TOWN TOPOGRAPHIC
BASE MAP
1" = 200'
2'CONTOURS
TRACE SEVERAL
EXISTING WETLAND
DELINEATIONS ONTO
THE BASE MAP
Base Map
U S Geologic Survey Map
YVeTUAklPS
AUDUEOM
-r— i
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
D. Functions which serve as valuable storage areas for
storm and flood waters;
E. Functions which provide prime natural recharge
areas where the surface and groundwater are
directly interconnected; and
F. Functions which serve to purity water through
natural water filtration processes.
While we can evaluate a wetland's functional value in terms
of flood storage or shielding a house from wave impact, the
"intrinsic" biological values are difficult to quantify.
This presents a handicap to those decision-makers responsible
for regulating construction activities in or near wetlands.
The best that can be achieved at this point in time is the
evaluation of wetlands on a case-by-case basis, using good,
common sense and professional judgment to assess each
function.
The recommended evaluation methodology groups the functions
listed in the federal legislation into seven primary and six
secondary characteristics. The method for determining the
relative importance of each function is listed below and on
the following Wetland Evaluation Worksheets, Tables 7-1A and
7-1B:
June 1978 7:11
-------
6VALUAT10M
AKJp
4-- AQUATIC
June 1978
7:12
-------
I..
"Sf.
=ar.rtf.-c.Hs 'In
MATJl^U
4-. AQUATIC
A^nevi
;UL
-------
7-
/0%
^-
' 2. t
Hi
x
\o.
M
. C.ULTU&AU
' r*A -
«v-v*^ r-C- *'
OUALITATIV'6'
-------
II.
June 1978
7:13
-------
7.321 Primary Functional Characteristics
A. Importance to Watershed - Is the wetland contiguous
to other wetlands which cumulatively form a larger
surface water drainage system? If so, describe the
overall linkage from one wetland to another; the
location of the subject wetland relative to the
system; its size in acreage relative to others up-
and downstream. If the wetland is isolated and not
connected to a larger drainageway, say so.
B. Natural Valley Storage - Determine the importance
of the wetland's storage capacity of flood water by
estimating:
1. its size in acres and average depth in feet;
2. the approximate area of the watershed;
3. the capacity (depth X size) for the flood
storage;
4. approximate percentage of the total watershed's
storage; and
5. is any downstream land use located in the flood-
plain?
C. Shielding from Wave Damage (Coastal Wetlands) - If
you are dealing with a coastal wetland: how wide
is it? What type of vegetation does it support?
How much land use is located along its landward
side? Is there a significant length of open water
fetch offshore? Is there a local history of
coastal flooding and property damage?
D. Aquatic Sanctuary or Refuge - Is there any informa-
tion on whether the wetland is used or has been
formally designated as a waterfowl or wildlife
sanctuary? Are there others of a similar type
nearby? If so, how close are they and how large?
•E. Habitat ad Productivity - What type of wetland is
it: bog, wet meadow, deep or shallow march, shrub
swamp, wooded swamp, salt marsh, dune, beach,
barrier beach? Is it ever subject to coastal storm
flowage or riverine floods? Is there any indica-
tion of the type of wildlife habitat present? (See
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Circular 39) Is there any
information on the productivity of the wetland? Is
there regular flushing by tides, currents or
streamflow? Is there any information on the
vitality of the vegetation and wildlife? (See
Figure 7-3).
June 1978 7:14
-------
s
io
9
8
0.3
DESERT
'y-vK, —
0.3-1.5
DRY
AGRICULTURE
1.5—5
MOIST
AGRICULTURE
ESTUARINE
I — 1.5
COASTAL
0.3
OPEN OCEAN
Figure 7—3 Comparison of the levels of organic matter production in different types
of ecosystems. (After Teal and Teal, 1969). Coastal wetlands, with
annual production rates of 5-10 tons per acre, are the most productive
areas on earth.
-------
F. Water Filtration - Are there significant upstream
point or non-point discharge problems? Is there a
significant BOD loading? What is the approximate
range of streamflow? Include the type and size of
the method from 1 and 5, above. Describe the
flushing pattern from 5, above. Is there any
change in downstream water quality?
G. Groundwater Recharge - What percentage of the total
watershed area is made up of wetlands? What are
the water uses in the watershed: water supply,
wastewater assimilation, fishing, swimming, boating,
wildlife? What is general porosity of soil,
permeability, transmissability foreground water
recharge potential? What are porjected water
supply needs of community, industry, agriculture?
7.322 Secondary Values
A. Commercial Fisheries - Type of estuarine habitat?
Food chain productivity function? (See E above)
presence of estuarine-dependent commercial species:
flounder, shad, alewives, clams, shrimp, menhaden,
sea bass, striped bass, salmon, etc.
B. Recreational Activities - Type of recreational acti-
vity if any: hunting, fishing, canoeing; frequency
of use: heavy or infrequent? Level of significance:
neighborhood, townwide, etc.
C. Natural Resource Extraction - Is the wetland used for
either:
1. agriculture use: crops, woodlot, pasture, etc.?
2. aquaculture: oysters, lobster, scallops, etc.?
D. Cultural Importance - Historic-Archaeological Impor-
tance :
1. Federal (National Register properties nearby)?
2. State historic sites?
3. Locally significant sites?
E. Aesthetics - Presence of detracting effects:
1. Odors, fumes?
2. Noise from nearby land use activities?
3. Conflicting adjacent uses (junkyards, dumps)?
4. Visual character?
F. Special Values - Unusual or otherwise significant
features: rare or endangered species? Locally
recognized values?
June 1978 7:15
-------
Once these thirteen potential functions have been examined
(and there may not be too much to say for some of them) the
overall importance of the wetland can be summarized in a sen-
tence or two. By stressing the salient functions and estab-
lishing their relative importance to their watershed system,
the value of that particular wetland can be determined
fairly accurately.
7.33 Identify Construction Impacts
Once the value of the wetland has been generally established,
the types of impacts need to be identified. Depending upon
the configuration of the service area and the alignment of
the collection system of interceptors and laterals, these
impacts may be either direct or indirect, long-term or
short-term. The effects of any construction activity fall
into three general time-related categories:
A. Direct and immediate results which take
place during the construction process;
B. Effects which occur during the period of
stabilization following completion of the
construction; and
C. Long-term permanent changes brought about by the
construction itself or by secondary land use that
is induced by the constructed facilities.
This section will deal primarily with the direct impacts of
constructing the sewer pipeline through a wetland. The
Secondary Impacts and Hydrology chapters deal wth increased
urban runoff and other effects associated with induced
growth. The impacts for each category of construction
activity can be described in the following general terms:
— The initial survey and other preconstruction
activities result in removal of some vegetative
cover and possibly some increase in erosion and
surface runoff. Considering the limited nature of
such operations, the effects must be temporary and
highly localized, except in steep terrain where the
effects could be considerable.
— The initial clearing of the land removed the
vegetative cover and permits the rainfall to strike
the bare land surface. Any subsequent digging will
remove topsoil and expose deeper soil layers.
Mounds of loose soil may temporarily accumulate
within or adjacent to the construction site. All
of these activities lead to increased surface
June 1978 7:16
-------
TABLE 7-2
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES
Initial Survey
Clearing and grubbing
Earthwork
Delivery of pipe
Equipment parking
Ditch excavation/dredging
Pipe laying
Backfill
Appurtenances and special construction
Disposition of excavated materials
Site restorations
TABLE 7-3
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Modification of wetland vegetation and habitat
Modification of wetland bottom topography
Creation of channels (surface and subsurface)
Modification of water circulation patters (surface and
subsurface)
Lowering of water table
Increased runoff velocity
Increased erosion and siltation
Increased downstream flood levels
Increased turbidity of water
Increased oxygen demand
Reduced light penetration
Reduced photosynthetic oxygen production
Release of toxic organic compounds
Release of pesticides, heavy metals, and hydrogen
sulfide
Increased temperature
Bottom siltation with very fine sediments
June 1978 7:17
-------
runoff and severe erosion, and the effects will be
accentuated in steep terrain and in rainy weather.
In dry weather considerable quantities of soil may
be raised as dust clouds which will be transported
at a later date when the rains fall. Runoff and
erosion will add a great deal of soil solids into
wetland areas in the form of greater water tur-
bidity and increased sedimentation.
Ditch excavation for the placement of sewer lines
in wetlands can cause significant increases in
sediment loads and substantial disruption of water
table and biological processes. Wetlands are areas
of surface as well as subsurface water movement.
Where the wetland is associated with a stream, the
ditch will serve to alter streamflow, both during
and after construction. Fluctuation in the level
of ground water will result in erratic streamflow
rates and increased velocity during wet weather.
The stream bed may be cut deeper, the banks will be
undercut, and the stream section will be widened.
Riffles may disappear and pool areas fill.
Branches and other debris are washed downstream.
Increased sediment loads released during excavation
will clog the interstices of riffles, fill the
pools, and cover the bottom generally with a layer
or inorganic silt. Bottom sedimentation may persist
far downstream from the construction site. Bottom
habitat diversity is essentially eliminated.
Accompanying the increased flow rates there is an
increase in water turbidity. This lowers the light
penetration of the water, increases oxygen demand
(both chemical and biological oxygen demand), and
modified the chemical characteristics of the water
in other ways. Loss of vegetative cover and increase
in turbidity both serve to elevate the temperature
of the water (as much as 10°F).
During dry weather stream flow slacks off, and it
may cease entirely, since the stream now receives
less ground water inflow thdn before. Clearing and
dredging sewer trenches may also alter the local
hydrological regime that formerly perennial streams
may approach or become intermittent. Since deep
pools tend to be reduced or lost, the aquatic
habitat may become severely restricted or dried up
between floods. Any water that remains in the
stream bed is now subject to more rapid and extreme
temperature fluctuation in response to prevailing
atmospheric conditions.
June 1978 7:18
-------
The cutting and digging action of the dredging
operation breaks through the thin oxidized layer of
the submerged soil and exposes the deep unoxidized
layer. Furthermore, most of the sediments placed
in suspension are removed from this layer and,
hence, are in the chemically reduced state. Such
materials have a very high chemical and biological
oxygen demands.
Turbidity, per se, reduces light penetration and
interferes with photosynthetic production of oxygen,
and it tends to elevate water temperatures. Eventual-
ly the suspended material settles to the bottom
either near the dredging site or far downstream.
Thus, there is a redistribution of sediments together
with whatever nutrients and chemical pollutants
which they may contain, and this may result in
modified bottom topography and altered patterns of
water circulation. Such sedimentation problems are
greatly accentuated when dredge spoil is placed
back into the water.
Pipe-Laying is generally accompanied by heavy
machinery, the maneuvering of which can compact the
soft, organic soils and create additional blockage
to subsurface flow. These activities tend to
remove the native soil and vegetation, stimulate
bank soil erosion, lower the water table, and
provide for increased surface flow velocities.
When the water eventually enters the stream it may
carry heavy loads of sediment, and considerable
erosion has been noted where heavy machinery has
operated within wetlands and next to streams.
Backfill and Compaction. Coupled with the sewer
pipe itself, can alter both surface and subsurface
water movement in a wetland and may greatly influ-
ence downstream conditions. Drainage is acceler-
ated by funneling subsurface flow downstream along
the backfilled trench. Around water levels are
lowered and wetlands can gradually convert to dry
land. It also tends to lower the water table of
the adjacent, higher land. This reduces or elimi-
nates the annual flood, prevents the replenishing
of any remaining wetlands, and cuts off the
sediment load normally deposited in such environ-
ments. Aquifer and ground water recharge is also
reduced. Large quantities of nutrients and
valuable fresh water is lost, eventually to
estuaries or to the sea. Also, becuase the sewer
and compacted backfill can act as subsurface dams
June 1978 7:19
-------
to underground water movement, drainage coming down
off of adjacent high ground can be blocked and
diverted from the wetland, further lowering its
water level.
In coastal marshes the matter is considerably more
complex because of the intermixing of fresh and
saltwater and the natural process of saline
instrusion. Freshwater enters the estuary as
regular streamflow and runoff from the upriver
watershed. As it approaches the estuary, there is
a gradual gradient from freshwater to the more
brackish waters of the estuary. River overflow and
build-up of organic matter on the marshes help to
maintain the delicate land-sea, and freshwater-
saltwater balances.
Dredging and pipe-laying in marshes accelerates the
rate of freshwater runoff, and it may lower the
water table of the soil drying out the higher areas
of the marsh. This can cause the marsh to become
segmented, with siltation and shoaling taking place
in the quieter backwaters. Water circulation may
be greatly affected with altered patterns of tidal
exchange and mixing. Direction, velocities and
seasonal programming of currents may be changed.
Extensive shoaling may reduce flushing and lead to
closure or reduction of the inlets connecting with
the sea. Since the passage of fresh-water is
accelerated through the estuary, the penetration of
saline bottom waters increases into the bay or
estuary. This would increase the sale concentra-
tion and sharpen the salinity gradient.
The preceeding list of potential impacts is highly general-
ized, not necessarily complete and would obviously not apply
to every sewer line that happened to be laid out through a
wetland. As stated earlier, each action and each wetland
must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. These examples
are only indications of what could happen under certain
circumstances. Common sense dictates the degree to which
they are a problem, or whether the resulting impacts are
significant.
7.34 Assess the Significance of the Impacts
The preceding two sections described: 1) how to determine
wetland values by analyzing the importance of its functions;
and 2) what impacts are associated with sewer construction.
The final step is to bring the two parts together to assess
the significance of the impacts on the functional character-
istics of the wetland.
June 1978 7:20
-------
The most important impact of construction activity upon
aquatic environments is wetland habitat loss. This is
occasioned primarily by draining, filling, damming,
ditching, and channelization of the wetlands.
The second most sever impact is the addition of suspended
solids to aquatic environments, resulting in increased
turbidity and wide-spread siltation of wetland bottoms. The
increase in suspended and sedimented material is known to
have eliminated various species in streams and to have
produced devastating effects upon certain ecosystems in
small streams for many miles downstream of the point of
entry. The results of bottom siltation are often
cumulative, especially if peak stream flow (hence, flushing)
has been reduced.
The third most important impact of construction activities
upon wetland environments is the alteration of stream flow
patterns. This may take the form of reduced flow, (through
water loss), reduced flow during critical low water seasons,
reduction of peak flow (by water retention and channel
deepening), reduction of flood plain flooding (through
leveeing and peak flow reduction), and modification of
seasonal flow regimes (through water retention and pro-
grammed release from reservoir and from increased surface
runoff and reduced water storage within riparian environ-
ments). The downstream effects of flow pattern alterations
may severely damage the natural ecosystems of streams;
riparian wetlands; coastal marshes, swamps, and estuaries;
and ocean beaches.
Various mitigating measures can be taken to reduce the
effects of each of the three significant types of impact:
(1) Habitat loss; (2) Turbidity; and (3) Alteration of
streamflow. Obviously, the best way to avoid loss of
habitat is to avoid the wetland whevenver practicable and by
selecting an alternate alignment. If there is absolutely no
other route available for the sewer, then the right-of-way
should be restored quickly to as original a configuration as
is possible. Backfill around the pipe should be compacted
to approximately the same degree as the surrounding area
with the same materials as were originally present. This
would at least minimize the long-term disruption to subsurface
and bottom-dweller habitats. If the alignment requires
clearing a swath through a wooded wetland, an irregular edge
condition would increase the habitat along the wooded margin
for wildlife foraging (see Figure 7-4).
Levels of turbidity and siltation can be reduced by excavat-
ing during period of low flow and by constructing temporary
cofferdams or siltation ponds to trap sediment. Quick
June 1978 7:21
-------
replanting and stabilization of exposed gravel banks should
also be done to minimize erosion of material into the wetland
or watercourse. Temporary soil stabilizing mats can also be
placed to minimize runoff and erosion during construction of
the system.
Alteration of streamflow should be avoided by limiting any
permanent placement of fill within the wetland and by back-
filling with impervious clay saddles when an interceptor
runs downstream from a wetland. Filling in the wetland
decreases the floor storage capacity and contributes to
increased velocity of flow downstream of the project. It
also could increase backwater elevations upstream of the
project. Backfilling with clay at regular intervals would
limit the subsurface flow out of the wetland along the
interceptor trench. The clay would maintain the groundwater
level within the wetland and preserve minimum streamflows
during times of drought.
7.341 Assessment Charts/Tables
The following charts are intended to assist with the deter-
mination of significance by relating construction activities
and impacts to the functional values described earlier.
Table 7-4 summarizes the activities associated with con-
struction of sewer lines and relates them to the physical
and chemical effects of constructing sewer lines in wetlands.
Table 7-5 relates the physical and chemical effects to the
list of wetland functions which were outlined on the earlier
evaluation forms. By assessing the degree of the physical
and chemical effect on any one function and by checking the
value of that particular function on the earlier evaluation
sheets, the significance of that impact can be deduced. A
qualitative statement of the significance of that impact can
then be developed as a notation on the Impact Assessment
Work Sheets, Tables 7-6A and 7-6B.
The deductive statement which assesses the significance of
the impact on any one function should take the following
factors into account:
A. Duration: short-term or long-term.
B. Frequency: how often over time.
C. Location: where the impact occurs; number of
acres, etc.
D. Severity: irreversible, major, moderate, minor-
insignificant.
7.342 Costs
The approximate costs of performing a desk top assessment of
wetland values and a preliminary assessment of the signifi-
cance of potential impacts are presented on Table 7-7.
June 1978 7:22
-------
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
TABLE 7-4
IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION ON PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL WETLANDS CHARACTERISTICS
c *
I I « 2
S * * ? I g c S
s hi i ii,?
> £ rc - "> £ £ S c O)
^ w 2 "- ~° c *-• <" 2 Jo
OT * (DC ro C O- c >«
*- (-.-Eo'-f; ^(upt^
Physical and «
-------
TABLE 7-5
RELATIONSHIP OF IMPACTS TO SPECIFIC WETLAND FUNCTIONS
Wetland
Functions
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Construction
Impacts
s
vegetation)
^
jral cover
nj
c
o
o
<-
'o
Q.
O
"o
O
_J
C\J
<4-
u-
Faster runo
n
0)
Z
ni
4->
t-
0)
4-1
Lowered wa
*t
rosion
Increased e
in
5
E
2
I/)
tuation in
o
3
t*-
4-*
C
_0)
o
>
CD
I/)
0)
>
0)
t_
0)
4->
11
5
tuation in
Violent flue
r-
en
c
o
o
**•
ownstream
Increased d
00
VI
m
ediment lo
Increased s
en
jntation
£
TD
0)
(/)
1
4->
0
Increased b
0
>
4-J
;5
Ja
L.
3
Increased t
'-
m
4->
J3
nj
j^
•o
c
m
4->
0)
§
14-
o
10
(ft
0
_J
CM
tration
(!)
c
0)
a
4-1
i:
_O)
r
Reduction i
CO
•sition
u
a
E
o
u
"ai
u
'E
(U
Modified ch
"fr
c
03
0)
TD
C
(D
O)
>
X
Increased o
in
gradients
v
4-"
'E
"<5
in
u-
O
Modification
C£)
1. Natural Biological Functions
a. Food Chain Productivity
b. Habitat
2. Study Areas Sanctuaries,
Refuges
3. Contiguous Wetlands, Eco-
System Support Function
4. Shielding From Waves,
Erosion, Storm Flooding
5. Floodwater Storage
6. Ground Water Recharge
7. Water Purification
Commercial Fisheries Support
Recreation, Fish & Wildlife
Utilization
Agriculture, Aquaculture
Cultural, Historic,
Archaeological
Visual, Aesthetic
Special Local Values
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(as appropriate, if affected)
xx xxxxxxxxxxx
x x y x x x
x x x x x x
xx xx
XXXXX XXX XXXX
X X X X X X
XX XX X XXX
XX X
X
XX XX
X
XXX
XX XX XXXXXX
(as appropriate to local perspective)
June 1978
7:24
-------
7-
AWP
-r
-------
MfACT
iMa-e\
fl r* f
PISH ££l ^5>
fff S(
[0.
« <^
II, CUUTU(?.AU
/\]<9
-------
IMPOST
AKIP
IMPAC-T3 -re? gA^H WgTLANP
NATUgAU
4-.
June 1978
7:25
-------
II, C.ULrTJg.AL-
VAL-U&S 1
June 1978
7:26
-------
TABLE 7-7
APPROXIMATE EFFORT FOR WETLANDS ASSESSMENT
ESTIMATED
ITEM TASK MAN DAYS
1 Preliminary Organization 0.5
2 Data Gathering
Meeting with local officials review
local and State legislation 2.5
3 Review Existing Material
Conservation Commission
Planning Board
Assessor's Maps
Engineering Department Maps/Photos
Soils Reports
- USGS Maps
State/Regional Reports
4 Locate Wetlands
Preliminary Mapping 3.0
Photo Enlarge/Reduce Data to constant
scale.
5 Identify Potential Conflicts
Overlay proposed facility plan and 1.5
wetland system. Explore alternative
service areas or alignments for inter-
ceptors. Identify unavoidable impacts.
6 Site Visit, establish boundaries of af- 1.0
fected wetlands with local officals.
7 Final mapping of boundaries 0.5
8 Evaluate Functions of Affected Wetlands
Importance to watershed 2.0
Natural valley storage
Shielding from wave damage (coastal)
Aquatic sanctuary or refuge
Water filtration
Groundwater recharge
Fisheries
Recreation
Agriculture
- Historic/archaeological
Aesthetic
Special values
June 1978 7:27
-------
TABLE 7-7 (continued)
ESTIMATED
ITEM TASK MAN DAYS
9 Identify Construction Impacts 1.0
10 Assess Significance of Impacts to 1.0
the Affected Wetland
11 Write Wetland Assessment Report 1.0
TOTALS: 15 Man days
June 1978 7:28
-------
environmental
assessment
manual
archaeology
-------
CHAPTER 8 - ARCHAEOLOGY
Prepared by: Dr. Charlotte W. Thomson 8:1
-------
8.0 INTRODUCTION - ARCHAEOLOGY IN NEW ENGLAND
There is in New England a great lack of knowledge of American
Indian history. The native Americans had no written lan-
guage, which is where the problem begins. Therefore all
evidence of the Indians who lived here before us must come
from the records of the first colonists, or from the
meticulous excavation of buried sites.
When the first settlers came to this country, they purchased
or appropriated the very locations that the Indians used.
Modern settlements as well are put in the places the Indians
favored: low-lying lands near fresh water and communications
routes. Thus it is a rare occurrence to find an Indian site
that has not been built upon or disturbed.
In addition, the soil in New England forms very slowly. In
most situations, perhaps one inch of topsoil forms every 100
to 300 years. This means that traces of Indian history in
New England are generally found in the top 24 inches of
soil, and are extremely vulnerable to any digging or distur-
bance.
Projectile points, the attached stone tips of spears, arrows
and darts, are the most durable and abundant artifacts left
by the Indians. The techniques of chipping these stone
points, and their shapes and materials, changed throughout
the Indians' long occupation of New England. The basic
chronology for the Indians cultures was first derived from
study of the projectile points.
As the science of archaeology matures, sophisticated tech-
niques of laboratory analysis allow archaeologists to analyze
nearly invisible evidence, such as pollen grains, in order
to reconstruct the life-ways of the people of the past.
This means that every fragment of material in an archaeologi-
cal site is of potential value to the professional archaeolo-
gist.
8.01 The Paleo-Indian Period, 10,000 - 7,000 B.C.
The formation, change in mass, and disappearance of glaciers
are responses to changes in climate. In New England, the
last great ice sheet reached its maximum southern extent at
about 16,000 B.C. covering Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket
and touching points on Long Island. Ocean levels were
drastically lowered - some 300 feet lower than at present -
because of net loss of ocean water by evaporation and storage
June 1978 8:2
-------
of the water in glacier ice. Sea levels rose after 16,000
B.C. as the glacier melted and retreated northward.
Vast areas of land were opened up by the northward retreat
of the glacier, and plant cover and animal populations
adapted to artic climates quickly inhabited the newly exposed
land, preparing the way for human communities.
Evidence of the earliest man in New
England comes from the Bull Brook site
in Ipswich, a twenty-acre site with a
scattering of some 45 hearths that
yielded several thousand artifacts,
including the period's distinctive
fluted projectile points. The date of
the Bull Brook site may be as early as
10,000 B.C. Current opinion sees this
site as a camp of hunters located above
a stream bed where migratory caribou
crossed in numbers. It is assumed that
Paleo-Indian man in New England was a
big game hunter, but this supposition
remains to be proved. F*L-UT"6|P
There is a Paleo-Indian site near the jasper quarry in
Saugus, Massachusetts, and fluted points of Saugus jasper
have been excavated at a lakeside site in Middleboro.
8.02 Early and Middle Archaic, 7,000-3,000 B.C.
The earliest Archaic period artifacts to be found in New
England are called Palmer, Kirk and Charlestown corner
notched projectile points. These are rare, and thinly scat-
tered and date to the eighth millennium B.C.
Projectile points of the seventh millennium B.C. are known
as bifurcate base points. With the exception of a large
concentration of this point type in the Taunton River Basin,
this also is a rare artifact.
June 1978
8:3
-------
From 6,000 to 4,000 B.C. the key artifact types are Kanawha,
Neville, Stark and Merrimack projectile points, their sequen-
tial ordering known from the Neville site in New Hampshire.
The resource orientation of human groups is explicit for the
first time in the latter part of the Middle Archaic. Site
distribution - riverside, lakeside and bogside locations -
indicates that these Indians were capitalizing upon spring
runs of spawning fish and seasonal migrations of fowl.
These exploitations were possible because the seasonal
migrations of birds and fish were set in their modern pat-
terns at this time.
Additionally, the eastward extension of the continental
shelf, exposed by lowered sea levels, may have been the most
hospitable location for human communities. It would have
been warmer than inland areas, and its soils would have been
enriched by sediments deposited by the glaciers. Subsequent
inundation of the coastal plain by rising sea level has
probably biased our understanding of site distribution at
this time.
8.03 The Late Archaic Period 3,000-500 B.C.
In the time since the retreat of the glaciers, temperature
had been gradually rising, as had sea level, the latter as a
consequence of the continued melting of the remaining conti-
nental and mountain glaciers. By 3,000 B.C. the climactic
warming had reached its maximum, achieving temperatures a
few degrees warmer than those of today. Oak and hickory
forests provided an abundance of nuts, which easily fed both
human and animal populations. Stone pestles for grinding
nuts are first found in the archaeological sites of the Late
Archaic.
Three distinct traditions of stone projectile point manufac-
ture are found in the Late Archaic; the Laurentian, the
small point tradition, and the Susquehanna. The small point
tradition seems to be a development out of local antecedents.
The small points, which may have been arrow or dart points,
are often hastily and crudely flaked, as compared to the
finely worked projectile points of preceding times. They are
abundant at sites all over New England, and represent an
economic tool, in that they were quickly, cheaply and easily
manufactured, usually of the abundant local white quartz.
June 1978 8:4
-------
Typical also of the Late
Archaic is elaborate
burial ceremonialism,
evidenced by red paint
burials under stone slabs
with large numbers of
artifacts. Also in the
last centuries of the
Late Archaic period, the
Indians of New England
made and exported numbers
of large handsome steatite
bowls. Quarry sites from
this time are common.
In the last centuries of this period, the New England shore-
line stabilized at or near its present limits, as sea level
ceased to rise. Stabilization of the seacoast created
intertidal mudflats which become a reliable source of susti-
nence in the form of clams, oysters and mussels.
June 1978
8:5
-------
8.04
and Middle Woodland, 500 B.C.- 850 A.D.
Not a great deal is known about the inland occupations of
this period; the coastal settlements are better understood.
The coastal settlements and shellheaps represent adaptions
to the harvest of bivalves such as clams, oysters and mussels,
This may have been a period of population decline.
In the centuries just before A.D. 500, pottery making tech-
niques were introduced into New England, with pottery vessels
replacing the large steatite vessels of the Late Archaic.
8.05 Late Woodland Period, 800^1,600 A.D.
In this time period population densities
in New England increased, presumably as
a result of the introduction of agriculture.
Maize, bean and squash plants rapidly
became major food sources for the Indians.
The largest sites from this time seem to
be located at the heads of estuaries and
at falls or rapids on major rivers.
June 1978
8:6
-------
June 1978
8:7
-------
8.06 Historic Period, 1500-Present
It has been estimated that in 1610 the Indians of New England
and southeastern New York numbered 72,000. This was approxi-
mately one hundred years after contact with European settlers.
In that hundred years the Indians had been subjected to
warfare and new strains of disease, and their numbers had
been severely reduced.
This history of Colonial New England is also the history of
the reduction and extinction of the native Americans.
From the historic period sites may be Indian villages; or
forts, mills, and later, buildings and districts of impor-
tance to American history.
All of the preceding possibilities are taken into account
when one studies a piece of land or a land corridor for the
purpose of locating and identifying archaelogical sites.
8.1 REGULATORY STATUS
The ultimate goal of Federal and state antiquities laws is
to preserve for study America's cultural heritage, whether
that be documents, historic buildings, or the very fragile
record of former inhabitants that is left in the earth and
interpreted by archaeologists.
Publicly funded construction projects are subject to a body
of laws which have their beginning in this country with the
Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 209).
Relevant legislation includes the following:
8.11 National Historic Preservation Act (PL 89-665, 16 USC
470-1966)
This act established a national historic preservation program
through the creation of the National Register of Historic
Places. The National Register, maintained by the Secretary
of the Interior, is the official list of all districts,
sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in
national, state or local history, architecture, archaeology
and culture.
Section 106 of this act specifies that any federal agency
must take into account the effect of a federally funded or
licensed project upon any property listed in the National
Register.
June 1978 8:8
-------
8.12 Executive Order 11593 (16 USC 470) - 1971
A presidential directive of May 1971, Executive Order 11593
expanded the concept of Section 106 by extending the protec-
tion afforded to National Register properties to all of
those properties eligible for listing in the National Regis-
ter. Criteria for listing in the Nationa; Register were
published in the Federal Register by the National Park
Service (36 CFR 800).
Federal agencies must survey and nominate to the National
Register all historically or archaeologically significant
properties under federal ownership or jurisdiction. Federal
agencies also are responsible for identifying any significant
cultural resources, public or private, which would be affected
by a federally funded or licensed project.
It has been estimated that the National Register survey may
be only 20 percent complete. Therefore this directive has
considerable importance because it mandates protection for
all those properties which are not formally identified, but
which meet National Register criteria. With respect to
archaeological sites, this order places the responsibility
of identification, and therefore survey, on the Federal
agencies funding a project.
8.13 National Environmental Policy Act (PL 91-190, 42 USC 4321) -
1969
The National Environmental Policy Act mandates review proce-
dures for all federal agencies in determining the effect of
projects and programs on all aspects of the environment.
One of the six enumerated goals in NEPA is the preservation
of historic and cultural aspects of the national heritage.
8.14 Procedures for the Protection ojf Historic and Cultural
Properties' (36 CFR VIII 800) - 1972
These procedures published by the Advisory Council on His-
toric Preservation are designed to assist federal agencies in
complying with the legislation cited above. The first step
in the Advisory Council procedures is the identification of
those properties both listed and eligible for listing in the
National Register. These procedures call for the close
cooperation of the State Historic Preservation Officer,
local Federal agency officials and the Advisory Council.
8.15 The Archaeological Conservation Act (PL 93-291) - 1974
This law, known as the Moss-Bennet bill while it was before
Congress, provides that a federal agency may expend funds
June 1978 8:9
-------
for the recovery of archaeological resources which otherwise
might have been destroyed as a result of the project.
8.2 PAST PRACTICES
The usual practice in the past was for the consulting engi-
neer on a clean water project to check "NO" in the appropri-
ate box on the environmental assessment form in the hopes
that the archaeological problem would go away. To the best
of his knowledge, there were no sites in the project area.
The usual response from the SHPO was that the information
supplied was insufficient to make a determination, and that
an archaeological survey would be necessary.
8.3 SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY
Archaeological sites, unlike water mains, gas lines, septic
systems and other underground obstacles are an unknown
quantity to the clean water engineer.
The laws on antiquities and archaeological sites apply to
both visible and invisible (buried) sites. The laws place
the responsibility of surveying for unknown sites on the
federal agency funding a project; in the case of clean water
projects, the EPA bears this responsibility.
For the environmental assessment, the engineering consultant
or archaeologist should consult state records of archaeologi-
cal sites and submit project plans for an informal response
from the state. The state antiquities officer can then tell
the engineer or archaeologist whether there are known sites
in the project area.
The possibility of unknown, buried archaeological sites
usually cannot be dismissed without further study.
The decision to be made is whether to hire an archaeological
consultant to do a full-scale archaeological survey at the
time of the environmental assessment.
If the project entails excavating undisturbed land near
fresh water, an archaeological survey will probably be
necessary prior to receiving a federal grant. In that case
it might be well to initiate the survey as part of the
environmental assessment.
The archaeological consultant is hired to do location studies,
which seek to point out where, within the project area,
presently unknown archaeological sites might be likely to be
buried.
June 1978 8:10
-------
8.31 Areas Not Likely to Have Archaeological Sites
The most commonly overlooked initial job of the archaeologi-
cal consultant is to eliminate from study those areas of the
project where sites are not likely to occur.
The following topographic situations generally do not have
archaeological sites:
8.311 Slopes Steeper than 15%
Prehistoric peoples in New England might have utilized steep
grades if there were cave shelters or stone quarries.
Walkover survey can disclose whether either of these re-
sources is present. If not, it is safe to assume that
archaeological resources are not present.
Topographic sheets and walkover surveys help the archaeo-
logical consultant to make this decision.
8.312 Wetlands
Swamps, marshes, wetlands and saturated ground would not
have been used for encampment by prehistoric peoples.
Ground that is wet now may not always have been wet in the
past. However it is not effective or practical to try and
analyse remains that may be found in wet ground, because of
the difficulty of defining site features.
Soil maps, boring logs and walkover surveys allow the consul-
tant to make this decision.
8.313 Filled Land
Areas of landfill preclude further archaeological study,
unless excavated areas are to go deeper than the fill.
However landfill is often found on swampy ground, wetlands
or steep declivity.
Topographic sheets, boring logs, soils data and walkover
surveys help the consultant to eliminate filled land from
further study.
8.314 Disturbed Land
This includes land that has been plowed, cleared, graded, or
excavated for construction or the placement of septic tanks,
underground utilities, water transmission lines and the
like.
June 1978 8:11
-------
Road profile sheets, walkover surveys and consultation with
utilities companies and landowners help the archaeological
consultant to estimate the degree of prior disturbance to a
piece of land or a land corridor.
8.32 Elimination of Areas
In each of the above listed situations the archaeological
consultant will have to document his observations for the
State Historic Preservation Officer. This means informing
the SHPO how the judgment was made: on the basis of walkover
survey, map study, consultation with utility companies, etc.
This initial elimination of areas from further study is
critical because it then allows the archaeological consultant
to focus his efforts in trying to locate significant sites
in areas of high potential.
Any maps, boring data, soils information, utilities plans or
hydrologic data that the applicant can supply the archaeolog-
ical consultant at this point will greatly expedite this
first step.
8.33 Background Research
At this point the archaeological consultant does a thorough
search of several different kinds of records, in order to
find out what sites may have been recorded as lying in the
area of proposed construction.
This research is usually begun by checking site files of the
National Register of Historic Places, the State Archaeologist,
the SHPO, and those of universities, colleges and individual
professors known to be active in archaeological research in
the area under study.
In addition, collections of local and regional museums
should be checked to see if any prehistoric artifacts have
been collected from the study area. The local library and
local historical society are also consulted. Local histories
often reveal Indian place names or the routes of Indian
paths, all of which can be used to make informed decisions
on the likelihood of finding archaeological sites.
Town clerks, local land owners, operators of earth-moving
machinery, construction workers, collectors of Indian arti-
facts - these and many other sources of information help to
round out the picture of land use in prehistoric times.
8.34 Theoretical Considerations
After locating known sites, the next step is to focus on
those project areas where unknown archaeological sites are
likely to occur.
June 1978 8:12
-------
In New England, past experience has suggested four criteria
for the likelihood of finding archaeological sites.
These are:
A. Proximity to a supply of fresh water (for drinking,
washing, cooking, watering crops and animals).
B. Well-drained ground (so that terrain underfoot not be
sodden after a rain).
C. Southern exposure (South facing ground is warmer and
drier than that of other exposures. In addition to
heat, southern exposure is more practical for time-tell-
ing, protection from winter winds, star-watching, etc.)
D. Level ground, or very slight slope (a slightly inclined
piece of ground facing south will drain better and dry
faster and retain more heat than ground of any other
exposure).
Having looked for these situations in the project area, the
consulting archaeologist can then decide the degree of
likelihood of archaeological resources being found under the
ground in different areas of the proposed project.
8.35 Field Testing
Location studies for unknown archaeological sites are done
by sampling the area of potential impact.
Based on the presence or absence of the above criteria, the*
consulting archaeologist decides on the sampling interval to
be applied to different areas of the project; that is, how
far apart to make a test. In areas where archaeological sites
are deemed likely, he may want to test the ground every ten
feet. In other situations, tests fifty feet apart might be
judged appropriate.
The consulting archaeologist also has to decide which means
of testing are appropriate. Some of the techniques used in
New England are shovel test pits, soil coring and chemical
testing (usually for phosphate).
8.36 Reporting to the SHPO
The archaeologist's report to the SHPO should include a copy
of the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle within which the project
area lies. This allows the reviewing agent to locate easily
the project area in relation to features on his own maps.
June 1978 8:13
-------
If the project is judged to have no impact on any or all of
the area under consideration, this judgment must be explicit-
ly argued and documented for the SHPO. Only when opinions
are documented is the SHPO able to have a high level of
confidence that the project will have no effect on historic
or archaeological sites.
8.37 ^[f a Site is; Found
Should archaeological or historic sites be encountered in a
survey of the area, it is the responsibility of the consult-
ing archaeologist to advise the SHPO on the nature, extent
and significance of those sites, and to recommend inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places.
Because the finding of sites is often unexpected, these
decisions may not be able to be arrived at within the fram-
work of the original contract to assist on environmental
assessment. In this case, the archaeologist may have to
recommend further work in order to research adequately the
site or sites in question. In such a situation the archae-
ologist will make specific recommendations detailing the
time and expense of further study.
'Significance' is the key word when considering responsibil-
ity to an archaeological site. Not all sites are considered
significant.
If a site is determined by the SHPO to be significant, there
are several means, other than excavating the site, by which
the engineer can fulfill his responsibility to the laws.
Preservation of a site in place is currently considered the
best way to respect the information about the past that the
site contains. Sites can also be selectively sampled,
rather than fully excavated. They can be avoided if time
and costs allow the engineer to alter his plans. However,
these decisions usually come further down the road than the
assessment process, and are given here only as suggestions.
8.38 Costs
Archaeology is included in the Environmental Assessment for
the very specific purpose of making the grant applicant and
the professional engineer aware of their responsibilities to
the historic preservation process. As a result of the
investigation necessary for the Environmental Assessment,
they can plan to incorporate archaeological considerations
into the normal work flow of the project.
For the assessment what is needed is a calculation of the
likelihood of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites
June 1978 8:14
-------
within the project area. This judgment has to be informed:
otherwise the SHPO will request more information and a
decision on whether or not to do a full-scale archaeological
survey will be delayed.
In order to minimize delays and cost escalation, it is
advisable to have the SHPO or a professional archaeologist
analyse the project area for the Environmental Assessment.
This analysis will show whether there are known sites in the
project area, and whether buried sites are likely to be
encounterd. For the average Environmental Assessment the
costs to engage a professional archaeologist will be in the
range of $600 to $800.
If sites are known, or judged likely to be buried, full-scale
survey should be begun so that the problem can be resolved
before, or concurrent with, the Step 2 application.
8.4 TINKERSVILLE; ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
During background research for the Environmental Assessment,
two archaeological sites were located.
Site 1 is a large village of the Woodland Period, located on
well-drained land sloping south to Lake Olga. This site has
been on the State site records since the 1940's. Collections
of artifacts from the site can be seen in the Tinkersville
Public Library. The SHPO has determined that this site is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Site 2 was located as a result of conversation with Mr.
Homer Boone, a member of the Tinkersville Historical Society.
Mr. Boone and others collected arrowheads from Site 2 over a
thirty-year period from the 1940's to the 1970's. Mr.
Boone's collection is housed in boxes in the basement of his
residence. Site 2 is located in the interceptor right-of-way
on the east side of Muddy Brook, approximately 2000 feet
north of where the brook drains into Green River.
Inspection of the artifacts in Mr. Boone's collection revealed
56 Neville type projectile points and 22 fish vertebrae,
probably of shad, and one burned turtle vertebra.
Walkover survey of the site was conducted in April of 1978,
with Mr. Boone and the project engineer accompanying the
archaeologist.
It was found that the Northeast Sand and Gravel Company had
removed earth in the area of the site.
June 1978 8:15
-------
Seven test pits dug north and south of the excavated area at
twenty-foot intervals failed to disclose any charcoal,
artifacts of faunal remains. For that reason, in consulta-
tion with the SHPO, it was decided that archaeological Site
2 did not exist in sufficient integrity to be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The site, datable to the Middle Archaic period, 6000-3000
B.C., by the presence of the Neville points, was described
for the State records and entered on the SHPO's site record
maps.
A memorandum of agreement was written with the SHPO stating
that the site had been destroyed by earth-moving machinery,
and the sewage project was judged not to have any impact
upon the site.
June 1978 8:16
-------
8.5 APPENDIX
8.51 EPA Region 1 - Historic Commission Officers
David Poirier, National Register Specialist-Archaeologist
CONNECTICUT HISTORICAL COMMISSION
59 South Prospect Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
203-566-3005
Dr. Gary Hume
NEW HAMPSHIRE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
State House
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
603-271-1110
Earle Shettleworth, Jr., SHPO and Director,
MAINE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
242 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333
207-289-2133
Valerie Talmage, Staff Archaeologist
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
294 Washington Street 5th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts
617-727-8470
John A. Senulis, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Gail Brown, Historic Preservation Planner
RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION
150 Benefit Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
401-277-2678
William B. Pinney, SHPO and Director,
Eric Gilbertson, Assistant Director,
Giovanna Neudorfer, State Archaeologist
DIVISION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
802-828-3226
June 1978 8:17
-------
environmental
assessment
manual
air quality
-------
CHAPTER 9 - AIR QUALITY
Prepared by: Walden Division of Abcor, Inc. 9:1
-------
9.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents guidance on methodology and tech-
niques for conducting an environmental assessment of air
quality impact from wastewater facilities. The material
presented considers both primary and secondary impacts
which can arise.
Supporting information supplied with this chapter includes
a bibliography of references, and an appendix of air
quality standard attainment/non-attainment maps for New
England. A separate instruction manual for the secondary
impact model will be supplied at the Workshops.
9.1 PRIMARY IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY
With the implementation of EPA's final regulations for the
"Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements" [1], a
new and different outline for the preparation of environ-
mental assessments is now required. A guideline for
satisfying these requirements relative to municipal waste-
water treatment facilities has been prepared by EPA Region
1 [2]. The following sections provide information on
available techniques and methodologies for conducting the
required analyses relative to air quality impact.
9.11 Applicable EPA Regulations
9.111 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
In April 1971, EPA issued the first National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur oxides, carbon mono-
xide, particulates, photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons,
and nitrogen oxides [3]. These standards are shown in
Table 9-1 and represent minimums for all states to adopt.
Primary standards are designed to protect the public
health while secondary standards are set to protect the
public welfare. These have been augmented recently with a
preliminary national ambient air quality standard for lead
which may be finalized by mid-1978.
9.112 Attainment and Maintenance of NAAQS
Under the Federal mandate [4], the EPA Region I Adminis-
trator formally designated on July 1, 1976 portions of New
England as non-attainment for certain air quality standards
and called for the states to undertake studies to determine
the causes of the violations and to adopt the necessary
programs, including revisions to State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) needed to ensure attainment of standards.
The "attainment and non-attainment" concepts are illus-
trated on Figure 9-1. The areas so designated are shown
June 1978 9:2
-------
TABLE 9-1
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide
Participate
Matter
Carbon
Monoxide
Photo-
chemical
Oxtdants
(corrected for
N02 S S02)
'Hydrocarbons
(corrected for
Methane)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Averaging
Time
Annual
Arithmetic Mean
24 hours
3 hours
Annual Geometric
Mean
24 hours
8 hours
1 hour
1 hour
3 hours
Annual
Arithmetic Mean
Primary6
Standards
80 ug/m3
(0.03ppm)
365 ug/m3
(O.I4ppm)
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m'
lONg/m3
(Sppro)
40mg/nr
(35ppm)
160 ug/m
(O.OSppm)
160 ug/m3
(0.24ppm)
100 ug/m3
(0.05 ppm)
Secondary6
Standards
1300 ug/m3
(0.5 ppm)
60 ug/m3
ISO ug/m3
Same as
Primary
Standards
Same as
Primary
Standard
e
Same as
Primary
Standard
Same as
Primary
Standard
Reference*1
Methods
Pararosanl line
Method
High
Volume
Sampl Ing
Method
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Spectroscopy
Gas Phase
Cheml lumi-
nescent
Method
Flame lonlzatlon
Detection Using
Gas Chromatography
Gas Phase
Chem 1 1 um 1 nesence
a. National standards other than those based on annual arithmetic means or annual geometric
means are not to be exceeded more than once per year.
b. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin
of safety, to protect the public health.
c. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
d. Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" means any method of
sampling and analysis which can be demonstrated to the EPA to have a "consistent relationship
to the reference method".
e. Guideline to be used assessing Implementation plans.
June 1978
9:3
-------
in Appendix A. Under the provisions of the 1977 amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act, these revisions must be for-
warded to EPA by January, 1979.
9.113 Prevention of Significant Deterioration
SIP provisions for prevention of significant deterioration
enable states to protect the air quality of areas cleaner
than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [5]. The
mechanism to prevent significant deterioration is precon-
struction review. The criteria for approval of a source
is based on an allowable emissions increment rather than
an ambient air quality standard. The allowable increments
differ depending upon which of three classes an area is
designated as shown in Table 9-2.
9.114 New Source Performance Standards
National air pollution standards for discharges from
municipal sludge incinerators have been promulgated [6]
which limit emissions of particulates (including visible
emissions) from incinerators used to burn wastewater
sludge as follows:
— No more than 0.65 g/kg dry sludge input (1.30
Ib/ton dry sludge input),
— Less than 20 percent opacity.
Visible emissions caused solely by the presence of
uncombined water are not subject to the opacity standard.
9.11 Hazardous Materials
National emission standards have been promulgated [7,8]
which limit the emissions of certain hazardous materials
from incinerators used to burn wastewater sludge as
follows:
— No more than 10 g of beryllium over a 24-hour
period, or an ambient concentration limit of 0.01
ug/m3, averaged over a 30-day period.
— No more than 3200 g of mercury over a 24-hour
period.
June 1978 9:4
-------
- ATTAINM^MT
ATTAINMENT
Alg «UAL.ITV
N0N- ATTAIN MfirNT
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
TABLE 9-2
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION INCREMENTS
Maximum Allowable Increase (yg/m3)
Class
Pollutant I II in
Particulate Matter:
Annual Geometric Mean
Twenty-Four-Hour Maximum
Sulfur Dioxide:
Annual Arithmetic Mean
Twenty-Four-Hour Maximum
Three-Hour Maximum
5
10
2
5
25
19
37
20
91
512
37
75
40
182
700
June 1978 9:5
-------
9.12 Air Pollutant Emissions From Sewage Sludge Incineration
9.121 General Characteristics
Incineration is becoming an important means of disposal
for the increasing amounts of sludge being produced in
sewage treatment plants. Incineration has the advantages
of both destroying the organic matter present in sludge,
leaving only an odorless, sterile ash, as well as reducing
the solid mass by about 90 percent. Sludge incineration
systems usually include a sludge pretreatment stage to
thicken and dewater the incoming sludge, an incinerator,
and some type of air pollution control equipment (commonly
wet scrubbers).
The most prevalent types of incinerators are multiple
hearth and fluidized bed units. In multiple hearth units
the sludge enters the top of the furnace where it is first
dried by contact with the hot, rising, combustion gases,
and then burned as it moves slowly down through the lower
hearths. At the bottom hearth any residual ash is then
removed. In fluidized bed reactors, the combustion takes
place in a hot, suspended bed of sand with much of the ash
residue being swept out with the flue gas. Temperatures
in a multiple hearth furnace are 600°F (320°C) in the
lower, ash cooling hearth; 1400 to 2000°F (760 to 1100°C)
in the central combustion hearth, and 1000 to 1200°F (540
to 650°C) in the upper, drying hearths. Temperatures in a
fluidized bed reactor are fairly uniform, from 1250 to
1500°F (680 to 820°C). In both types of furnace an auxil-
iary fuel may be required either during startup or when
the moisture content of the sludge is too high to support
combustion.
Incineration of sludge presents an inherent potential for
air pollution and an impact on the environment. However,
an EPA task force on sludge incineration [9] concluded
that properly designed systems can produce acceptable
emissions of particulate matter, sulfur oxides and odors.
This group also found that small but measurable qualities
of specific metals which are known to be toxic at certain
levels are present in stack emissions as well as specific
organic chemical compounds which are known to accumulate
in the human system. Thus it is essential that the poten-
tial for the impact on air quality from these systems be
examined as part of the environmental assessment process.
9.122 Particulate and Gaseous Emissions
Because of the violent upwards movement of combustion
gases with respect to the burning sludge, particulates are
June 1978 9:6
-------
the major emissions problem in both multiple hearth and
fluidized bed incinerators. The quantity and size of
particulate leaving the furnace of an incinerator varies
widely depending on such factors as the sludge being
fired, operating procedures and completeness of combus-
tion. To satisfy particulate emission standards, sludge
incinerators in the U.S. are equipped with scrubbers of
varying efficiency ranging from 95 to 99+ percent.
Gaseous pollutants which could be released by sludge
incineration are hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, oxides
of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is no
threat if the incinerator is properly designed and oper-
ated. Hydrogen chloride would be generated by decomposi-
tion of certain plastics if they are present. Considera-
tion of the possibility of S0? and NO pollution is aided
by examination of the sulfur and nitrogen content of
sludges. Unterberg, et al [10] give the following average
analyses of four sludges:
% Ash 22.6
% C 50.3
% H 5.7
% S 0.67
% N 3.07
Sulfur content is relatively low; in addition, much of
this sulfur is probably in the form of sulfate, which
originated in the wastewater. Sulfur dioxide is not
emitted in significant amounts and generally not is ex-
pected to be a serious problem.
The temperature in sludge incineration is typically less
than 1800°F. At these temperatures, formation of oxides
of nitrogen from the nitrogen in the air is low. However,
sludge typically has a high nitrogen content, probably
from proteinaceous compounds and ammonium ion. Data are
not available for predicting whether a high proportion of
these materials will be converted to oxides of nitrogen on
combustion. Farrell [11] has examined limited data avail-
able and noted that concentration of oxides of nitrogen
from sludge incineration were less than 100 ppm. Consider-
ing this low concentration, he concluded that the produc-
tion of oxides of nitrogen will probably not limit the use
of incineration for disposing of sludge.
Average emission factors for sludge incinerators published
by the EPA are shown below [12] and appear in schematic
form on Figure 9-2:
June 1978 9:7
-------
Emissions*
Uncontrolled**
After scrubber
Pollutant
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Ib/ton
kg/MT
Particulate [13-15]
Sulfur dioxide [15]
Carbon monoxide [13,15]
Nitrogen oxides [15]
(as N02)
HydrocarBons [15]
Hydrogen chloride gas [15]
100
1
Neg
6
1.5
1.5
50
0.5
Neg
3
0.75
0.75
3
0.8
Neg
5
1
0.3
1.5
0.4
Neg
2.5
0.5
0.15
9.123 Emission of Metals
Metals in sludge which have been found and which could be
very toxic include lead, cadmium, beryllium, arsenic,
mercury, vanadium, nickel, manganese, and chromium.
Unfortunately, very little information is on hand with
respect to amounts of metals being discharged into the
atmosphere as a result of incinerating sludge. Cross,
Drago, and Francis [16] reported the following mass emis-
sion rates of 7 metals per ton of mixed sludge plus refuse
burned:
EMISSION RATE: GRAMS/TON OF MATERIAL INCINERATED
Incinerator
Loading
Condition
Total
Particu-
lates Cu Ni Zn Fe Pb Cr Cd
Refuse Wt.Ratio 3282 g/ton 25.9 2.2 81.7 34.0 43.6 4.1 0.26
and 3.5 to 1
Sludge 100.0 0.79 0.061 2.5 1.0 1.3 0.12 0.008
The data show that, although the particulate loading is
low relative to the charge, metals probably originating
from industrial waste or sludge are present in noticeable
quantities in the particulates. The date do not permit a
reliable estimate to be made of the contribution of the
sludge to the metal found in the particules.
* Unit weights in terms of dried sludge.
** Estimated from emission factors after scrubbers.
June 1978
9:8
-------
assessment
manual
environmental
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
Mercury is an example of a substance which presents spe-
cial problems during incineration. High temperatures
during incineration decompose mercury compounds to vola-
tile mercuric oxide or metallic mercury. Fortunately, the
quantity of mercury involved is small (^0.01 mg/g).
The forms in which metals are found in sludge will influence
their behavior on incineration. For example, if cadmium
is present in sludge in solution as cadmium chloride, it
would volatilize upon incineration. If it is present as a
precipitated hydroxide, it would probably decompose to the
oxide, but would not volatilize at the temperatures of
incineration. The chemistry of the metals in sludge needs
investigation. However, it is felt that most of the toxic
metals with the exception of mercury will not dispropor-
tionately appear in stack gases because of volatilization,
but will be converted to oxides and appear in the particu-
lates removed by scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators
and in the ash.
9.124 Other Toxic Substances
Atmospheric emission of other toxic substances can arise
due to the content of pesticides or other organic compounds
in the sludge. Unfortunately, very limited data are
available on the concentrations of these materials in
municipal sludges or their fate in an incinerator. Data
reported by the Sludge Incinerator Task Force [9] showed
pesticides and PCB's in the raw sludge (in low concentra-
tions) but not on the ash nor in the inlet or outlet
scrubber water.
Since these materials do not appear in the ash or scrubber
water, they are either destroyed by the incineration or
remain as vapors in the waterscrubber (and cooled) gas
stream. Rapid thermal degradation of most pesticides has
been shown to begin at approximately 500°C with near total
destruction at 900°C. PCB's are more thermally stable,
but experiments have shown that 99 percent destruction is
possible at 1,600 to 1,800°F in 2.0 seconds.
9.125 Odors
Odors can be a problem in multiple hearth systems as
unburned volatiles are given off in the upper, drying
hearths, but are readily removed when afterburners are
employed. Odors are not generally a problem in fluidized
bed units as temperatures are uniformly high enough to
provide complete oxidation of the volatile compounds.
Odors can also emanate from the pretreatment stages unless
the operations are properly enclosed.
June 1978 9:9
-------
9.13 Air Quality Modeling
Air quality models provide a convenient method for arriv-
ing at judgements on the impact of new emission sources
relative to air quality levels and their potential for
contribution to violations of NAAQS. However, the diver-
sity of the region's topography and climate, and variation
in source configurations and operating characteristics
dictate against a routine "cookbook" analysis. There is
no single model capable of properly addressing all con-
ceivable situations. Any modeling effort should be
directed by highly competent individuals with a broad
range of experience and knowledge in air pollution meteor-
ology and coordinated closely with specialists in emis-
sions characteristics and data processing. The judgement
of well-trained professional analysts is essential. This
section does not constitute a substitute for such profes-
sional judgement but presents relevant guidelines for air
quality modeling analysis. Much of the information pre-
sented in this section has been extracted from the recent
EPA Intermin Guidelines on Air Quality Models [17], which
should be consulted for more complete guidance. An over-
view of the factors and steps which should be considered
to applying an air quality analysis is shown in Figure
9-3.
9.131 Requirements for Concentration Estimates
An air quality impact analysis should determine if the
source will (1) cause or exacerbate violations of a NAAQS
or (2) cause air quality deterioration which is greater
than allowable increments. The requirements for those
assessments are summarized below.
A. Meeting Air Quality Standards
The determination of whether or not the source will cause
an air quality violation should be based on (1) the highest
estimated concentration for annual averages and (2) the
highest, second-highest estimated concentration for aver-
aging times of 24-hours or less. The most restrictive
standard should be used in all cases to establish the
potential for an air quality violation. Background con-
centrations from other emission sources in the area should
be added in assessing the source's impact. The two excep-
tions to the shorter-term averaging times may apply which
preclude use of these modeling estimates viz., monitored
data with higher concentrations and inadequacies in data
bases or model.
In some cases the new source may be (1) located in a
nonattainment area or (2) may be in an attainment area but
June 1978 9:10
-------
^—
xMsJALV5l6»
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
is expected to exacerbate air quality violations known to
occur in a nearby nonattainment area. In such situations,
the expected incremental increase in pollutant concentra-
tions should be estimated for meteorological conditions
which accompany the existing violations. For all aver-
aging times, the highest estimated concentration incre-
ments are used. The second highest is not used in the
case of short-term concentrations since the incremental
increase is added to a concentration which is already
based on the highest, second-highest value.
B. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Air quality models should be used in all significant
deterioration evaluations. Allowable increments for
sulfur dioxide and particulate matter are set forth in the
Clean Air Act Amendment of 1977 (See Table 9-2). These
maximum allowable increases in pollutant concentrations
may be exceeded once per year, except for the annual
increment. Thus, in significant deterioration evaluations
for short-term periods the highest, second-highest increase
in estimated concentrations should be less than or equal
to the permitted increment.*
9.132 Criteria for Significant Impact
A new major source of sulfur dioxide (SO_), particulate
matter (PM), or nitrogen oxides (NO **) located in an
attainment area may cause or exacerbate a known existing
air quality violation in a nearby nonattainment area. In
this case it is necessary to determine if the air quality
impact of the source is significant. The incremental in-
crease in concentration at the location of a violation may
be considered significant if it is greater than the fol-
lowing concentrations:
* Where an exemption to the Class I increments is requested and
approved pursuant to Section 165(d) (2) (D) of the Clean Air
Act, the source may cause the Class I increments to be exceeded
on a total of 18 days during any annual period. In this case
it is necessary to select the highest estimated concentration
in the field of receptors for each of the 365 days. These 365
values are then ranked and the 19th highest is used to determine
emission limits. However, the highest, second-highest concen-
tration may not exceed a somewhat higher increment specified in
Section 165 (d) (2) (D) (iii).
**For simplicity, all emissions of nitrogen oxides are treated as
if they are nitrogen dioxide (N02).
June 1978 9:11
-------
Averaging Time
Pollutant Annual 24-Hour 3-Hour
SO 1 u g/nu 5 pg/nu 25 u g/m3
PM lp g/m:: 5 ug/rn
N02 1 p g/m
These incremental concentrations of S02/ PM and N0? are
partially based on allowable SO,, increments for Class I
areas. However, the annual concentration increment is
reduced to 1 y g/m since this value may be considered
significant for a point source in an area which exceeds
the NAAQS. All of these increments apply to the highest
estimated concentration for all averaging times. The
second highest is not used since the incremental increase
in concentration is added to a concentration which is
already based on the highest, second-highest concentration.
9.133 Selection of an Air Quality Model
The extent to which a specific air quality model is suit-
able for the evaluation of source impact depends upon
several factors. These include (1) the detail and accuracy
of the data base, i.e., emission inventory, meteorological
data, air quality data; (2) the meteorological and topo-
graphic complexities of the area; (3) the technical com-
petence of those undertaking such simulation modeling; and
(4) the resources available. These factors should be
considered in determining the suitability of a particular
model application.
The data base required for air quality models includes
source data, meteorological data and air quality data.
Appropriate data should be available before any attempt is
made to apply a model. A model applied improperly or with
inappropriately chosen data can lead to serious misjudge-
ments regarding the source impact. A model which requires
detailed, precise input data should not be applied when
such data are unavailable. However, assuming the data are
adequate, the greater the detail with which a model con-
siders the spatial and temporal variations in emissions
and meteorological conditions, the greater the ability to
evaluate the source impact and to distinguish the effects
of various control strategies.
Most air quality models that describe atmospheric trans-
port and dispersion apply to areas with relatively simple
topography. However, areas subject to major topographic
or marine influence experience meteorological complexities
June 1978 9:12
-------
that are extremely difficult to simulate. In the absence
of a model capable of simulating such complexities, only a
preliminary approximation may be feasible until such time
that better models and data bases become available.
Air quality models can be categorized into four generic
classes: Gaussian, numerical, statistical or empirical,
and physical. Gaussian models are generally considered to
be state-of-the-art techniques for estimating the impact
of nonreactive pollutants. Numerical models are more
appropriate than Gaussian models for multi-source applica-
tions which involve reactive pollutants. However, they
frequently require more extensive resources and are not as
widely applied. Statistical or empirical techniques are
frequently employed in situations where incomplete scien-
tific understanding of the physical and chemical processes
make the use of a Gaussian or numerical model impractical.
Physical modeling, the fourth generic type, involves the
use of wind tunnel or other fluid modeling facilities.
In addition to the various classes of models, two levels
of sophistication may be considered. The first level
consists of general, relatively simple estimation tech-
niques that provide conservative estimates of the air
quality impact of a specific source. The purpose of such
techniques is to eliminate from further consideration
those sources that clearly will not cause or contribute to
ambient concentrations in excess of NAAQS or allowable
concentration increments. The second level consists of
those analytical techniques which provide more detailed
treatment of physical processs, require more detailed and
precise input data, and provide more specialized concen-
tration estimates. As a result they provide a more re-
fined and, at least theoretically, a more accurate estimate
of source impact.
9.134 Preliminary Estimation Techniques
Simple estimation techniques can provide a preliminary
estimate of concentrations for screening of new sources.
If it is found from the screening technique that the
source will cause a concentration that is more than one-
half of an allowable air quality increment, then that
source should be subjected to a more refined analysis.
For flat terrain situations that have no significant
meteorological complexities, there are several standard
publications [18-20] and computerized models [21] that can
be used for screening. In addition Pooler [22] and Carpenter
et al. [23] have discussed simplified techniques for
estimating concentrations during inversion-breakup fumiga-
tion. Volume 10 of the Guidelines for Air Quality Mainte-
nance Planning and Analysis, "Procedures for Evaluating
June 1978 9:13
-------
Air Quality Impact of New Stationary Sources" [24] has
summarized in a format useful for screening, techniques
applicable to both flat terrain and more complex situa-
tions; those techniques are recommended for use.
As an example of these techniques, initial estimates of
maximum ground level concentrations arising from stack
emissions of gaseous or particulate material can be made
with the aid of the nomogram presented in Figure 9-4. The
curves in this diagram are based on the Gaussian plume
model and a number of simplifying assumptions [20].
Figure 9-4 gives the distance to the point of maximum
concentration (x ), and the relative maximum concentra-
tion (x p/Q) asa function of the effective height of
emissionnaaSid atmospheric stability. The maximum concen-
tration can be determined by multiplying (xraax n/Q) by tne
emission rate (Q) and dividing by the winfl ^peed (u).
In the application of this nomogram, two parameters must
be determined, vis., effective height of emission and
atmospheric stability. Stability categories (in six
classes) are defined below in Table 9-3 with Class A as
the most unstable and Class F the most stable.
TABLE 9-3
KEY TO STABILITY CATEGORIES
DayNight
Surface Wind Incoming SolarThinly Overcast
Radiation or & 3/8
Strong Moderate Slight ^4/8 Low Cloud Cloud
< 2
2-3
3-5
5-6
> 6
A
A-B
B
C
C
A-B
B
B-C
C-D
D
B
C
C
D
D
E
D
D
D
F
E
D
D
The neutral class, D, should be assumed for overcast con-
ditions during day or night.
Strong insolation (radiation received from the sun) corres-
ponds to a solar altitude (above the horizon) greater than
60° with clear skies, and slight isolation corresponds to
a solar altitude from 15° to 35° with clear skies.
Cloudiness will generally decrease insolation and should
be considered along with solar altitude in determining
insolation. Insolation that would be strong with clear
skies might be expected to be reduced to moderate with
broken middle clouds and to slight with broken low clouds.
Night refers to the period from one hour before sunset to
one hour after sunrise. The neutral category, D, should
be assumed for overcast conditions during day or night.
June 1978 9:14
-------
100
MAXIMUM (NORMALIZED) GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATION (XU/Q) MAX (m )
Distance of maximum concentration and maximum xu/Q as a function of stability (curves)
and effective height (meters) of emission (numbers). Figure 9-4
-------
Effective height of emission is the altitude at which the
stack plume becomes level. Rarely will this height cor-
respond to the physical height of the stack since the
plume generally experiences additional rise due to the
velocity of the emission and stack gas temperatures higher
than the ambient. A number of procedures are available
for estimating this plume rise and are described by Turner
[20].
9.135 Detailed Models
The models specified in the following subsections are also
applicable to other pollutants, provided these pollutants
can be assumed to behave as a gas. Included in this is
modeling for the metals from incinerator emissions.
A. Point Source Model for Sulfur Dioxide and Particulate
Matter (All Averaging Times)
In those cases where a more refined analysis is required
and there are no significant meteorological or terrain
complexities, the Single Source (CRSTER) Model [25] is
recommended for use. If meteorological or terrain com-
plexities cause substantial uncertainties, then a model
that is more detailed or more suitable than the Single
Source (CSTER) Model should be applied. No refined,
widely available models applicable to complex situations
are identified. It is recommended that each complex
situation be treated on a case-by-case basis with the
assistance of expert advice.
If the data bases required to apply the Single Source
(CRSTER) Model are unavailable, or if other refined models
applicable to a complex situation do not exist, then it
may be necessary to base estimates of source impact on
only the estimates provided by the screening techniques.
In such cases, an attempt should be made to acquire or
improve the necessary data bases and to develop appropri-
ate analytical techniques.
B. Multi-Source Models for Sulfur Dioxide and Particu-
late Matter (Annual Average)
Due to the complexity of most multi-source situations and
the wide acceptability of several models, a screening
process is not generally conducted.
The Climatological Dispersion Model (COM) [26,27], the Air
Quality Display Model (AQDM) [28] and the Texas Climatologi-
cal Model (TCM) [29] are recommended for evaluating the
long-term impact of incinerators within an urban multi-
source complex. In regions with major meteorological or
topographic complexities, more detailed or suitable models
June 1978 9:15
-------
may be used. If the meteorological or topographic complex-
ities are such that the use of any available air quality
model is precluded, an attempt should be made to acquire
or improve the necessary data bases and to develop appro-
priate analytical techniques.
C. Multi-Source Models for Sulfur Dioxide and Particu-
late Matter (Short-Term Averages)
The Real-Time Air Quality Simulation Model (RAM) [30] is
recommended for evaluating the impact of incinerators
within a multi-source complex on air quality averaged over
short-term periods. It is applicable to both urban and
rural situations. The Texas Episodic Model (TEM) [31] may
be used if the data bases required to apply RAM are unavail-
able, the COM, AQDM, or TCM may be used to estimate short-
term concentrations of S02 and particulate matter.
In areas with major meteorological or topographic complexi-
ties, more detailed or suitable models may be required.
D. Models for Nitrogen Dioxide
The recommendations for point source screening techniques
and models are also applicable to evaluate point sources
of nitrogen oxides (NO ) under limited circumstances.
Specific refined modeling techniques are not recommended
here. Situations that require more refined techniques
should be considered on a case-by-case basis with the use
of expert consultation.
E. Special Situations
The administration of the national prevention of signifi-
cant deterioration policy may require that the air quality
impact of a source be estimated for great distances down-
wind. Models with a wide applicability are not generally
available for dealing with long-range transport, deposi-
tion, and unique topographic or meteorological circum-
stances, e.g., complex terrain, aerodynamic downwash.
Special guidance may be required in these situations.
9.136 Data Requirements
It is essential that appropriate source and meteorological
data be used with any recommended model. Such data, and
related procedures for estimating these data, constitute
an integral part of the model. It is often overlooked
that few of the variables input to a model are directly
measured or routinely available. Submodels must appro-
priately convert the available source and meteorological
data to a form that the air quality model can accept. It
is also important that a variety of charge/emissions
June 1978 9:16
-------
conditions, and that a wide range of meteorological condi-
tions based on several years of data, be considered in
determining source impact for new source reviews, includ-
ing prevention of significant deterioration. In addition,
there is a need to judiciously choose receptor sites and
to specify background air quality.
A. Emission Source Data
The following are minimum emission source data require-
ments for new source review. Design process rate condi-
tions must be considered in determining pollutant emissions.
Other operating conditions that may result in high pollu-
tant concentrations should also be identified. A range of
operating conditions, emission rates, and physical plant
characteristics based on the most recently available data,
should be used with the multiple years of meteorological
data to estimate the source impact.
For new source reviews, the impact of growth in emissions
from other sources should only be considered for the
period prior to the start-up date for the facility. Such
changes in emissions should consider increased area source
emissions, changes in existing point source emissions
which would not be subject to preconstruction review, and
emissions due to sources with permits to construct.
B. Meteorological Data
For a dispersion model to provide useful and valid results,
the meteorological data used in the model must be represen-
tative of the transport and dispersion conditions in the
vicinity of the plant that the model is attempting to
simulate. The meteorological data required as a minimum
to describe transport and dispersion in the atmosphere are
wind direction, wind speed, atmospheric stability, mixing
height or related indicators of atmospheric turbulence and
mixing. Site-specific data are preferable to data collected
off-site.
It is preferable for the meteorological data base used
with the air quality models to include several years of
data. Such a multi-year data base allows the consideration
of variations in meteorological conditions that occur from
year to year. Where representative meteorological observa-
tions are not available, the concentration estimates may
be limited to consideration of worst case conditions. Due
to the uncertainties of this approach, the use of the
highest estimated concentration (as opposed to the highest,
second-highest concentration) to determine source impact
may be justified until such time that a better data base
becomes available.
June 1978 9:17
-------
C. Receptor Sites
A receptor site is a location for which an air pollution
concentration is estimated. The choice of locations for
receptor sites significantly affects the evaluation of
source impact. It is most important to identify the
location where the maximum concentrations occur, both
short- and long-term. The receptor grid must allow suffi-
cient spatial detail and resolution so that the location
of the maximum or highest, second-highest concentration is
identified.
D. Background Air Quality
To adequately assess the significance of the air quality
impact of a source, background concentrations must be
considered. Background air quality relevant to a given
source includes those pollutant concentrations due to
natural sources and distant, unidentified man-made sources,
For example, it is commonly assumed that the annual mean
background concentration of particulate matter is 30-40
g/m over much of the Eastern United States [32]. Typi-
cally, air quality data are used to establish background
concentrations in the vicinity of the source under consid-
eration. However, where the source is not isolated, it
may be necessary to use a multi-source model to establish
the impact of all other nearby sources during dispersion
conditions conducive to high concentration.
9.137 Case Study
Figure 9-5 presents a sample dispersion calculation for a
prototypical sludge incinerator. The methodologies for
completing the steps in solving the equation will be
discussed at the workshop. The sample is presented here
as an illustration of how the preceding factors can be
integrated into a formula for determining maximum ambient
concentrations of particulates downwind from an emission
source.
9.2 SECONDARY IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY
9.21 Statutory Requirements
Evolving EPA policy and certain statutory requirements
provide impetus for preparing land use and environmental
analyses for infrastructure investments. In fact, CEQ
guidelines for preparing environmental impact statements,
which EPA must follow in funding wastewater treatment
facilities, recognizes that secondary impacts are often
more substantial than the primary effects of the original
action and state that they should be analyzed [33]. For
June 1978 9:18
-------
.
\O
WIKIP
10
PLUMB
,-4
6?
H
MAXIMUM
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
example, EPA requirements to analyze secondary development
impacts are found in [34-48]. Most recently, the 1977
amendments to the Clean Air Act specifically mandate this
requirement in Section 316 relative to sewage treatment
grants. Specifically, in the case of construction of a
treatment plant in an area, the quantification of emis-
sions from this facility "...shall include the emissions
of any such pollutant resulting directly or indirectly
from areawide and nonmajor stationary source growth (mobile
and stationary) for each such area". Consequently, the
effects of secondary growth on air quality is a require-
ment of the environmental impact assessment.
9.22 Methodology
Land use patterns and their attendant activities have a
significant impact upon the type and amount of air pollu-
tion generated in a region. To the extent that land use
can be associated with the discharge of pollutants, it is
necessary to plan future land use and transportation that
is compatible with acceptable levels of air quality.
Comprehensive planning has in the past been relatively
insensitive to air quality considerations. New air quality
management procedures require that the planning community
generate and use analytical tools to incorporate air
quality constraints into the planning process. At the
present time, several agencies, including EPA and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), are
developing procedures to reflect this expanded concept.
A recent review of the state-of-the-art in models relating
land use planning to air quality considerations examined
studies such as the Hackensack Meadowlands Air Pollution
Study [39] and concluded that existing techniques are
limited in application by the area-specific data base on
which they are developed and their inability to disaggre-
gate projected pollutant emissions by land use category.
Thus, there is a need for a generalized analytical tool
that can (1) predict land use development induced by major
projects by category type, and (2) convert such detailed
land use projections into pollutant emissions for use in
air quality management analyses.
Research has been conducted on the development of method-
ologies for secondary air quality impacts [40,41]. These
approaches have proven to be less than innovative, since
they generally use the design population projection for a
sewage treatment plant as the basis for simple growth
effects assessments. The most recent research currently
being conducted utilizes path analysis techniques as a
method for examining direct and indirect cause and effect
relationships [42]. This work has produced a model which
June 1978 9:19
-------
is complex in the development but simple in the applica-
tion. The structure of this model is shown in Figure 9-6.
The predictive land use equations serve as the first
element of the general secondary impact assessment proce-
dure. These predictions of future land use are translated
into stationary source emissions for all criteria pollu-
tants using land use based emission factors developed
specifically for the nine land use categories in the model
(43). Second, a simple traffic model estimates vehicle
miles traveled, and hence mobile source emissions, gen-
erated by activity associated with each land use category.
These two emission components are then summed to give the
user the total emissions associated with induced develop-
ment within the legal service area of the wastewater major
project.
Secondary impact assessment by means of this model has
been recently formalized into a simple worksheet proce-
dure. Input data required to complete the analysis with
these worksheets is commonly available from the municipal-
ity or local/regional planning agency. A list of these
impacts is presented in Appendix B. Instructions for the
application of the methodology, as well as a sample case
study, are provided in a separate manual to be distributed
at the workshops.
June 1978 9:20
-------
Tula I
air pollutant
impact
Figure 9-6
Overview of Secondary Land Use and
Air Quality Impact Assessment Procedure
-------
9.3 REFERENCES
1. Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 72, April 14, 1975.
2. "Guides to Environmental Planning, Assessments and Impact
Statements for Water Quality Management Plans and Munici-
pal Wastewater Treatment Projects", prepared by U. S. EPA
Region I, Boston, MA, August 1974.
3. Federal Register, Vol. 36, pg. 22384, November 25, 1971,
Federal Register', Vol. 41, pg. 52686, December 1, 1976.
4. Federal Register, Vol. 40, pg. 40048, October 20, 1975;
pg. 41941, September 9, 1975; pg. 15814, June 19, 1975;
pg. 23746, June 2, 1975; pg. 18726, April 29, 1975.
5. Federal Register, Vol. 40, pg. 28064, July 3, 1975.
6. Federal Register, Vol. 42, pg. 41754, August 18, 1977.
7. Federal Register, Vol. 40, pg. 48292, October 14, 1975.
8. Federal Register, Vol. 38, pg. 8826, April 6, 1973.
9. "Sewage Sludge Incineration" EPA Task Force Final Report,
EPA-R2-72-040, March 1972.
10. Unterberg, W., Sherwood, R. J., Schneider, G. R., "Computer
Subroutine for Design and Cost Estimation of Multiple
Hearth Furnace Sewage Sludge Incinerators", Draft Report
FWQA Contract No. 14-12-547 (Dec 1970).
11. Farrell, J. B. to R. B. Bean, Internal EPA memo, "Oxides of
Nitrogen in Stack Gases from Incineration of Sludges",
(Nov. 18, 1970).
12. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors", AP-42,
U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC.
13. Liao, P. "Design Method for Fluidized Bed Sewage Sludge
Incinerators", PhD. Thesis, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington, 1972.
14. Source Test data supplied by the Detroit Metropolitan
Water Department, Detroit, Michigan, 1973; Source test
data from Dorr-Oliver, Inc. Stamford, Connecticut, 1973.
15. Source test data from Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1972.
June 1978 9:21
-------
16. Cross, F. L., Jr., Drago, R. J. and Frances, H. E., "Metal
and Particulate Emissions from Incinerators Burning Sewage
Sludge and Mixed Refuse", Proc. of the 1970 National
Incinerator Conf., ASME, Cincinnati, Ohio (May 1970)
17. "Interim Guideline on Air Quality Models", OAQPS No.
1.2-080, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, October
1977.
18. Slade, D.H., Ed. Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968.
USAEC. Division of Technical Information Extension, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, July 1968.
19. Smith, M. E., Ed. "Recommended Guide for the Prediction of
the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents". The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, United Engineering Center,
345 East 47th Street, New York, New York, 1973. (Revised).
20. Turner, D.B. "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates."
PHS Publication No. 999-AP-26 (NTIS PB 191482), Environmental
Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, 1969.
21. Environmental Protection Agency. "User's Network for
Applied Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP)". (Computer
Programs on Tape For Point Source Models, HIWAY, Climato-
logical Dispersion Model and APRAC-1A), NTIS PB 229771,
National Technical Information Service Springfield, Vir-
ginia, 1974.
22. Pooler, F., "Potential Dispersion of Plumes from Large
Power Plants". PHS Publication No. 999-AP-16 (NTIS PB
168790). Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C., 1965.
23. Carpenter, S. B.; et al. "Principle Plume Dispersion
Models: TVA Power Plants". J. Air Poll. Control Assn.,
Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 491-495, 1971.
24. Budney, L. J., "Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality
Impact of New Stationary Sources." Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis,VolumeICT
(OAQPS No. 1.2-029R), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, October
1977.
25. Environmental Protection Agency. "User's Manual for Single
Source (CRSTER) Model". Publication No. EPA-450/2-77-013
(NTIS PB 271360) Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
dards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, July
1977.
June 1978 9:22
-------
26. Busse, A. D., and J. R. Zimmerman. "User's Guide for the
Climatological Dispersion Model". Publication No
EPA-RA-73-024 (NTIS PB 227346/AS), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1973.
27. Brubaker, K. L., P. Brown, and R. R. Cirillo. "Addendum
to User's Guide for Climatological Dispersion Model"
Publication No. EPA 450/3-77-015. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, May 1977.
28. TRW Systems Group, "Air Quality Display Model." Prepared
for National Air Pollution Control Administration under
Contract No. PH-22-68-60 (NTIS PB 189194), DREW, U.S.
Public Health Service, Washington, D. C. November 1969.
29. Christiansen, J. H. , and R. A. Porter. "User's Guide to
the Texas Climatological Model." Texas Air Control Board
Austin, Texas, May 1976.
30. Turner, D. B. and J. H. Novak, "User's Guide for RAM",
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park
North Carolina, 1977.
31. Christiansen, J. H., "User's Guide to the Texas Episodic
Model", Texas Air Control Board, Austin, Texas, May 1976.
32. McCormick, R. A. "Air Pollution Climatology", in Air
Pollution, Vol. 1, edited by A. stern, Academic PresTTNew
York, NY, 1968.
33. Council on Environmental Quality, Federal Register, Vol.
38, pg. 20549, August 1, 1973.
34. Federal Register. Vol. 40, Pg. 16814, April 14, 1975.
35• U. S. EPA, Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements,
Final Regulations: 40 CFR6; Federal Register, Vol. 40,
pg. 55334, November 28, 1975.
36. EPA, Policies and Procedures for Continuing Planning
Process.
37. Trader, R. E., Memo on the Consideration of Secondary
Environmental Effects of Construction Grants, EPA, Program
Guidance Memorandum No. 50; Washington, D. C. June 7,
1975.
38. U. S. EPA, Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning
and Analysis, Vol. 4: Land Use and Transportation Consid-
erations, EPA-450/4-74-004, 1974.
June 1978 9:23
-------
39. Goodrich, J., "The Hackensack Meadowlands Air Pollution
Study - Emission Projection Methodology", EPA-450/3-74-056b,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973.
40. "Manual for Evaluating Secondary Impacts of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities," prepared for EPA by Abt Associates,
Washington, D. C. January 1976.
41. "Methodologies for the Analysis of Secondary Air Quality
Impacts of Wastewater Treatment Projects Located on AQMA,"
prepared for EPA Region II, by Booz-Allen and Hamilton, New
York, NY, March 1976.
42. Guldberg, P. H. et al, "Growth Effects of Major Land Use
Projects - Wastewater Facilities," prepared for EPA by
Walden Division of Abcor, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC,
(In preparation.)
43. Benesh, F., "Growth Effects of Major Land Use Projects;
Vol. 2: Compilation of Land Use Based Emission Factors",
EPA-450/3-76-012b, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1976.
June 1978 9:24
-------
APPENDIX A
ATTAINMENT/NON-ATTAINMENT STATUS IN NEW ENGLAND
June 1978 9:25
-------
NEW ENGLAND
AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS
AROOSTOOK
INTRASTATE
•(108)
CHAMPLAIN VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(159)
NORTHWEST MAINE
INTRASTATE
(III)
DOWN EAST
INTRASTATE
U09)
CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTRASTATE
VERMONT
INTRASTATE
ANDROSCOGGIN VALLEY
-i ' INTERSTATE
(.07)
METROPOLITAN PORTLAND
INTRASTATE
(110)
MERRIMACK VALLEY-SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTERSTATE
121)
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
INTRASTATE
(119)
CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS
INTRASTATE
die)
SPRINGFIELD INTERSTATE (42]
BERKSHIRE
INTRASTATE
(117)
NORTHEASTERN
CONNECTICUT
INTRA
(44)
Attainment
METROPOLITAN PROVIDENCE
INTERSTATE
NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CONNECTICUT
INTERSTATE (431
EASTERN CONNECTICUT
INTRASTATE
(40
Attainment/Non-attainment Status
Figure 9-7
-------
o
3
O
<
o
z
<
13
Z
Z
PO
,E
3
UJ
O
cr
UJ
>
<
ID
Z
SULFUR DIOXIDE-ANNUAL AVERAGE MAXIMUM 24 HOURLY LEVELS TRENDS 1974-1976
NEW ENGLAND SITES
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
9 MAX 24 HOUR LEVEL
[ j ANNUAL AVERAGE
'74 '75 '76
CONN.
BRIDGEPORT
'74 '75 '76
MAINE
PORTLAND
2
350
300
250
200
I5°
100
50
x
X
O
O
aj
>
o
Ol
en
'74 '75 '76
MASS.
BOSTON
'74 '75 '76
MASS.
SPRINGFIELD
'74 '75 '76
MASS.
WORCESTER
-------
NEW ENGLAND
AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS
AROOSTOOK
INTRASTATE
•008)
CHAMPLAIN VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(159)
NORTHWEST MAINE
INTRASTATE
(III)
DOWN CAST
INTRASTATE
CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTRASTATE
149)
VERMONT
INTRASTATE
221)
ANOROSCOGGIN VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(107)
METROPOLITAN PORTLAND
INTRASTATE
(110)
MERRIMACK VALLEY-SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTERSTATE
121)
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
INTRASTATE
(118)
CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS
INTRASTATE
(IIB)
NOR
CONNECTICUT
INTRA
(44
. J\RTFOR* NEW HAVEN
SPRINGFIELD INTERSTATE (42)
EASTERN CONNECTICUT
IN1RASTATE
BERKSHIRE
INTRASTATE
(117)
Non-Attainment
Attainment
METROPOLITAN PROVIDENCE
INTERSTATE
NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CONNECTICUT
INTERSTATE (43)
TSP Attainment/Non-attainment Status
Figure 9-9
-------
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES - ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN-TRENDS 1974-1976
120
NEW ENGLAND STATES
100
80
ANNUAL PRIMARY STANDARD TSufl/m3
WORCESTER
U__
BERLIN
1
PROVIDENCE
7
0
K
2=
O
<
60
40
20
MERIDEN
3
HADDAM
2
'74 '75 '76
CONN.
BANGOR
ACADIA
I
'74 '75 '76
MAINE
NEW ENGLAND AVERAGE
1974 • 46.7 ug/m3
1975 -50.3
1976 -50.0
WARREN
I
'74 '75 '76
MASS.
COOS COUNTY
I
'74 '75 '76
N.H.
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
'74 '75 '76
R.I.
STATE AVERAGE FOR YEAR
BURLINGTON
RANDOLPH
CENTER
I
'74 '75 '76
VT.
-------
NEW ENGLAND
AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS
AROOSTOOK
IHTRASTATE
(108 >
CHAMPIAIN VALLEY
INTERSTATE
NORTHWEST MAINE
INTRASTATE
(III)
DOWN CAST
INTRASTATE
dot)
CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTRASTATE
149)
VERMONT
INTRASTATE
ANDROSCOGGIN VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(107)
METROPOLITAN PORTLAND
INTRASTATE
(110)
MERRIMACK VALLEY- SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTERSTATE
121)
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
INTRASTATE
(119)
CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS
INTRASTATE
NORTH WTVERN
CONNECTICUT
INTRA
HAKTFOKO-NEW HAVEN
Sf'RisofitLO INTERSTATE(42)
BERKSHIRE
INTRASTATE
(117)
Non-attainment
Attainment
No data
METROPOLITAN PROVIDENCE
INTERSTATE
<•»)
NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CONNECTICUT
INTERSTATE (43)
EASTERN CONNECTICUT
INTRASTATE
(41)
Ozone Attainrnent/Non-attainment Status
Figure 9-11
-------
OZONE-MAXIMUM LEVEL .VIOLATION FREQUENCY-ONE HOUR STANDARD TRENDS 1974-1976
ua
I
M
NJ
700
600
500
400
300
200
UJ
Ul
X
100
NEW ENGLAND SITES
I HOUR PRIMARY STANDARD I60ug/m3
N.A. N.A.
'74 '75 '76
CONN.
MIDDLETOWN
SITE 3
'74 '75 '76
MAINE
PORTLAND
SITE 2
NO Oj MONITORING IN
MAINE UNTIL 1976
'74 '75 '76
MASS.
WORCESTER
SITE 12
VIOLATION FREQUENCY
MAXIMUM LEVEL
'75 '76
R.I.
PROVIDENCE
SITES SITE II SITE II
350
30O
230
<
o
r>
200
ISO
100
50
'74
'75 '76
VT.
BURLINGTON
SITE 3
PROVIDENCE SITE 3(1974) ONLY 31V. OF YEAR
SITE 11(1973) START UP 3/73
-------
NEW ENGLAND
AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS
AROOSTOOK
INTRASTATE
DOWN EAST
NTRASTATE
,do«)
CHAMPLAIN VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(159)
NORTHWEST MAINE
INTRASTATE
(III)
CENTRAL NCW HAMPSHIRE
INTRASTATE
14ft)
VERMONT
INTRASTATE
221)
ANDROSCOGGIN VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(107)
METROPOLITAN PORTLAND
INTRASTATE
(no)
MERRIMACK VALLEY- SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTERSTATE
121)
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
INTRASTATE
(lit)
CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS
INTRASTATE
(IIS)
NORTHWESTERN
CONNECTICUT
INTRA
(44
NtW HAVEN
SPRINGFIELD INTERSTATE (42)
D
Non-Attainment
Attainment
No data
METROPOLITAN PROVIDENCE
INTERSTATE
(120)
NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK-CONNECTICUT
INTERSTATE (43)
EASTERN CONNECTICUT
INTRASTATE
(41)
CO Attainment/Non-attainment Status
Figure 9-13
-------
28
26
24
22
20
"1
18 ^
14
10
CARBON MONOXIDE-MAXIMUM LEVEL, VIOLATION FREQUENCY-
EIGHT HOUR STANDARD TRENDS 1974-1976
NEW ENGLAND SITES
(VIOLATION FREQUENCY NOT CALCULATED IN 1974)
EIGHT HOUR PRIMARY STANDARD IO mg/m3
• VIOLATION FREQUENCY
[ | MAXIMUM LEVEL
120
o
§
m
O
80
60
\
'74 '75 '76
CONN.
NEW BRITAIN
(CITY HALL)
'74 '75 '76
MAINE
BANGOR
(CENTRAL ST.)
'74 '75 '76
MASS.
BOSTON
(KENMORE SO.)
'74 '75 '76
MASS.
SPRINGFIELD
(E.COLUMBUS AVE.)
'74
'76
'75
N.H.
MANCHESTER
(MERRIMACK ST.)
'74 '75 '76
R.I.
PROVIDENCE
(DORRENCE ST.)
40
20
'74 '75 '76
VT.
BURLINGTON
(S.WINOOSKI AVE.)
-------
NEW ENGLAND
AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS
,(109)
CHAMPLAIN VALLEY
INTERSTATE
AROOSTOOK
INTRASTATE
NORTHWEST MAINE
INTRASTATE
(III)
CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTRASTATE
149)
ANOROSCOGGIN VALLEY
INTERSTATE
(107)
METROPOLITAN PORTLAND
INTRASTATE
(110)
MERRIMACK VALLEY-SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE
INTERSTATE
121)
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
INTRASTATE
(lit)
CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS
INTRASTATE
(118)
NORTH
CONNECTICUT
INTRA"
(44),
... .RTFORO-NEW HAVEN
SPRINGFIELD INTERSTATE (42|
Attainment
Recorded violation
data to be evaluate^
No data
METROPOLITAN PROVIDENCE
INTERSTATE
(120)
NEW
JERSEY -NEW YORK- CONNECTICUT
INTERSTATE (43)
EASTERN CONNECTICUT
INTRASTATE
(40
N0_ Attainment/Non-attainment Status
Figure 9-15
-------
APPENDIX B
INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT MODEL
June 1978 9:26
-------
TABLE 9-B1
INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT MODEL
Variable Name
Description (English Units)
Data Source
Area of Analysis
Vacant Developable
Vacant Undevel-
opabl e
Median Price
Median Income
Collection Capacity
Peak Flow
Manufacturing
Workers
Tract Area
Area of analysis (in acres)
Vacant developable acreage2in area
of analysis for the year t
Vacant undevelopable acreage in
area of analysis for the year t
Median price of vacant
residential land ($/acre) in
area of analysis for the year t
Median income of.families ($) in
county3 for the year t
Total hydraulic design capacity of
wastewater major project collection
system (in million gallons per day)
for the year t (or up to 5 years
later if a phased project)
Anticipated peak flow in the waste-
water major project collection
system (in mgd)1 for the year t
Manufacturing employment (in 100s)
census tracts for the year t
Area of census tracts5 (in square
miles)
Facility Plan or
River Basin
Commission
Planning Agency
Planning Agency
Planning Agency
or Realtor
Census"
Facility Plan
Facility Plan
Census**
Census
'mgd = million gallons per day.
2t 1s the year of major project initiation.
'County containing most of the area of analysis.
"All census data for the year t should be based on the most recent U.S.
Census. If such data is more than 5 years older than year t, it should be
updated using OBERS projections
'Census tracts which most closely approximate the area of analysis.
June 1978
9:27
-------
TABLE 9-B1 (CONTINUED)
INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT MODEL
Variable Name
Description (English Units)
Data Source
Nonmobility
Drivers
County Area
Sewered Land
School Kids
Dwelling Units
Limited Access
Current Employment
Future Employment
SMSA Area
Track
Zoned Office
Zoned Industrial
Population Growth
Office Vacancy
Airport Distance
Percent1 of families in year t who
were in the same house in year (t-5)
Workers who drive to work (in 100s)
for the year t in the county
Area of county (in square miles)
Acres of land within 5,000 ft. of the
major project interceptor sewer in
the area of analysis for the year t
Population 0-14 years of age (in 100s)
in census tracts for the year t
Census tract housing units (in
100s) for the year t
Number of limited access interchanges
expected in the area of analysis for
the year t+5
Total SMSA employment (in 100s) for
the year t
Projected SMSA employment (in 100s)
for the year t+10
Area of SMSA (in square miles)
Miles of railroad tract in area of
analysis for the year t
Acres of land zoned for office use
in area of analysis for the year t
Acres of land zoned for industrial
use in area of analysis for the
year t
Percent1 change in regional popu-
lation projected between years t
and t+10
Percent2 of vacant office buildings
in area of analysis for the year t
Miles from centroid of area of analy-
sis to centroid of nearest commercial
airport for the year t
Census
Census
Planning Agency
Facility Plan
Census
Census
Planning Agency
Census
Planning Agency
Census
USGS Topo-
graphical Map
Planning Agency
Planning Agency
Planning Agency
Planning Agency
or BOMA
USGS Topo-
graphical Map
*A value of 0.10 = 10%
2A value of 10 = 10*
June 1978
9:28
-------
TABLE 9-B1 (CONTINUED)
INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT MODEL
Variable Name
Description (English Units)
Data Source
Office Workers
Future Population
Unemployment
Income
Government
Interceptors
Poverty
Onsite
Restrictions
County Growth
Project Cost
Federal Funds
Index One
Office employment (in 100) in census
tracts for the year t
Projected SMSA population (in 100s)
for the year t+10
Percent1 unemployment in area of
analysis for the year t
Projected median family income in
SMSA for the year t+10
Total county expenditures (in
millions of $) for the year t
Running length of interceptor sewer
lines (in miles) going through rela-
tively undeveloped land2 in area of
analysis for the year t
Percent1 of total families with
Income below the poverty level in
area of analysis for the year t
Categorical variable to indicate the
severity of governmental restrictions
1n on-lot sewage disposal during the
years t to t+10. Coded as follows:
4 = on-lot disposal prohibited
3 = prohibited except on large
lots
2 = permitted but percolation
test required
1 = permitted but package plants
prohibited
0 = no restrictions
Percent1 change in county population
projected for the years t to t+10
Total major project construction
cost (in thousands of $)
Federally funded share of major
project cost (in thousands of $)
Consumer Price Index3 for the
year t
Census
Planning Agency
Census
Planning Agency
Census
Facility Plan
Census
Planning Agency
or Local
Government
Planning Agency
Facility Plan
Facility Plan
U.S. Dept. of
Labor"
1A value of 0.10 = 10%
2Less than one dwelling unit per acre
'1947-49 = 100.0
"Or, Statistical Abstract of the United States
June 1978
9:29
-------
TABLE 9-B1 (CONTINUED)
INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT MODEL
Variable Name
Description (English Units)
Data Source
Index Two
Population Served
Treatment Capacity
Vacant Houses
County Interchanges
Zoned Residential
Current Income
Current Hospitals
Future Hospitals
Current Houses
Future Houses
Restriction Years
Phasing
Consumer Price Index for the year
of federal funding
Population served by the major
project facility for the year t
Total hydraulic design capacity of
the major project wastewater treat-
ment plant (in mgd) for the year t
Percent1 vacant available dwelling
units in area of analysis for the
year t
Number of limited access interchanges
in county for the year t+5
Acres of land zoned for residential
use in area of analysis for the
year t
Median family income ($) in SMSA for
the year t
Hospital employment (in 100s) in SMSA
for the year t
Projected hospital employment (in
100s) 1n SMSA for the year t+10
Total housing units (in 100s) in
SMSA for the year t
Projected housing units (in 100s) in
SMSA for the year t+10
The number of years between year t
and year t+10 that it is expected
that any on-site sewage disposal
restrictions will be in effect
(I.e., a value of 0 to 10)
Categorical variable to indicate
whether the completion of the col-
lection network will be phased over
several years
1 = phasing will occur
0 = no phasing
U. S. Dept. of
Labor
Facility Plan
Facility Plan
Census
Planning Agency
Planning Agency
Census
Census
Planning Agency
Census
Planning Agency
Planning Agency
or Local
Government
Facility Plan
value of 0.10 = 10%
June 1978
9:30
-------
TABLE 9-B1 (CONTINUED)
INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT MODEL
Variable Name Description (English Units) Data Source
Transit Stops Number of transit stops (bus and Planning Agency
commuter rail) in area of analysis
for the year t
CBD Distance Distance (in miles) from centroid of USGS Topo-
area of analysis to centroid of graphical
nearest central business district Map
for the year t
June 1978 9:31
-------
environmental
assessment
manual
noise
-------
CHAPTER 10 - NOISE
Prepared by: Russell & Ivey, Acoustical Consultants 10:1
-------
10.0 INTRODUCTION
This section of the manual gives a general overview of the
community noise problem plus some techniques to use in form-
ing a preliminary and informal environmental noise assessment
of waste water treatment facilities. Purposely, the presen-
tation here has been kept simplified and essentially non-
technical in nature. It was felt that this approach offers
the best possibility of success in terms of providing the
reader with pertinent information and ideas directly appli-
cable to his or her immediate problem.
More detailed discussions of the technical aspects of noise
measurement and control may, of course, be found in textbooks
and technical journals. A particularly useful source, deal-
ing specifically with municipal waste water treatment works,
has recently been published by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (A)*.
10.1 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY NOISE PROBLEMS
This section provides some very general background informa-
tion on the nature of community noise and is intended to be
an aid to the non-expert reader. The material presented is,
of necessity, cursory in nature and the reader interested in
a more detailed presentation should refer to the sources
listed in the REFERENCES section. The "Report to the Presi-
dent and Congress on Noise" (B) and "Community Noise" (C)
are particularly useful as introductory reading.
10.11 Characteristics of Community Noise
Noise is usually defined as "unwanted sound". The word "un-
wanted" suggests that noise is subjective in nature, and that
what is noise to one person may be a pleasant or at least a
not unpleasant sound to another listener. The second part
of the definition implies that noise is basically an acoustic
phenomenon.
Acoustic signals or airborne sounds, are small and rapid fluc-
tuations of air pressure about the mean atmospheric pressure
(29.92 inches Hg, or more appropriately, 105 N/m2.) As acous-
tic signals propagate through the air, they exhibit four general
characteristics:
A. The magnitude of the fluctuation. Subjectively, the mag-
nitude of the pressure fluctuation is perceived as the
loudness of the sound.
* Letters in brackets refer to sources listed in REFERENCES
section.
June 1978 10:2
-------
B. The rate at which the fluctuations take place or the
frequency of the fluctuations. Different frequencies of
oscillation are subjectively perceived as different tonal
qualities or differences in pitch. Rapid frequencies of
oscillation are sensed as high-pitched sounds and the
lower frequencies are sensed as low-pitched sounds.
C. The temporal nature of the fluctuation. Most environmental
noise signals change with time, both in the short term
(minute to minute) and in the long term (hour to hour
and day to day). The manner in which these temporal varia-
tions occur can, to some degree, influence the subjective
annoyance of a given noise signal.
D. The directional nature of the sound as it propogates from
the source to the receiver. Because we have two ears,
we hear stereophonically and have a very acute sense of
directional perception.
Because of their importance in the measurement and assess-
ment of noise levels, it is helpful to consider each of
these general characteristics in somewhat greater detail.
10.111 Magnitude Characteristic
The magnitude characteristic of an acoustic signal is measured
in terms of its decibel (dB) level. The decible scale is
logarithmic rather than linear with O dB corresponding to
the approximate threshold of hearing (2 x 10-5 N/m2). When
an acousitc signal is expressed in decibels, the numerical
dB value is referred to as a sound pressure level or SPL,
the word "level" denoting that the decibel scale is being
used. Because of the logarithmic nature of the dB scale,
SPL values cannot be added in the usual manner. For example,
if chain saw A and chain saw B each produce of SPL of 70 dB
at a given microphone when operating singly, then operating
A and B simultaneously will produce a combined SPL of 73 dB
and not 140 dB as might be expected. Similarly, 10 chain
saws, each of which produced 70 dB when operated individually,
when all are operating together will produce a sound pressure
level of 70 + 10 = 80 dB. And going from 10 to 100 chain
saws would only increase the noise level an additional 10 dB
to -a SPL of 90 dB. This rule for adding sound pressure levels
can be summarized as "increasing the number of identical
contributing sources by a factor of 10 corresponds to raising
the SPL by 10 dB."
In general, when a listener moves away from a source of noise,
the magnitude of the noise level sensed by the listener is
reduced. If the source of noise acts as a "point source,"
for example, a parked truck with its engine idling, the
reduction in noise with distance follows the spherical
spreading law, i.e., a six dB reduction in SPL with each
June 1978 10:3
-------
doubling of the distance (-6 dB/DD). If the noise source
acts as a "line source," a heavy and constant flow of traffic
on a very long and straight roadway, for example, the sound
signal spreads yylindrically and only produces a 3 dB reduction
with each doubling of distance from this "line source" (-3dB/DD)
10.112 Frequency Characteristic
The frequency of a particular sound signal is measured in
cycles per second or Hertz (Hz), with the range of audible
frequencies extending from approximately 30 Hz to about 15,000
Hz. The human ear does not, however, respond equally to sounds
of different frequencies. Hearing is most acute in the mid-
frequency range with considerably less sensitivity at the
lower frequencies. The change in hearing sensitivity with
frequency follows what is called the "A scale" characteristic.
Most of the sounds heard in a typical community do not consist
of a single frequency, but rather they contain a broad band,
or spectrum, of different frequencies. While the detailed
frequency spectrum of a given sound can be measured and the
spectral content can be used to rate the subjective "loudness"
or "annoyance level" of the given sound, this approach is
seldom used in community noise measurements. The method com-
monly used consists of passing the measured microphone output
voltage through an electrical filter which has a frequency
response characteristic identical to that of the A scale
characteristic. The filtered signal is then measured on a
meter calibrated to read in dB and the resultant dB value is
said to be the "A-weighted sound pressure level", or the "SPL
in dBA." The letter "A" in the "dBA" abbreviation indicates
the A scale filtering has been employed in the measurement.
The use of A scale weighting in making community noise measure-
ments has two significant advantages:
1. It is easier and more convenient than measuring the
complete frequency spectrum of a given noise.
2. The A-weighted measurements of different types of
sound show a good correlation with actual human
response to these sounds (D).
To give the reader some indication of what the measured dBA
values mean, Figure 10-1 shows the dBA levels of some typical
indoor and outdoor sounds.
10.113 Temporal Characteristic
While a single dBA measurement can adequately describe a steady
sound at a given instant in time, most community noise levels
are changing with time in a quasi-random, or stochastic manner.
The temporal variation of typical community noise levels is
due to the multiplicity of noise sources contributing to the
June 1978 10:4
-------
Loudness
Scale
Sound
Pressure
Level
8 Vei7
Loud
Loud
Quiet
]/2 Very
1/8 Quiet
SA UBV6U AMP
TYPICAL
90dBA
SOdBA
70dBA
60dBA
SOdBA
30dBA
20dBA
Commuter Jet Takeoff at 2000 ft.
Jackhammer at 50 fK
Diesel Train at 50 ft.
Propeller Aircraft Takeoff at 1000ft.
Diesel Truck at 50 ft.
Phone ring at 5 ft.
Diesel Train at 200 ft.
Diesel Truck at 200 ft.
Automobile at 50 ft.
Typewriter at 5 ft.
Normal Conversation
Automobile at 200 ft.
Crickets
Residential Background Noise, (eves.)
Whisper
environmental assessment manual
region 1 : environmental protection agency
anderson-nichols technical consultant
-------
total noise signal at a particular microphone location. These
typical contributions include traffic, industrial activities,
human activities, wind, birds and other sources. While these
contributors may collectively produce a total sound which is
relatively constant from moment to moment, over a time-frame
of several hours both the natural and the man-made noise
sources can be expected to change their individual noise
outputs. In addition to these slowly changing background
noise levels, there are also many short duration but identi-
fiable events, such as horns honking, aircraft fly-overs,
trains passing, dogs barking and other such phenomena which
contribute to the total noise signal.
Since multiple sources combine in a quasi-random manner, the
total sound signal itself changes with time in a stochastic
manner. To describe the changing SPL it is, therefore, nec-
essary to employ some type of statistical analysis of the
time varying SPL signal. Typically, a sound level meter is
set up at a single microphone location and records the
A-weighted SPL at fixed intervals in time (e.g., every 10
seconds) until a predetermined number of dBA readings are
obtained. These readings are then processed by a data re-
duction program to generate a continuous energy equivalent
or LEQ level. The LEQ represents the dBA level .of a constant
SPL which, over the same time period, carries the same acous-
tical energy as the sampled signal.
To quantatively define the noise climate at a particular lo-
cation within the community, it is convenient to use an obser-
vation period of 24 hours and to compute the LEQ level for
this 24 hour period. This 24 hour statistical indicator is
called the "24 hour LEQ" and denoted as LEQ(24).
Another commonly used community noise indicator is the day-
night equivalent energy level, or LDN. The LDN is identical
to LEQ(24) except that the LDN includes a 10 dB penalty im-
posed on the SPL values during the nighttime hours of 10 PM
to 7 AM.
10.114 Directional Characteristic
The fourth characteristic of propagating acoustic signals is
the. directional nature of the sound as it travels from source
to receiver. Typical directional effects include the reduction
of noise levels due to barriers between the source and the
receiver, excessive echos in hard-walled rooms, and increased
noise levels due to reflecting surfaces (other than the ground)
close to the measuring microphone. Most of these and other
directional effects can be minimized by selecting measurement
locations which are free of nearby reflecting surfaces and
barriers. It is, therefore, not normally necessary to con-
sider these directional effects in measuring community noise
levels.
June 1978 10:5
-------
Directional effects are, however, of extreme importance in the
design and analysis of effective noise reduction barriers.
Barrier walls, berms, and other sound blocking structures
all exhibit a crucial dependence on the geometry of the par-
ticular situation in which they are used. Proper considera-
tion should be given to the limitations of the various
barrier noise attenuation theories (E) and to the possibly
detrimental ground effects (F) before recommending the use
of barriers as noise abatement measures. Waste water treat-
ment plants are particularly difficult to control by means
of barriers, due to the generally large source dimensions,
large source-to-receiver distances, and various source heights
typically involved.
10.12 Community Noise Criteria
People are affected by three general noise impacts:
A. A subjective impact producing annoyance and mild or
strong dissatisfaction;
B. An impact which causes task or activity interference,
e.g. speech, sleep or learning interference;
C. A physiological impact ranging from slight startle to
permanent and irreparable loss of hearing.
A thorough review of these noise impacts can be found in Ref-
erences (G) and (H).
It is important to recognize that the problem of correlating
an actual measured community noise level to any of the above
listed impacts (e.g. what dBA level causes permanent hearing
loss?) is an extremely difficult one. The difficulties stem
from two major factors: first, there is a problem of quanti-
fying the noise level due to the amplitude, frequency, and
temporal variations which can be expected in typical commun-
ity noise signals; secondly, there are the problems associ-
ated with establishing a quantitative description of a basi-
cally subjective response in humans. For these reasons
there is no completely satisfactory criteria for evaluating
or predicting the subjective effects of noise on people.
There are, however, some general relationships which can be
cited as. an aid to understanding the response of humans to
environmental noise:
A. Except in controlled laboratory experiments, an increase
of one dB in the A-weighted noise level cannot be
noticed by an average listener.
B. Normally, a 3 dB increase in A-weighted noise level would
be barely noticeable in a typical community situation.
June 1978 10:6
-------
C. A 10 dB increase in A-weighted noise level would be
sensed as a doubling of loudness by an average listener.
(See Figure 10-1).
In addition to the above general relationships, several more
specific noise assessment criteria can be found in regulations
and guidelines adopted by various government agencies. Of
particular interest to the waste water treatment plant prob-
lem are the assessment criteria used by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and those used by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The HUD noise stand-
ards (I) are based on a 24 hour cumulative measure of four
categories of acceptability, as indicated in Table 10-1. As
shown in the table, the HUD standards use "over 65 dBA for
more than 8 out of 24 hours" as the cut-off point between
acceptability and non-acceptability. If a new waste water
treatment facility, for example, is estimated to cause a
continuous noise level of 66 dBA at nearby residential
receptors, then these receptors, in the view of HUD, would
be subjected to a DISCRETIONARY-NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE noise
level. And even though HUD may not be involved with the
proposed treatment plant, or the nearby residential recep-
tors, the HUD standards do provide a mechanism for evaluating
the severity of the possible noise impact. In the case of
our example, the HUD criteria could be cited as a valid
reason for applying noise abatement measures to the proposed
plant.
The EPA uses another approach to quantifying the accept-
ability of a given noise climate. This approach is care-
fully explained in the EPA report entitled: "Information
on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public
Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety" (J)
and is summarized in Table 10-2. The EPA criteria, which in
the strict sense is neither a regulation or a standard,
specifies both indoor and outdoor levels for various types
of receptors and also specifies both activity interference
and hearing loss consideration noise levels. For most resi-
dential areas the appropriate receptor category would be
"Residential with Outside Space and Farm Residences" and the
appropriate noise levels would be an outdoor LEQ (24) of 70
dBA for hearing loss consideration together with an exterior
LDN of 55 dBA to protect against activity interference.
June 1978 10:7
-------
TABLE 10-1
HUD NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
(From Reference 1)
CHART: EXTERNAL NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
SITES (Measurements and projections of noise exposures are to be
made at appropriate heights above site boundaries)
GENERAL EXTERNAL EXPOSURES
dB(A)
AIRPORT ENVIRONS
CNR ZONE */
JNACCEPTABLE
Exceeds 80 dB(A) 60 minutes
per 24 hours
Exceeds 75 dB(A) 8 hours
per 24 hours
(Exceptions are strongly discouraged
environmental statement and the Seer
3
and require a 1
etary's approva
NEF ZONE */
C
02(2)C
1)
DISCRETIONARY -- NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
Exceeds 65 dB(A) 8 hours per
24 hours
Loud repetitive sounds on site
(Approvals require noise attenuation
Administrator's concurrence and a 1(
2
measures, the R
32(2)C environme
DISCRETIONARY -- NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
Does not exceed 65 dB(A) more than
8 hours per 24 hours
ACCEPTABLE
Does not exceed 45 dB(A) more than
30 minutes per 24 hours
B
egional
ntal statement
1
A
June 1978
10:8
-------
TABLE 10-2
EPA IDENTIFIED NOISE LEVELS REQUISITE
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF'SAFETY (From Reference J)
YI-AKI.Y AVI.KACI *l (.H'lVAl I-:.\T.SOUND I I VI I S 11)1 NHI-li:i) AS
Ri:guisn i 10 i-uon cr rin. I-IMH ic in AI.I n AND wi:i I-AKI: wi m
AN ADI:«;UATI: MAUCIN 01- s.\n-;i Y
Kcsi(lcnli:il wild Out-
side Space and Farm
Residences
Hcsiilcnti.il with No
Outside Space
Commercial
Inside Transportation
Industrial
Hospitals
Educational
Recreational Areas
Farm Land and
General Unpopulated
Land
Measure
Ldn
Leq<2-4)
Ldn
LcitfM)
Lcq(2-l>
te.l<2-»)
l-cq(MMd)
Ldn
Lcqf.2-1)
^(24)
L«i(24)fd)
L«1(N)
Lcq(2-»)
Indoor i- n . .
...... ., . , To rrolcel
Activity lU-jrnu: l.im
. .. . . A|!3i:itl
Inter- (on.sulcrj- „ , ....
, . llulli 1:1-
Terence lion , ,
feels (l>)
4S
45
(a)
(a)
(a)
45
45
(a)
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
45
45
70(c)
(a)
70(c»
45
•45
70(c)
Olllilour ... „ . .
.... .. . , lo Protect
Activity lle.nmt; Loss
, . - . . Al'.JIDst
Inli-r- CoiiMdera- .. . ....
, . Doth I'.l-
fereiKV • lion
fects(l>)
55
(a)
(:i)
55
55
(a)
(a)
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
55
70(c)
70(0
55
55
70(O
70(c)
Code:.
a. Sinev different typos of activities jppoar to Iv a.\sOki:iteil with ilil'lVronl levels, iilentifi-
Cilion of a in:i\iiniiin K-xvl lor aeiivny iu'v'rlorciit.v may he (liHuull e\i.vpl i:i ll:osc
eireiinisljiu'os wlicic >pci.-cli coiiiiiiiiiii^.ition IN .1 enliv-jl ;i>.livily. iS>.-o l-'icuio l)-2 I'or
• noise K*\el> as a luiiclion of di^ljiue which jll'.iw ^j(i>l;tctory I'oiMiiniiiicalion.)
b. ItaseJ on luuol level.
C. llased only oiflieaiui'.: loss.
d. An 1-fiitXI ol ^-* '"' '"•'> 'Il- i'l^nlilietl in these siltuliuns NU toil): .K the exposure over
the reni.iiiiiii:: l<> linur\ per il.iy i^ low oionuh in u^ull in j ik'i;h;:il le contrilnition (o
the 2-l-hotir average, i.e.. no erealer tlian jn Ll>(| of dU til).
Note: I'.\pl.in.iiion of itlentili^tl K-\el for heariii): li>\s: The expoMire period vvlnVh
te^ulls in lie.irin^ lo>\ jl Hie ulenlilied level is J period ol •)() yearv
•Refers lociu-ij.')' rather than jrillinielic avora^ev
June 1978
10:9
-------
10.2 MAKING A PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT
The purpose of the preliminary noise assessment should be to
ascertain if there will be a possible noise problem with a
new or expanded facility. If the preliminary analysis indi-
cates that such a possibility does exist, the detailed noise
study should be conducted by noise specialists. Noise
surveys usually require sophisticated sound measuring and
signal processing instrumentation. Data reduction requires
consideration of statistical validity, and recommendations
for noise abatement measures require some familiarity with
the types of equipment involved. For these and other reasons
it is almost mandatory that knowledgeable and technically
trained personnel conduct any complete environmental noise
impact assessment study.
A preliminary assessment can, however, be conducted without
specialized equipment, techniques or personnel. The purpose
of this section of this manual is to describe how such a
preliminary noise impact assessment can be carried out.
10.21 The Three Elements to Consider
The preliminary noise impact assessment, like any environ-
mental impact assessment, should cover three main points:
A. The existing situation
B. What the situation will be after the proposed facility
is in operation.
C. What the impact will be.
In terms of environmental noise, these points can be trans-
lated as follows:
A. What is the existing noise climate?
B. What will the noise climate be when the proposed facility
is operational?
C. What impact will the increased noise levels have on the
surrounding community?
Each of these three questions must be addressed, and each
requires a different approach before an answer can be given.
The following sections should illustrate some of the differ-
ences .
10.22 The Existing Noise Climate
To define the existing noise climate at the site of the pro-
posed facility, it is highly desirable that the person
responsible for making the preliminary assessment actually
visits the site. If a site visit by the assessor is not
possible, secondhand evaluations of the noise climate at the
June 1978 10:10
-------
location can be used, although such impressions are of
limited value only. The existing noise climate can also be
estimated by the equation (K):
LDN =22+10 log p where LDN = day-night energy averaged
noise level, dBA
p = population density, people per sq. mile.
This equation is only valid for typical rural, suburban and
urban communities and should always be viewed as only an
estimate. In situations where the equation does provide a
valid approximation, it is probably also safe to say that
the LEQ(24) level is numerically equal to the LDN value and
that the nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) LEQ value is about 10 dB
less than the LDN level. These approximations are, again, to
be viewed with caution and are best used in conjunction with
an actual site visit.
If it is possible to visit the site, by all means do so, and
try to accomplish the following items when at the site:
A. Make a sketch, approximately to scale, of the proposed
facility location. Identify on the sketch all nearby
receptors, by type (single family residences, apartments,
schools, etc.), and with approximate distances to the
facility location. Also show on the sketch terrain fea-
tures (ground cover, trees, hills and other characteris-
tics) which might not appear on the map of the area.
B. Identify all audible noise sources (roads, factories,
shopping areas, etc.) which are nearby and show these
sources on the sketch. Get numerical information on
these sources where possible:
—Short duration traffic counts, trucks and cars, on
roadways.
—Number of vehicles in parking lots.
—Number, height and diameter of fans or ventilators,
etc. on nearby buildings.
C. Listen for at least ten uninterrupted minutes to the
existing noise climate. Describe in words (and in
writing) the relative amplitude, frequency content,
temporal and directional characteristics of each
individual noise source.
D. Using the noise level scale of Figure 10-1 make an esti-
mate of the major source dBA levels. If the noise
levels fluctuate, try to estimate the dBA range of the
fluctuation.
June 1978 10:11
-------
E. If it is possible to do so, borrow a small hand-held
sound level meter and learn how to use it for outdoors
dBA readings. Take representative readings on the SLM
at various locations around the proposed facility. A
good location to use is the property line of the nearest
receptor. Note the average reading plus the range of
dBA levels at each location measured. Indicate the
measurement locations on the sketch of the site.
F. If there is an obviously time carying noise signal (e.g.
intermittent automobile traffic, a loading dock, etc.)
the following technique can be used to estimate the LEQ
level:
—Turn on the SLM to read dBA and let it run, switching
the gain control only as needed to allow a visual reading
of the dBA level.
—Using a sweep second hand on a watch, observe the dBA
level at 10 or 15 second intervals and jot down the ob-
served levels until 50 readings are taken.
—Find the L10 noise level (the level exceeded 10% of
the time) by noting the fifth highest recorded level.
This fifth highest reading is the L10 level and is
normally within two or three dB of the LEQ level.
—The L10 level can then be used as the LEQ level to char-
acterize the time varying signal being measured.
G. Wind conditions, temperature, time of day, precipation
and other general weather conditions should always be
noted and written down when using a sound level meter.
It is a good idea to record these general weather condi-
tions even if a sound level meter is not being used.
The model and serial number of the SLM plus the dial set-
tings used should, of course, also be recorded.
H. A battery-operated cassette recorder (particularly one
without an automatic gain control feature) can also be
put to good use. Sample recordings should be taken at
various locations around the site. Use a voice-over to
identify the locations on the tape or gaps in the taped
signal (use the advance button or disconnect the micro-
phone to provide the gap). Keep a written record of foot-
ages, control settings and other pertinent information
as an aid when playing back the tape. While a typical
cassette recorder is not a suitable instrument for sound
level recordings, a cassette recording can still provide
useful information about relative levels, changes in noise
level, fluctuation rates and other qualitative features
of the noise climate.
June 1978 10:12
-------
I. If, while carrying out the above tasks, you are inter-
rupted by curious bystanders, explain briefly what you
are doing and ask them to please be quiet if you are tape
recording or reading the SLM. Ask these people their
impressions of the noise levels in the immediate area
and in the surrounding community. If they are nearby
residents, ask about nighttime noise levels and major
sources of noise in the community.
J. Take a camera along and take enough pictures to give a
total stranger a good idea of the total location. It is
useful to take views both of and from the site.
K. If at all possible, visit the proposed location late at
night as well as during the daytime hours. This is par-
ticularly important if there are residential receptors
nearby, as nighttime residential noises are typically 10
dB or so less than normal daytime levels. If the proposed
waste water treatment facility is to operate on a 24 hour
basis, the noise impact will be most severe during the
nighttime due to the possible sleep interference effects.
It is, therefore, necessary to quantify the existing com-
munity noise level during the critical nighttime period.
If a night visit cannot be made, the observed daytime
levels should be reduced by 10 dB to estimate the existing
nighttime noise level.
If the above suggestions are followed in a thorough and con-
scientious manner, a good deal of useful information and
data will have been generated. In addition, the person
making the site visit should be able to describe, in quali-
tative terms at least, the characteristics of the existing
noise climate at the proposed site.
10.23 The Estimated Future Noise Climate
Predicting the noise level to be expected from a facility
not yet constructed and to estimate how this expected noise
will change the existing noise climate is, at best, a
somewhat dubious endeavour. If approached properly, however,
a reasonable estimate of what to expect can be generated.
The proper approach should include the following points:
A. Compile pertinent written information about the general
configuration of the proposed facility. A map and
layout drawing of the plant, description of its operation,
and its rated and operating capacities are typical of
the type of general information needed.
B. Identify major items of equipment, ventilation systems,
loading facilities, falling water and other possible
noise sources on the plant drawing and pick off approxi-
mate distances from these potential sources to the
nearest receptors.
June 1978 10:13
-------
C. Obtain performance data (motor HP, fan CFM and speed,
water GPM rates etc.) for each major source, if possible.
Information on emitted noise levels is, of course, desir-
able.
D. If possible, visit an operating facility similar to that
being assessed (or from your own experience with other
waste water works) and estimate the type of noise that
can be expected. This estimate can be subjective, but
it should include the following:
—What level of noise will the plant generate at some
reference distance. A subjective evaluation - loud
(65 dBA or higher), audible (50 to 60 dBA), or just
noticeable (less than 45 dBA) - at some known dis-
tance from the approximate center of the plant, is
suitable here.
—What frequency content can be expected. Fans, motors,
pumps and other rotating or reciprocating machinery
will have pure tone components - usually at the
fundamental blade passage rate for fans and compres-
sors. The frequency content of various noises can
also be described by phrases such as "clanging,"
"whish," "dull roar", etc. which give useful hints
about the frequency content.
—What temporal variations can be expected. Seasonal
variations in operations, number of hours per day
and days per week of operation, plus types of noises -
continuous, intermittent, or impulsive -should be
noted. Nighttime operations are particularly
important, if residential receptors are involved.
Summer, versus winter characteristics, are also
important, due to windows being open during the
warmer weather.
—Directional characteristics should also be noted if
they are obvious. Does an operating facility sound
the same on all four sides, or are different sources
audible in different locations? This type of
information can be obtained by just walking around
the outside of an operating plant and carefully
listening to the noise signal at different locations.
E. Translate the above observations and information to the
facility being assessed. Distance adjustments can be
applied using the -6 dB per doubling of distance rule.
Rated capacity or HP differences can be accounted for,
using a rule of thumb adjustment of +3 dB for each
doubling of capacity or HP.
June 1978 10:14
-------
If the above steps are carried out, it should be possible to
estimate what the noise levels and operating characteristics
around the proposed facility will be. This estimate may be
based on subjective evaluations, but a rough idea of the
actual dBA levels (within - 10 dBA) should be available by
referring to Figure 10-1.
In addition to the tasks outlined above, any other sources
of pertinent information should also be utilized. Taking a
camera, hand-held sound level meter, and cassette recorder
and using them in the manner described earlier would be
useful if an actually operating facility were visited.
Asking the contractor or project engineer to supply informa-
tion on emitted noise levels should give some additional data.
If the plant layout drawings indicate the use of mufflers,
sound barriers, or other noise abatement1 measures, some sort
of noise analysis has probably been carried out during the
design phase of the project, and the results of this analyis
should be reviewed.
10.24 Assessing the Impact
The previous sections have described some techniques for esti-
mating both the existing and projected future noise levels.
If numerical noise levels have been obtained for each case,
the first step in assessing the noise impact can be accomp-
lished. This first step is, of course, a comparison of the
existing and future noise levels.
The extent of the noise impact can be qualitatively judged
by using the following criteria:
INCREASE IN EXTENT
LEQ(24) or LDN LEVEL OF IMPACT
0-5 dBA slight
5-15 dBA moderate
15 mor more dBA severe
The above criteria give a rough indication of the extent of
the noise impact and whether or not a more detailed analysis
is needed. If, for example, the existing and projected
future noise levels have both been carefully estimated, and
the increase is found to be less than 5 dBA, then it is probably
not necessary to proceed to a further noise impact study.
And if the estimated levels indicate a 15 dBA or greater in-
crease in the noise level at the nearest receptor, a more
detailed study of the possible noise impact should definitely
be conducted. The 5-15 dBA increase presents a more difficult
decision, but if funding and manpower requirements can be
met, it would probably be worthwhile to do a full noise study
in this situation as well, or at least solicit a few additional
opinions.
June 1978 10:15
-------
A simple comparison of the existing and projected future
noise levels does not, however, complete the assessment pro-
cess. The general type of neighborhood, and the associated
noise climate, in which the proposed facility is to be
placed, also need to be considered. For example, a 12 or 13
dBA increase in the nighttime noise levels in a quiet resi-
dential area will be noticed by almost all residents and
should be viewed as a significant and perhaps a severe noise
impact. The same 12 or 13 dBA nighttime increase in an indus-
trially zoned area might be considered only a slight noise
impact, particularly if all the other industries in the
vicinity were not operating at night. The general charac-
teristics of the noise generated by the proposed plant, e.g.
frequency content and temporal variations and any possibly
annoying characteristics of the noise, should be described
and considered as part of the total impact.
Fortunately, the noise levels generated by most waste water
treatment plants are not too severe, typically about 45 to
65 dBA at distances of 100 feet. If properly designed and
constructed, and particularly if sited properly, a waste
water treatment plant should not cause more than a slight
noise impact on the surrounding community. If the prelimi-
nary noise impact assessment, carried out in the manner out-
lined above, indicates more than a slight noise impact, the
person performing the preliminary impact assessment is probably
in a good position to say what the particular problem might
be. If this indeed is the case, the preliminary noise assess-
ment has been successfully carried out.
June 1978 10:16
-------
10.3 REFERENCES
A. "Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Waste water
Treatment Works," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-430/9-76-003, January, 1976.
B. "Report to the President and Congress on Noise," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, February, 1972.
C. "Community Noise," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
NTID 300.3, December, 1971.
D. Botsford, J. H., "Using Sound Levels to Gauge Human
Response to Noise," Sound and Vibration, Vol. 3, No. 10,
1969.
E. Kurze, U., "Noise Reduction by Barriers," J. Accoust.
Soc. Am., Vol. 55, No. 3, 1974.
F. Ivey, E.S. and Russell, G.A., "Acoustical Scale Model
Study of the Attenuation of Sound by Wide Barriers," J.
Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 62, No. 3, 1977.
G. "Effects of Noise on People," U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, NTID 300.7, December, 1971.
H. "Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 550/9-73-002, July 27,
1973.
I. "Noise Abatement and Control: Department Policy, Imple-
menation Responsibilities and Standards," U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development Circular 1390.2, Change
1, August, 1971.
J. "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite
to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adeguate
Margin of Safety," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
550/9-74-004, March, 1974.
K. "Population Distribution of the United States as a Func-
tion of Outdoor Noise," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, June, 1974.
L. Russell, G.A. and Hicks, A., "Community Noise from Waste
Treatment Plants," 90th Meeting of Acoust. Soc. Amer.,
Paper H.5, 1976
June 1978 10:17
------- |