EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 1
J.F.Kennedy Building
Boston, Mass. 02203
EPA
Environmental Final
Impact Statement
Local Wastewater
Management
Program
N. Branford,
Connecticut
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LOCAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
NORTH BRANFORD, CONNECTICUT
This Final Environmental Impact Statement evaluates
wastewater collection and treatment alternatives for
North Branford. The major recommendation is for a
limited sewer system to serve the Foxon area of the
community.
Further information on this statement can be provided by:
Mr. Robert Mendoza
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental and Economic Impact Office
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
617-223-4635
-LEAD AGENCY-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Technical Consultant
Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts
Approved by
William R. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Fdnal Date by Which
Comments on the Final
Environmental Protection Agency Must be Received
Region I
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 1.0 SUMMARY
1.1.
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
SECTION
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
SECTION
3.1
3.2
3.3
Overview
EIS Background
EIS Process and Objectives
Final Report Context
EIS Recommendations
2.0 EIS FOXON RECOMMENDATIONS,
Specifics
Interceptor Route
Development Capability/Capacity of the
System
Lateral Funding
Sewer System Impacts
Conclusions
3.0 EIS COMMENTS/RESPONSES
Introduction
Thomas Quamma/ Northford Resident
State Preservation Officer, Advisory
1
1
2
2
3
5
7
8
11
15
20
23
23
Council on Historic Preservation 23
3.4 Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection 24
3.5 United States Department of the Interior 25
3.6 Connecticut Office of Policy and Management 26
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER
1
2
3
Area Relationships
Project Details
Potential Sewer Service Area
PAGE
4
6
10
LIST OF TABLES
1
2
3
Present Worth Cost Analysis 13
Annual Cost to Homeowners 14
Average Annual Stormwater Runoff
Concentrations of Pollutant Parame-
ters 17
Induced Growth and Population
Distribution 1980-2000 19
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH REPORT
CONSULTATION WITH STATE HISTORIC PRE-
SERVATION OFFICER
-------
SECTION 1.0
FINAL EIS SUMMARY
This chapter summarizes the EIS process and
documents the recommendations of the Final
EIS.
-------
Section 1.0 FINAL EIS SUMMARY
1.1 Overview
This document is the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the North Branford, Connecticut Local Wastewater
Management Program. In March 1979, a Draft EIS (DEIS) was
distributed to various government agencies and interested
individuals which detailed the complete impact evaluation
process and presented the EIS recommendations. From the
data of publication until June 4th the public has had an
opportunity to submit written comments to EPA regarding
the DEIS. On May 9th, after a suitable opportunity for
review of the DEIS, a public hearing was held in North
Branford to receive additional comments. This final EIS
responds to all. the comments that have been received and
clarifies points which may not have been fully understood
regarding the project's conclusions. This final EIS and
the DEIS together represent the public record of the
project's assumptions, analysis, and decision making.
1.2 EIS Background
The EIS project was initiated in North Branford when the
Town applied to the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) and the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in 1977 for funds to construct three sewer
systems in several areas of the community. Two of the
systems were approved by these agencies while the third
system prompted a number of questions regarding funding
program guidelines and the environmental impact require-
ments of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
law under which the program must operate. The sewer
system in Section A of the Town's sewerage plan was
approved and construction began in the summer of 1978.
This system serves the southeastern part of North Branford
and conveys the wastewater to Branford for treatment. The
initial sewer system for Section C, the northwest corner
of the Northford part of town, was approved for funding
and will be constructed soon.
The initial sewer system that was planned for Section B,
the southwest portion of town called Fdxon, created some
concern among both the state and federal agencies and
local residents. Some of the concerns included:
the sewer 'system would be within the basin of the
Farm River, the source of a surface drinking water
supply system.
- 1 -
-------
state policy discourages sewering within water
supply watersheds.
the sewer program, especially the long range plan,
might encourage development within the watershed
which would threaten water quality.
an extensive long range sewer system within the
Farm River Valley might induce irrevocable change
in current agricultural land use.
an extensive sewer system might not be needed to
solve the areas with septic system problems within
the valley.
EIS is the vehicle by which EPA analyzes the project in
question, invites public participation, and makes specific
recommendations as to the agency's participation in the
final project.
1.3 EIS Process and Objectives
The federally funded EIS program provided the opportunity
for the Town to have its proposal thoroughly reviewed by a
specialized EIS project team while EPA fulfilled its legal
responsibility under NEPA. The EIS process provided for a
continuing public information program through a newsletter
series, and a continuing public participation program
through a workshop series which spanned the duration of
the project. The process also provided for an in-depth
local water quality sampling program and several field
surveys of local neighborhood conditions of wastewater
disposal. The objective of the EIS project was
to determine if local wastewaterproblems
warranted federal participation in a funded
program and to insure that the project would
be both cost-effective and environmentally sound.
1.4 Final Report Context
This report contains a number of diverse sections which
are briefly described here. Following this sub-section,
there is a general discussion of EIS recommendations-which
points out that a specific recommendation is made for the
Foxon area only while additional study will be needed to
find solutions for wastewater disposal problems from
existing development elsewhere in town.
- 2 -
-------
The Foxon recommendation is described in detail in Section
2 so that all parties will have a clear idea of what is
actually involved in the EIS recommendation. A more
thorough explanation of this recommendation will address
the major questions that were raised by EIS reviewers.
Section 3.0 contains EIS responses to comments received.
Appendix A is all of the actual responses received. The
verbatim record of the public hearing that was held in
May is Appendix B.
1.5 EIS Recommendations
The North Branford EIS recommends:
construction of a limited ponventional gravity
sewer system to serve existing problem users (and
a limited amount of undeveloped intervening land)
in the Foxon area with connection to the East
Haven sewer system for treatment.
continued and long term reliance on septic system
use in the Farm River Valley in general.
additional studies should be conducted to analyze
possible small scale community sewer systems or
septic system rehabilitation programs in existing
problem areas in the Green Acres area and in the
Middle and Upper Farm River Valley. (See Figure
1, Area Relationships)
- 3 -
-------
N
Farm River
Drainage Area
I
Lower Valley
f.--^-~? J >
i
areo relation/hip/
figure 1
north branford w Q / t euu Q ter treatment racilitle/
dote: July 1979
/ource: ander/on-nichol/
environmental impact /totement environmental protection agency
2880
ander/on-nlchol/ & co.,,lnc.
technical con/ultant
-------
SECTION 2.0
EIS FOXON RECOMMENDATION
-------
Section 2.0 EIS FOXON RECOMMENDATION
2.1 Specifics
Based on an analysis of existing septic system problems,
soil conditions, and anticipated future problems, the EIS
concluded that a limited sewer system was warranted to
serve a limited portion of the southern Farm River Valley.
The service area would be in the general drainage area of
Burrs Brook, a small tributary watershed that comprises
slightly less than 10% of the watershed of the Farm River
Valley above the diversion to Lake Saltonstall.
The EIS project would consist of the construction of a
gravity interceptor along Burrs Brook to the Middle School
area along Route 80. This major element of the sewer
system has already been designed by the Town. Beginning
at the school area, a ten inch pipe will be located on the
south side of Route 80 to Arthur Road and along Arthur
Road to Edward Road where the pipe size will expand to
12". Leaving Arthur Road north of Burrs Brook, the 12"
pipe will head west through undeveloped land to serve the
Sunset Drive/Brook Lane area. The pipe will then continue
cross-country toward the west to Totoket Road remaining on
the north side of Burrs Brook until it crosses beneath the
brook within the Totoket Road right of way. The pipe will
then continue west, along the south side of the brook
until it turns directly south to continue along James Road
and eventually Williams Road to a metering station at the
East Haven town line.
This last segment, from the sharp turn south to the town
line, was originally designed as a 20" pipe anticipating
that future wastewater flows from the Middle Farm River
Valley would be intercepted at this point. Because the
EIS has concluded that no present or future need for
sewers exist, within the 20-year planning period in the
Middle Valley, the 20," section of interceptor should be
redesigned to a smaller pipe size (12") to accommodate the
reduced flow.
In addition to the main interceptor sewer just described,
th£ EIS study concluded that EPA will participate in the
cbraitruction of a number of lateral street sewers for
.which the Town sought funding during a unique circumstance
*at the time of the Town's application when such funding
was available. The streets for which the EIS has deter-
mined that the funding conditions have been met include:
- 5 -
-------
Drainage Area
Interceptor
Laterals
project detail/
figure 2
north branford w a / t euu a ter treatment facilitie/
date: July 1979 0 g90
/ource: ander/on-nichol/
environmental impact /tatement environmental protection agency
ander/on-nichol/ & co.,inc.
technical con/uitant
-------
Dorrie Drive*
Arthur Road
Edward Road
Arthur Court
Sunset Road
Brook Lane**
* was not included in Town application
** older section running north-south
The Burrs Brook Interceptor will accommodate future flows
in addition to those generated by the above streets.
Within the drainage basin of the brook, a number of inter-
vening and peripheral areas could be connected to the
interceptor by gravity flow. Included within these areas
are existing streets such as Katherine Street or Pioneer
Drive. Construction of these lateral street sewers could
be done by the Town when they wish since capacity is pro-
vided in the main interceptor. The EIS did not, however,
recommend these streets for lateral funding. Details
concerning the interceptor, the sewer service area, the
sewer capability and the issue of lateral funding follow.
2.2 Interceptor Route
The configuration of the existing housing developments
which have been identified as problem areas determine that
a gravity sewer system traveling along Burrs Brook is the
most logical sewer route. Because these houses straddle
the brook, this would be the route that would require the
least excavation and vtould also avoid the expense and
problems of pumping. :
Because this gravity route traverses undeveloped land,
some of which is wetland and floodplain,: some direct and
indirect environmental impacts were discussed in the DEIS.
Theoretically/ this type of project might create several
types of impacts including:
construction impacts which injure significant
flora and fauna.
long term alteration of hydraulic flood plain
characteristics.
- 7 -
-------
potential performance failure of the sewer system
during floods.
potential flood damage to housing induced by sewer
system.
None of these impacts is expected in the North Branford
project. The route involves only one stream crossing, at
Totoket Road where the pipe will be encased in concrete to
prevent damage and leakage. Because the area is a water
supply watershed, the pipe will be cast iron throughout
with sealed man-holes. Lack of any structures in the
floodplain minimizes impact to the system. Adoption of a
HUD flood plain study into the zoning ordinance will
minimize secondary flood related impacts from the sewer
project by regulating floodplain development. Finally, as
noted in the text, the construction impacts include a
minimum amount of disruption of natural ecosystems or
habitat because of the developed nature of the areas.
Most construction impacts have been addressed in the
general specifications of the Town's design for the Foxon
interceptor. Erosion and related water quality impacts
are covered by general State standards for construction
which require steps to avoid sedimentation and restore
vegetation. Actual monitoring of construction activity
will be necessary to insure that the general guidelines
are followed out. Also, the unnecessary cutting of trees
along the stream bank should be avoided.
Many long term potential impacts have already been
addressed in the existing interceptor design. To further
reduce the long term impacts in the wetlands area, steps
should be taken to preserve the existing hydrologic
regime. Original grades should be maintained so as not to
interfere with natural drainage patterns. In addition,
due to the porous nature of the gravel trench bed, which
could potentially intercept the brook's base flow, pro-
vision should be made to include impermeable clay barriers
at points along the interceptor trench.
2.3 Development Capability/Capacity of the System
Within the potential service area of the proposed Foxon
Interceptor there are presently approximately 290 build-
ings which would be connected to the sewer system. Under
present zoning an additional 224 homes could be built on
undeveloped, but developable, intervening land between
existing problem areas. These additional homes could be
accommodated by the proposed sewer system.
- 8 -
-------
The system design would be capable of serving about 300
more homes than presently exist in the area, or a mix of
the 224 homes that zoning would permit and about 25 acres
of industrial or commercial land. Under the present
zoning, there is about 26 acres of developable industri-
ally zoned land and 6 acres of commercially zoned land.
Consequently, the system would be capable of serving the
development that local regulation would permit within the
limited service area that is accessible to the interceptor
by gravity.
No capacity in excess of the .25 MGD that the existing
development and this potential development would generate
within Burrs Brook basin is provided for in the EIS pro-
posal. The existing Town design w^as reviewed in terms of
pipe capacities and anticipated flows and was found to be
consistent with the EIS sewer concept with the exception
of the 20" segment that runs from Burrs Brook to James
Road and along Williams Road to East Haven. This segment
of pipe should be redesigned to handle the anticipated
flows from the Bl and B2 areas of the Town's 1976 sewer
plan.
The actual development that occurs within the Burrs Brook
basin could take many different forms. A number of
variables could influence this scenario including:
changes in one acre zoning to one half acre where
water and sewerage will become available.
acquisition or deduction of land as open space.
continuation of protection of agricultural lands.
limited industrial development in appropriate
zones.
cluster development in permitted zones.
incomplete development within the sub-basin on
less desirable land.
The design of the EIS approved sewer system will accommo-
date the growth that is expected in Area B throughout the
planning period. The design has the potential for use as
a positive planning approach which focuses development in
the southern portion of the valley while preserving the
greenspace and agriculture in the Middle Valley. In any
case, the design is a reasonable one in that it is limited
to a relatively small area and accommodates the planned'
moderate growth of that sub-area.
- 9 -
-------
N
Committed / Controlled Land
No capacity provided for
potential /euuer /ervice area
figure 3
north bronford wo/tewoter treatment raci itie/
dote; joly 1979 0 090
/ourcc: onder/on-nichol/
environmental impact /totement envlronmentol protection agency
QfK)er/on-nichol/ & co., inc.
-------
2.4 La tera1 Fund ing
As indicated in an earlier section, certain local street
sewers have been evaluated in terms of their eligibility
for federal funding. Ordinarily funding is only available
for major project elements such as interceptors, treatment
plants, and pumping stations due to limited funds. During
a brief period in 1977, the Connecticut DEP had funds
available but uncommitted to specific projects. Concerned
that uncommitted federal funds would revert to the federal
government, DEP permitted eligibility to be extended to
lateral sewer construction.
Because of similar circumstances in other states, EPA has
established, through Program Requirements Memorandum 77-8
(PRM 77-8 since superseded by PRM 78-9), regulations
governing lateral eligibility in order to adhere to its
requirements governing cost-effectiveness and environmental
protection.
The question that faced the EIS during the formalization
of the final EIS was not, therefore, whether sewers should
be permitted in that area or whether connecting to the
sewer system might be the best solution to a homeowner
with a septic system problem. The basic question was
whether the EIS could endorse federal funding for these
local street sewers under the regulations set down in PRM
78-9.
The lateral sewers that were approved for funding met the
requirements of the PRM. Several streets in the Town's
"reduced sewer plan" were omitted from the EIS recommen-
dation. These included Merrick Drive, Katherine Street
and a small section of Totoket Road. The EIS project team
found in general that there was lack of documentated
septic system problems in addition to the availability of
reasonable lot sizes and good soils in these areas. In
addition, rehabilitation of problem septic systems was
believed possible and much less expensive in terms of
total costs, than the sewer system proposal. This does
not rule out future local street sewer construction for
these streets. It may happen that a group of residents
may experience septic system problems simultaneously in
the future and wish to petition the Town for sewer con-
struction, even though it will be more expensive than a
new septic system construction, simply to serve the
convenience of sewer use. The EIS cannot, however,
justify federal funding for these streets under the PRM
requirements.
- 11 -
-------
During the DEIS review period, the Town surveyed homes in
the B-2 sewer area in order to gain more information con-
cerning the extent of septic system problems in that area.
The Town submitted the results to EPA and they are included
in this report. The streets that were surveyed included:
Pioneer Drive
Virginia Road
Pine View Road
Pine Place
Williams Road
On all but Williams Road, a majority of the residents
responded '"yes" to the questions indicating that they had
symptoms of septic system problems and believed that they
needed sewers in their neighborhoods.
Since these streets had not been included in the Town's
"reduced sewer program", they had not been specifically
addressed in the DEIS lateral funding analysis. In light
of this additional input, the streets for which the infor-
mation had been collected were re-examined more closely in
terms of their eligibility for federal funding under PRM
78-9.
From the responses the Town received during their survey,
it is apparent that most of the residents of this area
would like to obtain sewer service. They report that they
have experienced some of the signs of septic system
problems and have indicated that they would prefer sewers
to wastewater disposal. The EIS project recommendation,
in fact, reserves capacity for some future connection.
The requirements of PRM 78-9 regarding the density of
population and age of development are largely met. While
evidence of septic system problems exists to the extent
that the survey discussed earlier has shown, the main
obstacles to complying with the PRM are the nature of the
problem and the demonstrated cost-effectiveness of the
sewer system. Site conditions show that the area is
served by public water and consists of one half acre lots
on soils with good characteristics. According to the Soil
Conservation Survey information, the soils of the area are
the Branford silt loam series and are characterized as
moderately permeable in the upper layer and very rapidly
- 12 -
-------
permeable in the sub-soil layer. Bedrock is generally
greater than ten feet below the surface of the soil and
the depth to groundwater at high groundwater season is
greater than three feet. Sites of this type should be
able to accommodate on-site wastewater disposal, parti-
cularly with the provision of public water supply. When
EIS engineers visited this area, they were aware of the
signs of potential septic system problems. It is their
conclusion, however, that these problems can be remedied
by low cost on-site rehabilitations. The source of the
problem may lie in poor initial design, improper use, or
age of the systems. Better performance could be obtained
by enlarging fields, reducing wastewater flows and/or
installing curtain drains where upslope drainage is a
problem.
The adequate lot size makes a demonstration of the cost-
effectiveness of a centralized gravity sewer system very
difficult. A preliminary cost analysis of local street
sewers is shown in the following tables.
TABLE 1
PRESENT WORTH COST ANALYSIS
LOCAL SEWERS FOR
PIONEER DRIVE, VIRGINIA DRIVE, PINE VIEW DRIVE
UNIT PRESENT WORTH
ITEM NUMBER COST INITIAL SALVAGE
House Connections 30 $600 $ 18,000 ( 3,000)
Collector Sewers 2700 L.F. 55 148,500 (24,800)
Implementation - - 44,500
Sub-Total 211,000 (27,800)
O & M 30 40 -
Present Worth - - 13,100
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST $196,300
EQUIVALENT COST PER HOUSE $ 6,545
_ 13 _
-------
TABLE 2
i
ANNUAL COST TO HOMEOWNERS
LOCAL SEWERS FOR
PIONEER DRIVE, VIRGINIA DRIVE, PINE VIEW DRIVE
ITEM COST
Private Capital
House Connections $ 18,000
Municipal Capital
Collector Sewers 148,500
Implementation 44,500
$193,000
Federal & State Grants
Local Shares $193,000
Amount to Taxes 115,800
Tax Rate Increase 0.13
Lien on Users 77,200
Annual Cost 7,070
Operation & Maintenance 1,200
Annual User Cost
First Year $ 875
Each Year Thereafter $ 275
- 14 -
-------
The cost per house of the sewer system ($6,545) is far in
excess of the anticipated cost of rehabilitating most of
the existing on-site disposal systems. Further, the
annual cost of sewers ($275 for twenty years in addition
to the estimate $600 cost for connection) is far in excess
of the cost of continued on-site disposal with adequate
care and maintenance measures. Because of lot size and
soil conditions, the EIS project team has determined that
rehabilitation of existing on-site systems in this area is
physically possible (in striking contrast to the findings
in other neighborhoods in the Burrs Brook area). Opera-
tional problems cited by residents are most likely a
function of the age and size of the systems rather than
evidence of inherent site limitations. The conclusions of
the EIS analysis of sewerage need and cost-effectiveness
in this area don't support the eligibility of lateral
sewers in accordance with PRM 78-9 and should be used by
homeowners in the neighborhood in a thorough consideration
of sewer construction desirability.
2.5 Sewer System Impacts
Many of the specific impacts of constructing the limited
sewer system in the Foxon area were noted both in the
discussion of the Burrs Brook interceptor in this report
and in Section 5.91 in the DEIS. A long term potential
impact that warrants further discussion, in light of the
confusion of some DEIS reviewers over the actual EIS
recommendation, is the issue of indirect water supply
impacts.
The most sensitive area of potential environmental impact
in the North Branford EIS study is the drainage area of
the Farm River Valley. As cited in the DEIS, the fact
that this watershed drains to diversion structures both in
Northford and in East Haven means that a continuing aware-
ness of the direct linkage between activity in the water-
shed and consequences for water supply must be maintained.
North Branford's situation with respect to water supply is
somewhat unique. Approximately one third of the Town is
part of the Lake Gaillard watershed. Most of the land is
owned by the private New Haven Water Company. Regulation
of this type of watershed land has been the focus of the
state for at least a decade. The basic issue surrounding
the large land holdings is the desire- of water companies
to dispose of lands they believe are not critical to main-
taining water quality and the state's concern for long
term water quality protection. In North Branford, much of
- 15 -
-------
the water company land is not available for sale under
state regulations while the remainder falls under a
special zoning district in the new local zoning regu-
lations. The Farm River Valley, on the other hand, is
privately owned land held by many property owners, which
is diverted to the reservoir system. The decentralization
of ownership complicates the problem of management and
responsibility. Nonetheless, the common welfare of the
area lies in maintaining the best water quality possible.
Water quality impacts on the Farm River system could
manifest themselves as both short term pollution events
and long term water quality deterioration. The issue of
long term deterioration has been associated with the so-
called non-point pollution sources. Included among these
are agricultural activities, construction activities, and
industrial, commercial and residential development. In
the latter category, the pollutants referred to are the
accumulation of small quantities that are deposited on the
ground and rinsed away during the rain.
The cleanest possible use of watershed land is forest
land. Other land uses, regardless of the pastoral appeal
of farm landscapes or the stereotype of suburban sprawl,
generate considerably larger quantities of pollutants than
forest land. Some representative examples are shown in
Table 3.
- 16 -
-------
TABLE 3
AVERAGE ANNUAL STORMWATER RUNOFF CONCENTRATIONS
OF
POLLUTANT PARAMETERS*
Land Use
Residential (2-5 ppa)**
Residential (5-8 ppa)
Residential (8-12 ppa)
Residential (12-15 ppa)
Residential (Combined
Sewer Overflows)
Commercial & Industrial
Agricultural (Adequate
Controls)
Agricultural (Needing
Control )
Rural (Adequate
Controls)
Rural (Needing Control)
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
300
340
380
420
250
500
3,000
40,000
500
5,000
BOD 5
(mg/1)
t
20
22
24
26
100
30
20
25.0
0.3
3.5
Phosphorus
as
P (mg/1)
0.70
0.66
0.62
0.58
4.00
0.50
.20
2.80
.002
.04
Nitrogen
as
N (mg/1)
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
10.0
2.2
5.0
65.0
1.0
8.0
* Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, "Regional Wastewater Study"
October, 1974.
** Persons per acre.
- 17 -
-------
As described in the DEIS, residential development may or
may not result in lower water quality. For some pollu-
tants, farming is potentially a greater source. Much of
the land within the Farm River Valley is classified as
farmland. Intensity varies, however, within broad cate-
gories with much land remaining idle. Assessing the
relative contribution of the various current land uses
would be no simple matter.
When the EIS attempted to assess future water quality
impacts resulting from the EIS recommended project, a
number of unpredictable variables became apparent.
Included are farm practices, lawn and garden practices,
development forces, development patterns, and development
controls. Other uncertainties included use of indicator
bacterial criteria which do not differentiate among
sources, background concentrations, environmental cleaning
mechanisms, and the variable operation of the reservoir
diversions. The interplay of all these real world factors
render quantitative analysis beyond the scope of this EIS.
Future water quality effects from non-point sources were
retained among the larger set of qualitative environmental
criteria by which alternatives were selected and the final
project impacts evaluated.
In the earlier discussion in this Section, it was noted
that the sewer system for the Foxon area had a potential
service area which is less than the 10% of the Farm River
Basin drainage. In addition, it was noted that the
capacity of the system was equal to the flows which will
be generated by development under the existing zoning
regulations. Also, the actual number of homes that could
be served by the sewer system was found to be about equal
to the population growth that was anticipated in the lower
and middle River Valley during the 2 year planning period.
The recommended project then is consistent in size with
reasonable growth expectations for the area. It is not a
greatly oversized system intended to stimulate existing
development forces. In terms of overall impact on water
quality, the construction of the limited Foxon sewer
system could not significantly change the degree of the
development from that which would otherwise be permitted
or anticipated.
Development patterns might, however, be influenced by the
presence of the limited sewer in Foxon.,. Approximately 300
homes are anticipated in the lower and middle Farm River
Valley during the planning period. Also, approximately
the same number of homes could be accommodated by the
limited sewer system in the lower valley. It is reasonable
that the sewer system will draw some but not all of this
development.
_ 18 _
-------
While land capacity exists under present zoning for about
300 homes, about one half of these potential lots have one
or more soil constraints for septic systems in addition to
odd lot shapes, saturation, etc. Not every lot would be
developed. Given that the Foxon area (as defined in the
project sewer area) represents about 20% of the lower and
middle valley, it might be expected that an estimate of 60
new homes (20%) might be a better estimate of future
development in the absence of a sewer. Applying the
general guide that has been used in other Connecticut
EIS's of increasing population growth by 10% due to the
presence of sewers and doubling the land area within the
sewered area that is developed due to the presence of
sewer service, the following increases and shift in
residential development might be expected:
TABLE 4
INDUCED GROWTH & POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
1980 - 2000
Without Sewers With the Foxon Sewers
Within Foxon Area 60 homes 120 homes
Remainder of
Middle Valley 240 homes 210 homes
Total Area B 300 homes 330 homes
Such a scenario would result in slightly more residential
development in the general area and a concentration of new
development along the route of the interceptor. In terms
of long term water quality degredation, this level of
total development is not significantly more threatening
than the "no-action" scenario of development without
sewers, nor is the development inherently more polluting
than the current agricultural use. The shift is to locate
the new growth in the sewered area where the control of
sanitary wastes will be greater, while lessening slightly
the development pressure in the undeveloped Middle Valley.
The actual development that occurs here will be a product
of unknown forces and controls. The real estate market,
both in terms of total housing units, price of units, and
types of units is uncertain over the planning period. The
- 19 -
-------
Town has taken steps through its recently revised zoning,
which is soil and slope based, to help improve the in-
tegrity of on-site disposal in the area. In addition, the
Town will control existing wastewater disposal problems in
the Foxon area by the construction of the limited sewer
system and will likely attract some of the development
which would have relied on on-site disposal elsewhere. In
addition, a combination of developer ingenuity and planning
board cooperation could conceivably lead to further growth
inducement within the sewer area and less growth subse-
quently in the Middle Valley area. The effect would be to
place the sanitary wastes under the centralized control of
the proposed sewer system.
Accurate non-point pollution prediction, however, remains
risky at best. The trade-off relationship between agri-
cultural use and residential is uncertain, especially in
light of the amount of idle land. Actual land-owner
practices remain highly unpredictable. At this point in
time, "farm" parctices are under some regulation by the
state DEP, but home-owner use of chemicals is largely
unaddressed. Finally, the pollution event associated with
chemical spills whether industrial, agriculture or domestic,
presents an ever present threat. Increased public aware-
ness, public board or agency site review and monitoring,
and contingency cleanup procedures are some possible
protection steps that can be taken to minimize this danger.
The single presence of a limtied sewer system in Foxon
will not be the major determinant of the actual future
outcome.
2.6 Conclusions
The fact that the Farm River serves as a source for public
water supply should receive more local attention. The
role of the watershed needs clarification in the local
planning process. While the recently adopted zoning
represents, at least indirectly, a positive step toward
water quality protection, these lands are not specifically
addressed in terms of this use. Development can still
occur to the extent that zoning permits with or without a
sewer system.
The project recommended by the EIS will serve a chronic
need for pollution abatement in a small portion of the
watershed without significantly affecting future land use
in that area. To insure against eventual saturation
development of the remainder of the Farm River Valley, if
that is the objective of state DEP, some positive land
planning approach should be developed. Perhaps these
lands could be eligible for some form of preservation
program similar to the agricultural lands under which
agricultural landowner is encouraged to continue that use.
_ 20 -
-------
The additional problem of the risk of accidental chemical
spills which might threaten water supplies will continue
to require local and state surveillance. As noted earlier,
agricultural practices represent one type of potential
problem but are presently under the control of the state
DEP. The industrial sector will continue to present a
risk, with or without a sewer system. Continued surveil-
lance of the type of processes in use and the ultimate
means of waste disposal will be required at local health
agencies.
Finally, for those areas where problems exist but no
project recommendation can be made at this time, addition-
al 201 Facilities Planning is anticipated by EPA and the
Connecticut DEP. In the course of this work, which will
be addressed at non-problem areas as well, thought should
be given to a public information effort in the use of
septic systems. Problems with septic systems have been
regarded in areas where soils information suggests that
they should work properly. Given the attention that
sewers have been given, some families may have chosen to
wait, before attempting repairs, to see if they will be
sewered. It is anticipated that the additional 201 effort
would make it clear that most of the Farm River Valley
will rely indefinitely on on-site disposal. Both the Town
and the individual homeowners will have to make the
commitment to making this approach work.
- 21 -
-------
SECTION 3.0
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This chapter summarizes EPA's responses to:
- Written comments of Mr. Thomas Quamma, dated
April 16, 1979
- Written comments of John W. Shannahan, State
Historic Preservation Officer, dated May 2,
1979 and Jordan E. Tannenbaum, Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, dated
April 25, 1979
- Written comments of William R. Hogan,
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, dated April 25, 1979
- Written comments of Larry E. Meicrotto of
the U.S. Department of the Interior, received
May 31, 1979
- Written comments of Aden H. Maben, Connecticut
Office of Policy and Management, dated June 4,
1979
-------
3.1 Introduction
The first two sections of this report address questions
raised by reviewers especially the Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection and the Town of North Branford.
Section 2.0 in particular attempts to provide a suffi-
ciently detailed discussion of EIS recommendations to meet
the needs of those concerned.
Section 3.0 is comprised of responses to individual
comments of a more specialized nature.
All written comments received are in Appendix A.
3.2 Response to Mr. Tom Quamma, Northford Resident
The interceptor along Clintonville Road was a project
element of the EPA approved sewer system for Area C. This
line was designed to serve the area north of Clintonville
Road by gravity. Most of the Green Acres development is
downhill from this line and could be served only by pumping
which is costly.
The water quality sampling program represented one element
in the decision-making process of the EIS. The sampling
that was inadvertently done at site 12 in the already
approved area did confirm earlier conclusions that local
streams were being polluted. In that regard, the samples
for site 12 and site 13 in Green Acres are similar. In
Green Acres, however, no structural remedy could be
approved at this time because of the lack of a grant
application by the Town and serious questions regarding
the cost-effectiveness of the sewering solution that has
been proposed for that area.
3.3 Response to Comments of Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and State,Historic Preservation Officer
While addressing the historic and cultural context of
North Branford in the DEIS, the historic preservation
review process remained incomplete at the time of pub-
lication. Review by the State Historic Preservation
Officer of the archeological, historical and architectural
resources of the project area has now been completed. The
determination is that no effect is expected on resources
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places due to the North Branford Wastewater Management
Program.
The letter stating this determination is included with
Appendix C.
- 23 -
-------
3.4 Response to the Comments of the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
The general discussion of the EIS recommendations in the
early sections of this report was presented to address
many questions concerning details of the recommendations.
Questions not previously covered in Section 2 are discussed
below.
The EIS recommends continued long term reliance for all
areas other than Foxon where the limited sewer system is
recommended, and Glen Acres and White Hollow where addi-
tional study of certain small scale, but centralized,
treatment options should be further studied. Such an
approach might include a small sewer system discharging to
a common leaching area or a non-conventional sewer system
such as a small diameter pressure sewer system where local
conditions favor this less expensive approach. The
potential for state and federal funding of such a project
through the state's reserve fund for small scale community
systems make this approach very attractive at this time.
For other problem areas such as Jerz Lane, Miller/Grant
Road and Surrey Drive, continual on-site treatment is
believed to be the best solution. In view of existing
problems, and in light of the possibility of a town-
sponsored and state and federally funded rehabilitation
program, the EIS believed that the residents would want to
pursue this approach to performing the necessary rehab-
ilitation that is apparently needed by many homes in these
areas.
Questions concerning water supply and representations of
cost data are addressed in Section 2.
- 24 -
-------
3.5 Response to the Department of the Interior
The DEIS addressed the question of water supply in Section
4.41. About one-third of the community is presently
served by the New Haven Water Company. The remainder
depends upon ground water resources for drinking water.
With respect to the potential for wild life impacts from
the EIS recommendations, the detailed discussion of the
Foxon Interceptor at the beginning of this report should
serve to illustrate that this is the only structural
recommendation of the EIS. Other recommendations include
additional study in the Green Acres area and the White
Hollow area as part of Step I Facilities Plan. Recommen-
dations from these studies, should they develop, will be
analyzed as part of an environmental assessment.
The habitat potential of the area of«major construction,
the Foxon Interceptor, was discussed in DEIS Sections
5.91, 5.911, and 5.912. Little undisturbed land exists in
the vicinity. The small valley has served as an old
railroad corridor and a recent gas pipeline project.
Compared to the extensive land holdings at the Water
Company and the private open farmlands in the Middle Farm
River Valley, the habitat potential for the Burrs Brook
area is relatively low. Lists of expected animals were
obtained from the following sources:
D.S. Coyer and W.L. Hotaling, Ecology and Land Use at
the Supply Ponds Natural Area, Branford, Connecticut
(New Haven, revised, 1970)
New Haven Bird Club, Inc. Check-list of Birds-New
Haven County (New Haven, revised 1970)
The proposed gravity interceptor follows Burrs Brook and
includes one stream crossing and encroaches on two stream-
side wetlands. However, the general existing habitat type
of the project area is residential backyard and woodlot.
Short term construction impacts will temporarily disrupt
wildlife. Vegetation inside the right-of-way will be
removed. Long term adverse impacts to this habitat may
result from growth induced by the project. However,
existing streambelt protection regulations and floodplain
development regulations will protect, to some degree,
habitat on both sides of Burrs Brook.
The potential wetlands impacts were identified in the DEIS
in Section 5.91 and mitigation measures were recommended.
The route that is designated for the interceptor avoids
disruption of the stream bank vegetation and large tree
stands. The only stream crossing is in a roadway. No
filling at wetlands nor channelization at the stream is
specified in the plan.
-25-
-------
3.6 Response to Connecticut Office of Policy and Management
Many of these comments were addressed in the detailed ex-
planation of the EIS recommended project in earlier sections.
Details of the service area, lateral street sewers, and total
future capacity have been specified.
The recommendation for the limited sewer system in Foxon
was based on a variety of sources including stream belt
surveys, workshops, resident questionaires, water quality
sampling, resident petitions, and engineering judgments
of site conditions. While some of this information is not
site specific, these sources indicated that about 50 out
of the 300 homes in the Foxon area have been specifically
identified as having septic system problems. While some
may have been repaired in the interim, others may well be
experiencing problems that were not previously reported
due to the chronic nature of some of these areas. The EIS
recommended the limited sewering concept because it was the
only feasible approach for some of the more densely populated
neighborhoods.
The EIS did analyze land use controls that affect North Branford,
including the watershed areas, in Section 4.22. Greater
emphasis should be placed on the status of the Farm River
Valley as a source of public water supply. While this special
function may be implicit in the State Conservation and Develop-
ment Guide, the regional Plan, and the Town zoning, it is not
treated directly by any land use plan or regulation. The
Town zoning was thoroughly analyzed in terms of changes that
have occurred from the previous map. In general, lot sizes
have been increased in many areas of the Farm River Valley
in an apparent effort to integrate soil and slope constraints
on spetic system use. Consequently less population could be
accommodated in the valley under new zoning. This approach
does not directly confront the issue of development of the
watershed, however, the section on water supply lands, in
fact, refers only to those lands in the drainage of Lake
Gaillard.
The Town Plan is outdated with respect to the issues of on-
site wastewater disposal, development and the watershed areas.
In light of the present day circumstances regarding actual
sewer construction, lower development pressures, and the EIS
recommendation that large areas remain on septic systems, a
new statement of the Town's planning directions should be
formulated. Perhaps such an effort could be developed con-
currently, or as an extension to, the anticipated 201
Facilities Plan.
- 26 -
-------
APPENDIX A
WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
LIST OF WRITTEN COMMENTS ON
COMMENT NO.
W-l
W-2
W-3
W-4
W-5
W-6
W-7
W-8
W-9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOURCE
Tom Quamma, Northford
Resident
State Historic Preservation
Officer for Connecticut
Advisory Council on"
Historic Preservation
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
State of Connecticut
Department of Environmental
Protection
Jonathn Bodwell, Town
Engineer
Department of Transportation
United States Coast Guard
United States Department
of the Interior
State of Connecticut
DATE
4/16/79
5/2/79
4/25/79
4/19/79
4/25/79
5/29/79
6/1/79
5/31/79
6/4/79
Office of Policy and Manage-
ment i
-------
W-l
April 16, 1979
APR 18 1979
Mr. Robert Mendoza
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental and Economic Impact Office
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. Mendoza:
I have read, with great interest, the latest EIS News for our
community. The thoroughness of the study is quite impressive
compared to what I have seen over the years as North Branford
has attempted to settle the "sewer" question.
Based on the various studies of water sampling sites and prob-
lem areas, two questions pertaining to the proposed sewering
of my area (Section G) come to mind:
1. Forgetting costs, if Section C were to proceed,
why would "Green Acres" not be automatically
incorporated? The interceptor for Section C
appears to pass closer to Green Acres than most
of Section C.
2. Based on samplings taken in Green Acres, Section
C appears no worse in pollution than our neigh-
boring "Green Acres" area.
When you consider the current controversy over the validity for
pursuing sewering in Section C, I have the impression that your
conclusions and finding for Green Acres could just as well have
included or be duplicated for Section C. The total sewering costs
will be too high compared to rehabilitation on a house-to-house
basis for the exact reasons you stated for Green Acres.
Sincerely,
Tom
Birchwood Drive
Northford, Connecticut
06^72
cc: N. B. Town Manager
-------
Office of the w~2
STATE
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
OFFICER
for Connecticut
59 SOUTH PROSPECT STREET .- HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106 TEL: (203) 566-3005
May 2, 1979
MAY 10 1979
Mr. William.'R. Adams, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1 .
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Mass. 02203
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Wastewater Management Program, NORTH BRANFORD, CT.
Dear Mr. Adams:
The State Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed the
above-named project. In the opinion of the State Historic
Preservation Officer, this Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment is deficient with respect to the Environmental Protection
Agency's legislative responsibility under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190), National Historic Preserva-
tion Act of 1966 (80 Stat 915, 16 USC 470 as amended), and
Advisory Council Guidelines 36 CFR 800.
In general, the identification of cultural resources within
the potential environmental impact area has not been addressed
by the Environmental Protection Agency. This Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement fails to indicate whether the Environ-
mental Protection Agency has consulted the National Register
of Historic Places with regards to listed resources and
the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Officer with re-
spect to properties which may be eligible for the National Re-
gister of Historic Places.
Therefore, in order to comply with the Federal legislative
mandates, National Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190),
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat 915, 16 USC
470 as amended), and Advisory Council Guidelines 36 CFR 800,
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer should
be sought to insure the identification of cultural resources
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER: The person responsible far implementation in Connecticut of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 administered by the Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. Washington. D.C.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER!AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AGENCY
-------
Mr. William R. Adams, Jr. (Cont'd) - 2 -
May 2, 1979
which possess architectural, historical and archaeological
significance. This consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer should commence at the earliest planning
stage in order to insure a comprehensive review of cultural
resources and to coordinate and expedite cultural resource
management with the Environmental Protection Agency's project
planning.
For further information, please contact David A. Poirier,
Archaeologist.
Sincere!
DAP:aas
cc: Mr. Anthony Ciccarelli
Environmental Protection
Agency
Boston, Mass. 02203
Ms. Ina B. Camblor
Conn.Dept. of Environmental
rotection
Hartford, Ct. 06115
Dr. William J. Murtagh
Keeper of the National Register
Washington, D.C. 20243
John W. Shannahan
State Historic Preservation
Officer
-------
Advisory
Council On w~3
Historic
Preservation m z 5 J979
1522 K Street N.W.
Washington D.C.
20005
April 23, 1979.
Mr. Robert Mendoza
Environmental and Economic
Impact Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. Mendoza:
We have recently reviewed a copy of your draft environ-
mental impact statement for a local wastewater management
program in North Branford, Connecticut. Pursuant to
Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 and the Council's regulations "Protection of Historic
and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800)(enclosed) we
have determined that your statement is inadequate as it
does not meet the requirements of Section 800.A of our
regulations. That section directs the Federal agency to
demonstrate that the latest edition of the National Register,
Federal Register, February 6, 1979, and its monthly supplements
has been consulted. The draft environmental statement
should also show evidence of an effort to identify properties
that may be eligible for the National Register, including
evidence of contact with the State Historic Preservation
Officer, whose comments should be included in the final
environmental statement.
Prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal
funds or prior to the granting of any license, permit, or
other approval for an undertaking, Federal agencies must
afford the Council an opportunity to comment on the effect
of the undertaking on properties included in or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register o Historic Places
in accordance with the Council's regulations. Until these
requirements are met, the Council considers the draft
-------
environmental statement incomplete in its treatment of
historical, archeological, architectural, and cultural
resources. You should obtain the Council's substantive
comments through the process outlined in 36 CFR Sec. 800.9.
These comments should be incorporated into any subsequent
documents prepared to meet requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act. Ms. Sharon S. Conway may be
contacted at 202-254-3967 for further assistance.
Sincerely,
; Jordan E. Tannenbaum
Chief, Eastern Office of
Review and Compliance
Enclosure
-------
W-4
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426
April 19, 1979
Mr. William R. Adams, Jr.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
JFK - Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. Adams:
I am replying to your request to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission for comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Branford Connecticut Local Wastewater
Management Program. This Draft EIS has been reviewed by
appropriate FERC staff components upon whose evaluation this
response is based.
The staff concentrates its review of other agencies'
environmental impact statements basically on those areas of
the electric power, natural gas, and oil pipeline industries
for which the Commission has jurisdiction by law, or where
staff has special expertise in evaluating environmental impacts
involved with the proposed action. It does not appear that
there would be any significant impacts in these areas of
concern nor serious conflicts with this agency's responsibilities
should this action be undertaken.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely,
Jack M. weinemann
Advisor on Environmental Quality
-------
W-5
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
STATE OFFICE BUILDING HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06115
April 25, 1979
Anderson-Nichols & Company, Inc.
150 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Attention: Walter Murphy
Gentlemen:
Re: North BranYord, Connecticut
Environmental Impact Statement
The Connecticut D.E.P. has completed the review of the draft Environmental
Impact Statement Local Wastewater Management Program North Branford, Connecticut.
The conclusions as presented on pages 29 and 30 are acceptable to this Depart-
ment. Therefore, a revised Step 3 grant application will be accepted for the
limited sewer system in Area B and a Step 1 grant application will be accepted
for the remaining unsewered areas of North Branford.
There are several comments on the draft report which are being made in an
effort to bring greater clarity to the report. These comments are as follows:
1. Page 8: On the discussion of lateral funding, it should be corrected to
indicate 75% funding for laterals rather than 90%. No state funding has been
committed to laterals.
2. Page 29: Reference is made to Areas Bl and B2 and later in the report
to Areas Cl, C2 and C3. However, there is no figure which clearly delineates
these areas.
3. Page 24: The limited sewer system being recommended for Area B is not
concisely defined by a figure showing the service area, the proposed interceptor
route and the recommended laterals. It would also aid the public's understanding
if the recommended streets in need of sewers were listed in the text either
on this page or elsewhere.
The EIS recommends continued reliance on septic systems for all other areas
of the study area not specifically mentioned. However, page 172 recommends
evaluation of on-site rehabilitation for other limited problem areas under a Step
I grant. These two pages appear to be in conflict concerning areas such as
Jerz Lane, Miller Drive/Grant Road and Surrey Drive.
-------
Anderson-Nichols & Company, Inc.
North Branford, Conn.
Page 2
4. Page 38: The discussion on the priorities of small scale projects and the
relationship of priority to funding is misleading as it ignores the reserve
funds on the fiscal year 1979 priority list for small community systems. One
million dollars have been reserved in Connecticut for projects qualifying
as small community systems.
5. Page 152: The Muddy River is considered a potential water supply source
by the State Plan of Conservation and Development and the State Health Depart-
ment. Therefore, the impact on future water supply must be revised.
6. Page 164: It should be noted that the first year user costs are a sum
of the connection cost to the sewer and the estimated user charge to cover the
0 & M costs.
If there are any questions concerning this letter, please contact me
at 566-2793.
Respectfully,
William R.. Hogan
Principal Sanitary Engineer
WATER COMPLIANCE UNIT
WRH:mgy
cc: EPA, Chester Janowski
EPA, Robert Mendoza
Thomas Wontorek, Town Manager
-------
HAYOB
TIMOTHY P. RYAN
DKFDTT UATOB
PA8QUALE YOUNG
TOWN HANAUEB
THOMAS J. WONTOREK
W-6
MARY E. BIGELOW
EDWARD CAPORALE
WILLIAM C. GARDNER
JOHN M. GE8MONDE
JOHN C. KOLICH
PHYLLIS NEWBERRY
JOANNE 8. WENTWORTH
TOWN OF NORTH BRANFORD
Administration Building, Route 80, North Branford, Connecticut 06471
Telephone (203) 488-7283
MAY 311979
May 29, 1979
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Municipal Facilities Branch
Boston, MA 02203
Attention: Environmental and Economic Impact Office
Re: E.I.S., North Branford,
Connecticut 06471
Gentlemen:
Enclosed are twenty-four (24) E.P.A. North Branford Citizens'
Questionnaires resulting from a house-to-house survey conducted
during the week of May 14-18, 1979 by the North Branford Engin-
eering Department in the area of Pioneer Drive, Pine Place,
Pineview Drive, Virginia Road and Williams Road.
The responses from the survey show fourteen reporting problems
with two systems actually bleeding onto the surface of the
ground and ten responses reporting no problems.
The Town of North Branford would appreciate it if this information
can be incorporated into the Environmental Impact Statement.
Respectfully yours,
Jonathan Bodwell
Town Engineer
JB:cp
Enclosures
cc: Thomas 3. Wontorek, Town Manager
1971
-------
W-7
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
MAILING ADDRESS: , .
COMMANDER V"P-»-/
THIRD COAST GUARD DISTRICT
GOVERNORS ISLAND
NEW YORK, N.Y. IOOO4
212 668-70Q1
16475.2/4-79
1 June 1979
United States Environmental Protection Agency J^ ,.
Region 1 " F7',
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Attn: Environmental and Economic Impact Office
Dear Sir/Madam:
We have reviewed your Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
"Local Wastewater Management Program, N. Branford, Connecticut and
conclude that this project will have no effect upon Coast Guard activities
in the area.
The opportunity to review this document is appreciated.
sincerely-
Jay Silberman
Environmental Protection Specialist
By direction of the District Commander
-------
.
W-8
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, B.C. 20240
ER 79/356
MAY 3 1 1979
RECEIVED
Mr. Robert C. Thompson
Acting Regional Administrator
Region I ., - r.;\Q7Q
Environmental Protection Agency uUH -- '»'»»
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203 REGION I
' OFFICE OF REGION*! rniiNsa
Dear Mr. Thompson:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement
for North Branford Local Wastewater Management Program, New
Haven County, Connecticut, and have the following comments.
We believe that decisionmaking would be aided if a better
concept (even though qualitative) of the relative signifi-
cance and importance of local ground water as a source of
supply were given. Even a comparison of the number of homes
served by the New Haven Water Company with the total number
of homes involved would be useful in this context.
We are concerned with wetlands, streams, and other types of
habitat, such as woodlands and farmlands, of significant
value to fish and wildlife resources. Our general comment's
regarding this type of project are: the number of stream
crossings should be minimized and that precautions should be
taken to control erosion; stream beds should be returned to
their original grades. Channelization of streams should be
avoided. Sewer pipes should be placed as far as possible
from stream banks; a buffer strip of undisturbed vegetation
should remain along stream banks. Sewer lines should avoid
wetland areas, as well as other areas of significant value
to fish and wildlife resources. No fill material should be
placed in wetland areas; construction equipment should not
be stored in, nor traverse wetland areas. The amount of
vegetative clearing throughout the project area should be
minimized; disturbed areas should be seeded and mulched until
native vegetation has become established.
-------
The draft environmental statement's recommended plans of
action include the use of Federal funds to assist in the con-
struction of a limited sewer system in the Foxon Area; in the
Green Acres Area, it is recommended that the town re-examine
the feasibility of on-site rehabilitation; and, in the White
Hollow Area, both on-site rehabilitation and a community sewer
system were thought to be feasible. These recommended plans
of action may have both direct and indirect impacts on fish
and wildlife resources. Direct impacts would involve sewer
line crossings of streams and wetlands, as well as the removal
of vegetation within construction and permanent easements.
The construction of sewer lines in presently undeveloped areas,
such as woodlands and farmlands, may induce the development of
these areas, thus having indirect impacts on wildlife habitat.
This statement fails to adequately describe existing fish and
wildlife resources within the project area. While it is
mentioned that a Corps of Engineers' Section 404 permit will
not be required for proposed activities involving Burrs Brook,
the document does not state if Federal permits will be required
for other portions of the proposed project. There is inadequate
information provided in the statement concerning site-specific
location, design, and measures to minimize harm for a full
understanding and an evaluation of how the proposed actions/
interrelated Federal actions may affect fish and wildlife re-
sources. However, two major areas of concern are evident from
the general descriptions provided of the recommended plans of
action: the interceptor routing along Burrs Brook and the
common leaching field location near the intersection of Durham
and Reeds Gap Road. We would recommend that a 100-foot minimum
undisturbed vegetative buffer strip be left along the banks of
Burrs Brook; this buffer strip is necessary for controlling
erosion, as well as providing a corridor for wildlife travel
and habitat. Overhanging, shading vegetation is necessary along
the brook banks to provide detritus and cover for the stream
vertebrate and invertebrate communities, and to prevent extreme
fluctuations in water temperature. From the drawings provided
in the statement, it appears that various streams run through
the area proposed as a common leaching field; we would recommend
that this field be located away from these streams and associated
wetland areas. Location of the field away from these areas would
not only be necessary for the proper functioning of the field,
but would also be necessary to prevent impacts on stream- and
wetland-associated fish and wildlife habitat.
-------
If project implementation requires permits from the Corps of
Engineers, our FWS, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordi-
nation Act, would review and comment on the permit applica-
tions. They would require more site-specific information than
is available in this statement in order to comment on these
permit applications. We anticipate that, at a minimum, we
would require a minimization of stream crossings, no channeli-
zatio'n of streams, no fill in wetlands, an avoidance of con-
struction in wetland areas, and an undisturbed vegetative
buffer strip be left along the stream banks. Because of these
concerns, you are urged to further coordinate project planning
with our Fish and Wildlife Service.
We hope these comments will be of assistance to you.
y,
Larry E. Meierotto
SECRETARY
-------
w-9 JUN 14 1979
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
80 WASHINGTON STREET - HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06115
June 4, 1979 ..... .. ^ _ .....
i'v i-., <<-» Li !i V i.
Mr. Robert C. Thompson JUN 131976
Acting Regional Director . _
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency l'.^..;iCH I
Region I OMCE uf REGIONAL 0- ' : 'ZL
J.F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Subject: Environmental Draft Impact Statement Local Wastewater
Management Program, North Branford, Conn.
The subject Environmental Draft Impact Statement, which
evaluates the wastewater collection and treatment alternatives for
North Branford, has been offered for review and comment to various
state agencies by the State Clearinghouse.
Enclosed are the comments of the Comprehensive Planning Div-
ision of the Office of Policy and Management, as prepared by
Sidney Albert sen in his June 1, 1979 memorandum addressed to the
writer, and which he has requested be referred to your agency for
consideration in the preparation of the Final Environmental Im-
pact Statement.
A copy of the most recent Locational Guide Map (December
as part of Connecticut's Conservation and Development Plicies Plan.
is also enclosed to supplement and illustrate the concerns of the
Comprehensive Planning Division1 s concerns with the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement.
The opportunity to review and comment on the subject document
is appreciated, and we hope that the comments offered will be
helpful to all concerned with the North Branford *s wastewater
collection and treatment system.
Sincerely, , ,
Aden H. Maben
State Clearinghouse Coordinator
AHM/ftm
cc: S. Albertsen
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
-------
VERBATIM PROCEEDINGS
TOWN OP NORTH BRANFORD
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Before: ROBERT MENDOZA, Chairman
WALTER MURPHY
CHESTER JENOWSKI
WILLIAM HOGAN
KENNETH WOOD
JOSEPirZENESKI
May 9, 1979
Intermidlate School
North Branford, Connecticut
7:30 o'clock P.M.
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST.. NEW HAVEN, CONN.. O651O
624-4102
DEPOSITIONS - ARBITRATIONS
HEARINGS - CONFERENCES
SERVING CONNECTICUT
SINCE
-------
. . . Verbatim proceedings of a public hearing
held in the matter of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, North Branford BIS Project, Environmental Impact Draft
Statement, held at the Intermediate School, Route 80, North
Branford, Connecticut, on May 9, 1979 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. . . .
MR. MENDOZA: Good evening ladles and gentlemen.
My name is Bob Mendoza. I am an Environmental Planner with the
Environmental and Economic Impact Office of EPA, Region One In
Boston. With me this evening on my left is Ken Wood, EPA»s
Project Manager for the EIS, who is responsible for the prepara-
tion of this Environmental Impact Statement, Mr. Chet Jenowskl,
Grants Engineer for EPA, to my right, Walter Murphy, the Project
Manager of the EIS at Anderson-Nichols, EPA's contractors for the
EIS, to his right, Mr. Bill Hogan, who Is the principal Sanitary
Engineer with the Department of Environmental Protection, and
to his right, Mr. Joe Zeneskl, an Engineer with the consulting
firm of Anderson-Nichols. Anderson-Nichols has been under
contract with the EPA for the preparation of this draft and
subsequent Environmental Impact Statement. I would also like to
P
thank the local officials for allowing us the use of this
facility here tonight to conduct this public hearing.
The hearing has been convened to receive comments
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-41O2
-------
3
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the waste water
treatment and collection facilities In North Branford, Connecticut,
This Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended and
pursuant to the Environmental Protection Agency Regulations
which appear in the Federal Register, 40 CRF, Part 6, dated
April l*»th, 1975. The National Environmental Policy Act provides
that prior to commencing a major federal action, which may have
a significant effect on the environment, a federal agency must
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The major federal
action in this case, is the funding of design and construction
in that portion of the waste water collection facilities in
North Branford. The decision to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement is based on the criteria outlined In the regulations
as compared to the characteristics inherent in the project. It
does not represent, and I wish to emphasize this, it does not
represent an attempt to discredit or second guess decisions that
have already been made over the years. Nor must It represent a
lack of confidence in those who participated in that decision
making. t \
i
It simply is an Independent federal review of the j
project and the alternatives available to abate water pollution,
as required by law* The Environmental Impact Statement and
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
624-41O2
-------
i
accompanying newspaper summary was available to the public in
mid April. The official filing date with the Council on
Environmental Quality or the time that the clock started, in
other words, on the comment periods and times was April 20th,
1979. They required forty-five day comment. Ends on June 4th,
and the record of this hearing will remain open until June 4th
as well.
There has been a significant effort to provide
all interested parties the opportunity to participate in the
drafting process through the three workshops which have already
taken place. This is a formal end to that Informal process, but
I hasten to add, It is not a mere formality. A stenographic
record is being taken. Copies of this record will be available
in the local area as soon as they can be prepared.
But, in any event, the Federal Environmental
Impact Statement must respond to all responsible comments entered
Into this record or submitted in writing within the comment
period. To those people who could not make the hearing tonight,
the comment period is open to June 4th, and we will accept all
written documents and respond to all written comments up to that
t»
date.
We recognize that this Environmental Impact
Statement is a substantial document and you all may not have had
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2O5 CHURCH ST.. NEW HAVEN CONN
624-4IO2
-------
an opportunity to read and digest it completely. Copies have
been made available in the Town Hall. Therefore, we have asked
Mr. Walter Murphy to provide a brief summary and relate the
principal finding of the report, so we will all be starting from
a common ground. In an attempt to try to simplify the draft
Environmental Impact Statement, we prepared a newspaper tabloid
summary which we attempted to mail to everybody within the
North Branford area. Some of you may or may not have received
a copy. The attempt was to try to get this information to you.
After Mr. Murphy has provided us with a brief
summary, we will move on to statements, your statements, the real
reason that we are here, and in the interest of allowing every-
body an opportunity to speak, we must request that you limit your
verbal presentation to a summary of your remarks and you will
have the opportunity, if it's not prepared tonight, to submit a
full text for the record. So, without any further ado, I will
call on Walter Murphy to provide us with a summary of the project
and the Environmental Impact Statement.
MR. MURPHY: As Indicated on the agenda that was
handed out this evening, basically, I.will address briefly the
purpose of the BIS, the approach that was taken in preparing the
EIS and I will discuss the recommendations of the EIS. I will
attempt to keep this brief and focus most of the attention on the
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN CONN
6Z4-4IO2
-------
recommendations, so that I may answer questions later on those
recommendations. The purpose of the BIS for North Branford, was
basically to resolve EPA funding decisions on whether or not to
commit federal funds for the construction of sewers. As you are
aware, the Town Is in the process of applying for sewer construc-
tion In three areas. A, B and area 0. The Initial sewer areas
indicated on these figures in area A, was submitted and was
approved by the EPA for funds for construction. The initial
sewer area in area 0 was also reviewed and approved by the EPA
for funding. The Initial area In area B for sewer projects, which
the Town was in the process of applying for funds, was reviewed
by the State EPA, and the decision was made to prepare an
environmental impact statement on that portion of the town's
projects.
This necessity was prompted by both the require-
ments to demonstrate that the project was the most cost effective
solution to the problem in that area, and also the most environ-
mentally sound project. The latter reaulrement being and Bob
mentioned, the results of the EPA policy. The approach taken was
the easiest as described in the outline, which I will briefly go
through.
First of all, we placed great emphasis on demon-
strating the need for an area wide project in the community. We
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST.. NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-41O2
-------
ZJ
looked for evidence to see If there was water disposal problems
in the North Branford area. The first step in the process was an
extensive water quality sampling program, as most of you are
aware. And in the spring of last year, we sampled at some
fourteen locations in the community on four different occasions
for numerous substances In order to indicate the presence of
<
possible contamination from waste water. The results of this
waste water survey Indicated that the most populated areas were
areas number 9 and 13. The second source of information that we
used in determining possible needs for an area wide project, was
the available soil information that we had from the soil conser-
vation service. The third area upon which we received informatlor
regarding the needs of the community came in the form of a
questionnaire mailed town-wide.
In the questionnaire, which we received 557
responses, completed, which constituted eighteen percent of the
total mailing, a number of areas Indicated a significant response
to the question, are you experiencing problems with your septic
system. 'These figures on the screen reflect the percentages of
the neighborhoods in which the responses were yes, we are experi-
encing problems with the septic system.
The fourth source of information was based on
field observations conducted by both our engineers and our t:raine
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST.. NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-4102
-------
8
staff, and also, to a limited degree, by the Connecticut Depart-
ment of EPA. Prom these sources of information and from the
Information that citizens provided us through the workshops, we
developed a composite of the problem areas in the community.
j These problem areas are indicated on these figures. These
problem areas were also indicated in the newspaper tabloid you
received, and they are the Arthur Court area, the White Hollow
area, the Green Acres area, Miller Road and Grant Road, Jerz Lane
Brook Lane and the Surrey Drive area. After our identification
of problem areas, the second area was the analysis of alternative
solutions to the problem. In general, we applied four conceptual
alternatives to the problem areas in the community. These four
are indicated basically on the screen and I will go through them.
Alternative number one, is the concept of on-site
rehabilitation of existing septic systems. By this concept, it
: was assumed that we were applying a community sponsored program
i
of financing rehabilitation of those systems which were experi-
encing problems. The second conceptual alternative was the
concept of connecting those homes and problem areas that were
experiencing water problems to a community sepfelc system where
leaching could be accomplished over the property, where the
problem was experienced.
The third conceptual alternative consisted of the
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHOm.H ST . New HAVEN. CONN
-------
9.
concept of limited sewer systems. By this, we analyzed the
concept of construction and sewer systems to service simply
problem areas. This concept would have included funding possibly
for the major element of that system, with the community still
providing funds for some portion of It.
The fourth conceptual alternative consisted of
what is called conventional sewer systems, basically a concept of
area-wide sewer systems throughout areas B and the remaining area
C. For each of these alternatives in that these areas indicated
on the screen, we conducted both cost effective analysis and
overall impact analysis. These were indicated in a preliminary
screening. We will return to the cost figures for any discussion
you may have. For the purposes right now, we simply are going
quickly through it.
On these tables we have indicated the concept of
cost effectiveness of the alternatives under consideration. We
are considering total cost for the project. The cost borne by
everyone, also for these alternatives, we evaluated in a sense
the environmental impact. On at least two tables, the one that
has Just been shown and on this one, basically, this is the
environmental Impact report. From the preliminary screening,
we then move on to the requirements of the more specific alterna-
tives in the problem areas under consideration. In this case, we
POST REPORTING SERVICE
SO5 'IHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
024-4IO2
-------
_ .. .....10
move to the recommendations that you will find in the Environ-
mental Impact Statement, and I would like to go through these
ij
j
il with the three major problem areas. In the so-called Poxon area
': which corresponds basically with the southern portion of the
j
i| town B area, included in that area, which the town would have
i!
applied for grants for construction of sewers, we analyzed the
conceptual alternatives we Just mentioned. We analyzed this
concept and found it to be unfeasible in that portion of the
town, due to the density of the population in the outer court
area and due to small lot size that was inherent in those areas.
In the Poxon area, the community septic system
notion was also evaluated, but found to be expensive individuallys
in terms of what the actual home owners would have to pay. In
the Poxon area, we also evaluated the concept of a limited sewer
system, a sewer simply serving those streets which had problems
at this point in time. And, we found this also to be an expensive
alternative. In addition, in a preliminary screening, the con-
cept of conventional sewers was also expensive. Prom the pre-
liminary screening, we move toward a closer look at the actual
problems that we have experienced in these areas and to the
recommendations of the project, which the EPA would participate
in the funding.
The Environmental Impact Statement recommendations
POST REPORTING SERVICE
.*O5 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN CONN
GZ4-41O2
-------
1
for the Poxon area include the basic intercepted sewer line,
which is indicated on this draft by the blue line. Also, the
side street sewers are indicated in green.
We will return later to a comparison of these
concepts of the Environmental Impact Statement recommended
projects and the relationship to the town proposals in the
initial B-l area. This does not preclude sewering of other
streets in the area, but rather they are the ones the EPA will
participate in funding at this time. We will be available to
discuss this after we have the other draft, which describes the
original town project at the end of the presentation. In the
other areas of the lower valley, specifically the area of Jerz
Lane, Miller Drive and Grant Road, these four alternatives
previously mentioned were evaluated and none of them were found
to be particularly appealing in terms of either costs and/or
environmental impact. These areas have been included in a
\
secondary recommendation of the EPA Statement that further
studies on on-site rehabilitation or some other concept be
explored, and particularly of the step one planning study in the
future.
The second recommendation then for the Poxon area
was construction of these limited sewer systems, which we will
describe in greater detail after this presentation, and basicallyi
POST REPORTING SERVICE
1OS CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
K24-4IO2
-------
, 12
closer study if the town ia willing to pursue this of basic
planning for the remaining areas.
In the next large area of town which we are con-
cerned with, the White Hollow area, we also provided through the
l|
|j screening process for four concepts. The four concepts that
i!
were evaluated in the White Hollow area consisted of on-site
rehabilitation alternatives. These alternatives we feel have
potential in this area. However, we feel that in order for the
community to apply for an actual program of design and construc-
tion, more engineering would be required, and this we would
anticipate would be a part of the step one In that area.
The second alternative that was evaluated was
the concept of a community sewer system, discharging Into a
septic leaching field. This also has potential, but as you will
note later, under the present assumption on our part of funding,
it proves to be expensive. The third concept of a limited sewer
system carrying waste water out of this area of town, this area
here, this is the one we are referring to, carrying waste water
out of this, area of town was eliminated due to expense and also
due to the lack of wells within the upper valley. The fourth
conceptual alternative was found to be more expensive and
unwarranted in terms of the stated needs and the environmental
impact.
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2O5 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
024-/1IO2
-------
The Environmental Impact Statement recommendations
for the White Hollow area resulted in the following. After
further analysis, it was recommended that step one work, basic
engineering work, on the concept of on-slte rehabilitation or a
community leaching system in this area as indicated by the
graphic, would be the best step for the community to take.
In the last significant problem area of the
community, the Green Acres area, we also screened several con-
ceptual alternatives. In this area, two rather than four con-
cepts were evaluated, due to the proximity of this area to a
sewer system in an adjacent community. The basic alternative
evaluated here was the on-site rehabilitation alternative, which,
again, seems like a logical path to take in terms of expense and
in terms of environmental impact. But, to precede directly to
the design and construction would require additional step one
work and would envision other areas that would also be Included
i
in the overall study of remaining problems in the community.
The second alternative that was addressed in this
area was the concept of a local sewer. By a local sewer is
meant that a small sewer system would ,be constructed in this area
which would connect through the sewer system in the adjacent
community of North Haven. During our calculations on cost of
local a9wer systems, it was demonstrated that it would be an
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST NEW HAVEN. CONN
624-41O2
-------
expensive system because of grant eligibility. A sub alternative
was evaluated under the concept of a pressurized sewer system,
j
i which would be able to connect two interceptors on Cllntonville
Road, and we have costed out this alternative and will also have
this information to show you. The recommendations for the
Green Acres area in light of the information we had, was that
this area should be included as part of this general step one
study on remaining problem areas, with a closer look perhaps at
the concept of rehabilitating the septic systems in that area or
exploring Innovative alternatives such as a pressure sewer system
which might not prove more grant eligible than a conventional
sewer system in that area. As a result of this environmental
|i impact statement project, we are recommending what we believe to
il
be a viable unlimited sewer project for the Poxon area.
This sewer project would consist of a basic
interceptor which would service those areas which the town has
described as B-l and B-2 ultimately, and the immediate construc-
jj tion of local sewers in areas where there is a demonstrated need.
They are indicated on the graphic.
The concept, however, nvisions, that sewer service
would be provided to those areas that were described as B-l and
B-2 in therearller part of the presentation. At this point in
time, however, federal participation would be limited to these
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
G24-4IO2
-------
sites indicated on the graphic. That is not to say other parts
could not be constructed by the community if they decided. The
second major recommendation of the Bnvlronmental Impact Statement
report would be that those problem areas for which the
Environmental Impact Statement was unable to specifically recom-
mend, a program which would be impllmented immediately for those
problem areas should be studied as part of an overall step one
basic planning study.
We believe that through these two alternatives or
these two recommendations, that the community can solve its
immediate and long term waste disposal problem. I will turn it
back to Bob.
MR. MENDOZA: For those people who have Just
arrived, I would like to stress again, the public comment period
is open until June 4th. People who do not wish to make a
statement this evening, but wish to submit comment in writing are
encouraged to do so up until that date. Because of the size of
the group we have here tonight, I would like to have our
statements and responses presented in rather an informal way.
I would"like to ask if there are any local or state officials who
are here tonight who would like to make a statement on behalf of
their group? If there is anyone here within that capacity, I
would like them to state their name and who they represent and if
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST NEW HAVEN. CONN
6Z4-4IO2
-------
. 16
| they could make their statements loud enough so the reporter can
hear you, we will greatly appreciate it. Is there anyone here
representing any State or local agencies wishing to make a
i
1 statement this evening?
i
A VOICE: We are here, some of us, but we don't
represent anybody.
MR. MENDOZA: You will all have an opportunity to
j present yourselves as interested citizens if you wish to do that.
Anyone who would like to make a statement, please list your name
and address for the reporter. Any statements? How about
:, questions?
MS. BIGELOW: Mary Bigelow, Country Side Circle.
It used to be Circle Drive. I am interested in the two-way
sewer program and I have been talking with the regional planning
!'
Ij
agency about the EIS study, and they do not know what the status
is with their program. If we apply for money, is this the
executive plan or would they have to proceed from there, what
would they do?
MR. HOGAN: The State Department of Environmental
Protection is looking at communities such as Np,rth Branford in
two directions. The first would be to go with the regional
planning agency, secure a grant from them and develop an expensive
plan. The other alternative to that plan is to do It under a
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST NtW HAVEN. CONN
624 4IO2
-------
201 study, which is a federal and state grant system that are
seeking grants for the construction of these sewers. We are
allowing 201 study, which would be basic engineering studies to
look to the engineering solution to the problem identified on
Miller Road-Grant Road to Include those sewer programs. They
will -allow you to develop an expensive summary there and go even
further into the development of a sewer program.
MR. MBNDOZA: Whay type of grant is that, is that
a proportionate grant such as a federal and state program?
MR. HOGAN: This wouldbe seventy-five percent
federal, fifteen percent state and ten percent town. There would
be a requirement that the town put out ten percent of the dollars
MS. NBWHERRY: Phylis Newberry, Town Council/
Sewer Authority, and I am more here for the sewer part of it.
I am not clear on one thing about the Poxon area. On your map,
you showed the interception going over the Bast Haven line, but
you don't show the how It would be served by sewers. There
are problems in that area right about where your blue line goes.
There are other problems right along that border there. People
who live there feel they really need the sewers. Why is there
not anything done in that area?
MR. MURPHY: I will mention this one briefly and
then refer to another. The basic purple line in our Environmental
POST REPORTING SERVICE
JOS CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-41O2
-------
ia
Impact Study recommendations Indicate that major sewers which
will draw in a large area, that the major front sewer is called
an interceptor, which is an element you will be applying for in
federal and state grant money. And, as such, it is accepted as
an interceptor. At the time of our proposal for a complete
sewer program in the area, there was a temporary funding availably
for side streets. We, through the Environmental Impact study
will make a determination which streets by consideration of need
will be eligible for the funding. In relationship to the streets
indicated, we received Information from the sources I mentioned
earlier, demonstrating a need. Those sources being basically
Water Ouallty Survey, the soil information that we had, a
questionnaire that we mailed and the workshops that we had. At
this point in time, when we wrote the Environmental Impact
Statement, we could not substantiate to the degree necessary by
the EPA regulations, an Immediate need in those areas. Joe has
a slide, which I believe shows some of the streets so you can
see the differences in what was, I believe, the town proposal
for the Initial sewer area for which they sought funding for both
the basic interceptor line and also for laterals, which Included
Merit Drive, Katherine Street and Judson Drive. You may also
notice we have included Dorie Lane.
This constitutes the differences between the
POST REPORTING SERVICE
?O5 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVFN. CONN
624-4IO2
-------
information we have been able to acquire on these areas of
immediate need and what the town proposal for that area would
have been. This is based on the information we have been able
to obtain through the elements of the Environmental Impact
i
Statement survey.
Another point I would like to make is that the
interceptor pipe would not be restricted so that it could not
serve adjacent areas. It would still be able to in the future,
i|
;j but its capacity now is to serve the town B-l and B-2 areas
i|
: which would include the areas of Katherine Street, Judson Drive
j'and portions, I believe, and those areas not drained in East
,; Haven already, What is at issue here is the difference between
jl
lj that proposal and our recommendations. Number one, the inter-
ceptor sewer we are recommending would not have the capacity at
jthe very trunk to go into the middle valley. Number two, the
laterals for which we have recommended funding Include some of
i
.1
jj those which you sought funding, exclude some which you sought
I funding and there is one that you had not sought funding for.
The differences between the design of the interceptor sewer as
it exists within the town plans at this point in time and our
recommendations, consist of primarily of reducing the very trunk
of that pipe so as to preclude the upp«» valley. The other
difference involves the question of those lateral sewers for
POST REPORTING SERVICE
70S CHURCH ST . NEW HAVCN. CONN
j B24-4I02
i
-------
20.
which you would seek this grant eligibility. Perhaps Bill might
have some insight depending on the environmental impact state-
;: ment as to how these minor differences would be reconciled.
,i
[j Those areas Immediately adjacent to the pipe are not precluded
li ultimately and one of the purposes of this meeting Is to receive
i! further input.
A VOICE: What do you mean by Middle Valley?
MR. MURPHY: We have referred to, as the Middle
i Valley, throughout the Environmental Impact Statement, as an
11 area from approximately here, up to about here. This was indi-
cated as the ultimate sewer area In the B area of the Town
proposal. The area we are talking about provides sewer service
for these areas In here. The interceptor as we envisioned would
not include capacity for the extension of what I have termed,
Middle Valley, but would have In its design, capacity for this
area here. The basic difference is in the recommendations for
ii
! the construction of lateral sewers on side streets.
.1
MS. NEWBERRY: The reason I am asking Is somewhere
in this report, I did read the report all the way through, but
only once, so I am not quite sure. You said something about
building north of Mile Road, a development north of Mile Road.
When you talk about that valley, you are talking about east of
Totoket Road and west of Deforest Road and that area in there?
ii , __ _ _T
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHUHCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
R24-41O2
-------
21
That is the area that the army engineers planned to flood so
that it would not flood East Haven. How would you be developing
i'
that there?
j MR. MURPHY: That area we are not providing sewer
!j service for. As I described, we are aware there is a proposal
for the construction of a damn in the middle valley.
MS. NEWBERRY: Where did you get that proposal?
MR. MURPHY: We are aware of that through the
soil conservation office. The ultimate decision on that damning
proposal I am not certain of. Has this moved beyond that?
MS. NEWBERRY: I mean how firm do you believe
that what we call phase two and phase three in this area or
sewers in North Branford, you know, how firm
MR. MURPHY: I believe we are talking, again, we
are talking about two and three, we are talking about this area
in here. What is the question?
MS. NEWBERRY: How firm do you think the sewer
authority plans were, phase two and phase three?
MR. MURPHY: The only expression we have had of
that phase two and phase three program, was the capacity to provid*
in this design element of the interceptor, a long range plan.
They wex-e included in the engineering report.
MS. NEWBERRY: The long range plan being that map?
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 r.HVUt.H ST. NEW HAVCN. CONN
I-.! 4 41O2
-------
MR. MURPHY: Yes.
MS. NEWEERRY: On July 23rd, 197^, at the Sewer
Authority meeting you understand I have been on the Town
ij Council for eight years, so I have been a member of the Sewer
,i Authority from the beginning. I have here the minutes of the
ji July 23rd, 197^ meeting. It reads, "As requested, Mr. Platerty
i
i
j submitted for review to the council, a very rough map indicating
II
ij the future sewer service in the town. The map showed the three
ij phases of the sewer program." And then, it says that the matter
jj was referred to planning and zoning. I do not recall any formal
ij action ever taken by the Sewer Authority on phases two or three.
1
Do you have a record of that somewhere?
I MR. MURPHY: The only item we do have is the plan
;as we understand it, which the community would be applying for
i construction, in the portion of the interceptor, which shows
|| twenty-inch pipe and eighteen-inch, which is there to provide
}
j; future service for the upper valley area. The EPA had to make a
|decision on the element of the interceptor as to whether it was
Justified, and their decision was it was not necessary and that
is what their decision is.
MS. NEWBERRY: Let me put it this way. I think
|this is an accurate representation of the way we look at it, and
iwe listened to the advice of the engineer who said this is being
. .j
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
C.24 4102
-------
23.
built for fifteen years. I understand you are saying now you
only build them twenty years. We are talking about fifty years.
jj But, every time you dig up the streets and along the river you
disturb the natural systems and existing habitats, and you might
as well put in pipe of sufficient size to take care of the
contingencies for the next fifty years, as the town plan did,
and we did not change that part of the specifications. We did
not change the size of the plan because who can predict that we
might not need a pipe that size at some future time. You might
as well have that size, it does not cost that much more.
MR0 MENDOZA: There has been a change essentially
in the EVA policy with respect to the planning period associated
with the construction of interceptor sewers. Mr- Chester
Jenowskl will respond to your question.
A VOICE: What was changed?
MR. MENDOZA: It was a change in the policy with
respect to the planning period associated with design, for fifty
years and the twenty years. I would like to have Chester respond
MR. JENOWSKI: The main reason that the change was
made is that the EPA has found through a study they conducted
nationwide, that it Is no more expensive to put in additional
facilities after twenty years than it would be to put in those
facilities for a fifty year design, and that by limiting it to
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
624-41O2
-------
. 2.4k
I twenty years, you eliminate a lot of potential environmental
'i impact and a lot of potential secondary growth, resulting from
i!
jj providing that capacity immediately. As I said, there was a
!: study done nationwide and this is the result that they have come
i
il up with.
j!
|j MS. PITCH: Joan Pitch, Clintonhill Road, I am
also Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would
like to ask what is the pipe size, that is the reduced size that
you are proposing?
MR. MURPHY: Prom this portion to this portion
! here, there are, I believe, twenty and eighteen-inch, and
|
twelve-inches most of the distances beyond here. These twelve-
inches is obviously the twelve-inch portion of the pipe Just
west of Totoket Road up to Arthur Road, so this is obviously
adequate to supply drainage needs from that point on. At issue
here is the question of the eighteen or twenty-inch pipe. The
conclusion of the Environmental Impact Statement is that twenty-
inch pipe is too large in that it is sized to provide capacity
for much of this area for which there is no demonstrated need.
This is the portion which would have to be re-examined prior to
constructing this basic interceptor sewer. I am not an engineer
and I am not certain whethsr this would be twelve or fourteen-ineft
pipe. That would be an engineering judgment. It would be sized
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST . NCW HAVEN. CONN.
r,24-4IO2
-------
25
to compliment the remaining twelve-and ten-Inch pipe. It would
be reduced to include that little valley segment, but I am not
certain of the size other than twelve or slightly larger.
MS. PITCH: How many homes, businesses or indus-
tries should be able to be served if you reduce this pipe size?
MR. MURPHY: As I pointed out earlier, it would
be areas B-l and B-2. In a preliminary analysis of those figures
I believe there is approximately three hundred homes in the area
presently, and in checking the design as it exists, there 5s
approximately, I believe, a capacity for that amount.
MS. PITCH: How about some estimated percentages,
are you suggesting a twenty-five percent growth factor?
MR. MURPHY: A potential for one hundred percent
growth, in terms of ~ in terms of present zoning. The question
remains whether that area, B-l and B-2 will remain in that
particular zone. ,
MR. MSKDOZA: Would you like to see the final
impact statement relating to the existing zoning versus what
could potentially happen if zoning were to change?
MS. PITCH: I think it,would he helpful for the
community to know what the potential for growth is. I think
this was a big factor in the proposal as it went along. I think
It was a big factor in the proposal on the referendum held on
POST REPORTING SERVICE
iOS CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624 AtOZ
-------
Section C. I believe the potential growth factor In North
Branford would serve more than Just the need of Information for
the people In terms of sewers, and I think It would be certainly
worthwhile.
MR. MAC MILLEN: My name is Dana MacMillen. I
want to know for the people that are not going to get the sewers,
is your group going to give them, these people, any information
on how to keep our sewer system running good now? I have never
seen any bulletins anywhere in relation to this.
MR. MENDOZA: Do you mean maintenance of existing
on-site sewers?
MR. MAC MILLEN: Yes, I have never seen anything
I
about what should be done and how to maintain it.
MR. MENDOZA: I think we could Include in the fina
Environmental Impact Statement a recommendation with respect to
the operation and maintenance.
MR. MAC MILLEN: I have never seen this on the
local level, state or anywhere else, and I think this is half
the problem. People come from the city and they think they can
Just throw anything down the drain and it will .Just go away. If
they tried to educate the people years ago, flome of this might
have been elevlated.
MR. JENOWSKI: Have you checked with the regional
POST REPORTING SERVICE
20-> CHUUCH <>T . NEW HAVEN. CONN
-------
health difltrict to see If they have pamphlets on the maintenance
of septic systems?
MR. MAC MILLEN: I have not been really checking
around. I try myself not to throw bad stuff down the sewer and
I do everything that Is right that I was taught from my parents,
because we always lived In the country. But, I have been talking
r
to a lot of people and some people seem to think the ground can
take anything. They don't even know how sewers systems work.
MR. JENOWSKI: I would suggest you get a hold of
the regional health district. If anyone should have any infor-
mation, they should.
MR. MAC MILLEN: Maybe, when you present stuff
like this, you could also have things to push on the people to
say here is how you can protect yourself from troubles.
MR. MENDOZA: That is a good point. What is the
name of the local health district? East Shore Health District?
MR. MAC MILLEN: They are not down here trying
to educate the people. They should be here saying this is how
it should be done. You know, we have been hearing a lot about
sewers and I don't know how muen money, at all Is spent trying to
educate the public as to how to really upkeep the present systems
MR. WONTOREK: My name is Thomas wbntorek, I am
Town Manager. Just In answer to this gentleman's Question, the
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-4102
-------
28.
East Shore District Health Department has an office 1n Branford
and you can call there and they will mail out information to you
ji as to how to maintain and what to do with septic systems. I also
ij
ji have another question. In the proposal Included in the draft
ii
Environmental Impact Statement, it shows the areas that will be
funded by the federal government. Just to clarify, this does not
preclude the Town from adding other streets at the Town's expense
to this system after the time of construction?
MR. MENDOZA: I believe that Is correct.
MR. WONTOREK: Another question. If that is
possible, would it be possible for the town to retain the larger
size going into the East Haven, with the town sharing the addi-
tional cost, the town bearing the additional cost?
MR. JSNOWSKI: No. It has been determined In the
impact statement that a larger pipe In that end of the Inter-
ceptor could have a detrimental environmental effect on the
ij central valley. We would not participate in any project that
provided capacity for that area.
MR. WONTOREK: You would not participate in that,
but you would continue if we Just extended the laterals?
MR. JENOWSKI: Within the recommended service areas,,
yes. I think there is someplace in our report here, an answer to
this gentleman's question, that If we are going to go to some
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-4IO2
-------
sort of solution other than sewers or community sewers, that then
must be a town managed engineering and maintenance program to
assist local residents with septic systems, am I correct?
MR. MBNDOZA: Yes, that Is right.
MR. MURPHY: The report here addresses first of
all, the questions of the sewer system that the federal govern-
r
ment Is willing to participate In, recognizes that there are
other problems that will remain that will not be solved by the
sewer systems, but also could not be addressed directly In terms
of construing something tomorrow in terms of federal funding.
Obviously, an individual could start tomorrow taking action to
improve his own system. In order to address those unanswered
questions, the Environmental Impact Statement has recommended
that the town could apply for a study which would address those
loose ends so-to-speak. In order to obtain federal funding, as
I understand it, the City must implement these programs or
actually renovate some septic systems, for example, and this
would have to be sponsored by a community program. An individual
could not simply apply to the federal government, so it would
represent a commitment on the part of the community to address
these problems in this way.
The first logical step which would be started
very shortly, would be to introduce a study of how these approach
s
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST.. NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624 4IO2
-------
3Q
might be done. But, the actual implementation of ouch a program
were It to be found feasible, would require commitment over the
ii
'i
jj long-run of the town.
|| MR. HOGAN: The program would basically follow
II
the intent of the sewer ordinance program and that is why we are
recommending or would like to see the town do a sewer program for
the remaining areas of the town on the new 201 study. And, the
same question you are asking, sir, concerning maintenance of
your existing septic systems would be addressed and a program
could possibly be developed under that 201 study to develop a
town-wide mailing system or distribution system of Information
to all residents with septic systems as part of the sewer program
MR. MAC MILIEN: Would this take place or is it
going to be something where somebody has to go and dig this out
of a book and find the information?
MR. HOGAN: Several towns in the State of Connec-
ticut have already developed a document similar to what you are
seeking. It is a four or five page document. The Town of Orange
has done such a program, and I believe they have mailed It for
easier
MR. MAC MILLEN: Does the Town do this or Is there
State or federal money?
MR. HOGAN: The development of a program such as
POST REPORTING SERVICE
70S CHURCH ST NtW HAVEN. CONN
6^4 4IO2
-------
this actually comes out of the 201 study, which would be ninety
percent funded. I don't know the specifics on that as far as
mailing.
MR. MAC MILLEN: I think it would be money well
spent to educate as many as possible before the problem arises.
MS. FITCH: Joan Fitch again, the Planning and
Zoning Commission has discussed reduced pipe size for section B.
At that meeting, we were discussingapproval in terms of mandatory
referral under the State statute. This topic did come up, and
at that time, the engineer said he felt it was economically
unfeasible to do this, and it was the Commissions feeling that
they would not be able to pursuade the town to do this, to ask
for the environmental Impact statement. But, on the second
subject, I would like to bring up the upper Farm River Valley,
north of North Branford center, where the White Hollow area comes
The proposal for section C, which will be implemented very
shortly, contains this original pipe size. I would assume it was
designed in the same capacity that section B was designed? A
large pipe size to handle the whole upper Farm River Valley?
If this Implementation of sewer does not go forth, what is your
recommendation of future expansion?
MR. JSNOWSKI: Are you referring to the approved !
project in section C?
POST REPORTING SERVICE j
2OS CHUHCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN. I
624-4IOZ
-------
32
MS. FITCH: Yes.
MR, JENOWSKI: I believe that Interceptor was
sized for a fairly small drainage basis and not White Hollow.
The lower connection with the blue line which is now under the
Town proposal was the one that would have eventually served
White Hollow. Not the upper one.
MS. FITCH: That was part of section 0, that pipe
size capacity for the main trunk line. What are you recommending
now for the Qreen Acres area?
MR. JENOWSKI: For the approved area, as approved?
MS. FITCH: As the blue line shows right now.
What pipe size? That would have been the main trunk line for
the upper Farm River Valley.
MR. JENOWSKI: This area again, would fall under
the recommendations of a 201 study. This area again would be
looked at to evaluate not only a conventional sewer system, but
on-site collection as well as a pressurized sewer system that
Walter brought up. We have made no recommendations as to what
a pipe should serve in that area, because we made no recommenda-
tions as to how the area should be served.
MS. FTTOH: What you are saying is it is not to
be included in the section C area, but looked at with a new view.
MR. JENOWSKI: Under the 201 study.
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2O3 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-4102
-------
MR. BODWELL: Johnathan Bodwell, Town Engineer.
My question Is, you are going to go ahead with section B reduced.
That is going to Include Arthur Road and so forth. When do these
people expect to see sewers, I mean, you know, it is a mess as
we all know. I have calls dally, just about when can I be
relieved of this?
- r
A VOICE: He is speaking the truth.
MR. HOGAN: The town presently has a grant appli-
cation in the DEP office, which will need revision because of
alteration of the sewer proposed. There is also some additional
designing which would have to be done. The extension of the
interceptor
MR. BODWELL: Yes, I understand that.
MR. HOGAN: I am laying out the work that has to
be done. There would have to be additional design and redesign
of the lower pipe section here, which is very simple to do. An
estimate of the Town to do that, I would say, is maybe a month
to two months.
A VOICE: I am not worried about that portion, I
am worried about you people.
MR. HOGAN: If there are no serious objections to
the Impact Statement tonight, and the Town does not anticipate
any, I have already suggested that Tom and anyone else interested
POST REPORTING SERVICE
.70S CHUKCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
G24-4IO2
-------
in the Town, come to our office and sit down and work out a
schedule for the resubmittal of that application, redesign and
review in our office, so that we can then forward it to the EPA.
This can be started prior to the formal end point of this
hearing, or the formal comment period of this impact statement,
if there is no projection of any serious reaction to the impact
statement. This would all be preliminary at this point. We
would have to meet and lay out what would be revised in the
application, and then the Town would then have to go forward and
have those additional sewer designs. We would get the redesigned
sewers in our office, and approve the designing and application
having been reviewed, and then we would immediately send it to
Boston for the step three grant.
It might take a month or two.
MR. JENOWSKI: I would anticipate a very quick
turn-around time, provided, as Bill mentioned, there are no
objections to the Environmental Impact Statement and provided
the application comes in in accordance with the recommendations
of the .Environmental Impact Statement. There is essentially no
review or a very minimal amount of review required at this point
in time for applications.
MR. .HOGAN: It might be possible in late August
or sometime in late September for the Town to submit bids on the
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2O5 CHURCH ST.. NEW HAVEN. CONN.
621.4102
-------
project.
MRS. CARLETTI: In the meantime, people, what do
you propose for the people who have so many problems, what do
they tell their children about baths or showers or flushing the
toilet. What do you propose to suggest to these people? Do you
have any alternatives?
r
MR. MENDOZA: I can't offer you any suggestions.
MRS. CARLETTI: I realize that, therefore, I
suggest everybody gets off the pot and does something about it.
MR. MENDOZA: All I can offer you is that we will
do everything we can.
MRS. CARLETTI: We have been hearing that for a
long time.
MR. MENDOZA: Could I finish please? I am trying
to lay out a schedule for you, so when you leave, you have an
idea what we're talking about. I would hope with the close of
the comment period as of June 4th, and if we have no major
comments which require substantial time to respond, we should be
able to complete the process by the end of the summer, consistent
with the schedule in terms of the preparation and changes in the
application and submitting it to the EPA.
MRS. CARLETTI: I hope not. Have you been down
Arthur Road? Come to our back yards, come now. We would
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST.. NEW HAVEN. CONN
624-4IO2
-------
36
appreciate it if you would come and visit the Arthur Road back
yards. They are a disgrace and it is unclean and unsanitary.
MS. NEWBERRY: In their report, they are very
clear on the Arthur Road problem, they are aware that Arthur
Road is in trouble and they do recommend
MRS. CARLETTI: I understand that. But, we can't
really wait until August before they decide to do something.
This is what I am saying.
MRS. NEWBERRY: We have some people who live over
here, on the border, the border of East Haven. Just below where
you have the blue Interceptor going in. They are really quite
concerned because they wanted to attach they have very severe
problems. They wanted to attach East Haven right then, and
somehow, we could not work it out for them. East Haven's
equipment was there. Now, why didn't you have some complaints
from them?
MR. MURPHY: In terms of the information we had,
we did have some response from some individuals in that area.
We are in receipt of some requests that have been funneled to us
by yourselves regarding people who wanted to be connected to the
East Haven system. The number of responses we had from the
questionnaires, the amount of information we were able to acquire
from the sanitary surveys conducted by the DEP and the total sum
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
824-410Z
-------
37
of this information was not significant enough for us to make
the recommendations at that point in time. That is where it
stands.
MRS. CARLETTI: Those folks were here tonight.
MR. HOGAN: We would be able to allow the town to
submit additional information. This recommendation as to what
is eligible is based upon existing information collected to date.
If the town is doing this additional redesign, and if additional
Information is brought forth that would document the need to
install sewers on Williams Road and whatever street the people
are on that you are talking about, and you can convince the EPA
and Chet Jenowski that there is a definite need, we would include
those for funding at this point, and allow them to be constructed
If you make a determination and you don't feel it is necessary,
we would not be able to allow funding. It does not preclude the
Town from saying that we will sewer those streets for those
people.
MR. CHAMBSRLIN: Howard Chamberlin, Arthur Road.
I have been to quite a few of these meetings. On this 201 study
*
that you are going to make, does that .include Arthur Court and
Arthur Road?
MR. HOGAN: No. Your area would be provided with
a sewer system. The areas of section B-l and B-2 would not he
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST NEW HAVEN. CONN
r.?.4 4IO2
-------
38
included in the new 201 study.
MR. CHAMBERLIN: In one of the earlier shops, we
talked about the surface water and who is responsible. We claim
that surface water that was coming into Arthur Road and Arthur
Court was a responsibility of the Water Company because their
drainage is clogged up, and by not maintaining these outlets, we
observed the brunt of it. The mainstream of the water is about
200 feet closer to the houses now than it was ten years ago.
These are some of the conditions that we are having right now.
It is easy to see we are not going to be helped to the extent we
are going to get rid of surface water.
MR. HOGAN: They are not intended to. That is
something that had to be dealt with on the local level. Through
a Town action.
MR. CHAMBERLIN: In your report, you must have
been aware of the condition that existed at that time. I would
like to know from you people, what your report said about that,
because there is not one mention about how this surface water
comes about.
MR. MURPHY: The report did not seek to determine
r-
the cause of that high ground water other than assuming natural
conditions. It was concerned with the performance of septic
systems in that area and also that of the future. That is the
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2O5 CHURCH ST:. NEW HAVEN. CONN
G24-41O2
-------
39.
extent to which it addresses that problem.
MR. CHAMBERLIN: One condition worsens the other.
The surface water pollutes the ground. It does not give the
septic system a chance to go through the ground because it Is
saturated. So, the best thing first is to get rid of the
surface water. Let the land dry up and the sewers will have a
chance.
MR. MURPHY: The purpose of the study under the
program was on water pollution and not addressed to the local
drainage problem.
MR. MENDOZA: Are there any other questions or
statements?
MRS. CARLETTI: Pertaining to the remarks of
Mr. Chamberlin, after living on Arthur Road for about 28 years,
and I know every inch of the ground there and so does he, we have
never had these problems before. That gas line went through and
obviously, there has been neglect of property up in the back.
What he is maintaining and I agree with him is true, we need
sewers, which I wholeheartedly go for. But, we also need some
help. You are the Environmental Protection Agency. Now, we need
help to eliminate the problem because even with sewers, you are
going to have contamination here. Because, there are cows, and
I don't know how you are going to get them into the sewer water, j
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
G24-41O2
-------
40
If you can't eliminate the problem of the water company diverting
the water, I donft know how we are going to have a clean North
i
i
1 Branford or a healthy place for our children and grandchildren
to grow. This is basically what he is trying to say. Had there
ever been an investigation to find out why the neighbors or the
roads there have never had a problem previous to this time?
We have flooded cellars and back yards and it has been, In the
past five to ten years, growing progressively worse. The only
thing they can do is buy up our property dirt cheap until some
corrective measure is taken. Did you people ever check the
possibility of eliminating that water as he has suggested?
Both are related. They are relative. In order
to get rid of your sewer problem, you have to get rid of surface
water, am I correct?
MR. HOGAN: If you construct a sanitary sewer
system
MRS. CARLETTI: You would not have needed sewers
if this problem had been corrected originally. There would have
been no need for them to begin with in that area. There could
have been a pipeline put where the old railroad line ran through.
I don't know whether you have been down there or not, there used
to be an old trolley line there, running in back of our houses.
They are not keeping the debris out, and I believe the Town peoplb
POST REPORTING SERVICE'
205 CHURCH ST.. NEW HAVEN, CONN
f>24 4tO2
-------
11
have tried calling and they have neglected many of their respon-
sibilities aside from everything else. Does the Bnvironmental
Protection Agency attack these people in any way, not attack,
but ask them for their assistance to cooperate, because we do
have cows in the back and Farm River is right where they're at.
MR. MENDOZA: Had the town through any local board
* jr
tried to take any action to look at the draingage problem? I
guess it is a question of where the authority is.
MRS. CARLETTI: I am trying to clarify the picture
MR. CHAMBERLIN: That is what I would like to
know.
MR. HOGAN: Prom the state level, we do not take
active participation in basically drainage problems. From what
you are telling me, it is a drainage problem. Our response is
that it is either an individual matter, where you can pursue it
through a civil action or it is a town matter, a local matter
and state and government is not actively Involved. At least not
the Department of Environmental Protection. If you have serious
problems, you should make them known to the town. It appears
to be a town problem, a community problem in the area neighbor-
hood.
MRS. CARLETTI: Thank you.
MS. FITCH: I would like to compliment you on a
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2O3 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
624-41OZ
-------
42
fine study. I think that it is very comprehensive. I think
that it has been very comprehensive and offered the town a number
of alternatives that perhaps have been reviewed but not seriously
studied, and I am sorry that the expanse had to be incrued by
all the tax payers, not only from North Branford, but the state
and the nation.
i
MR. MENDOZA: Do we have any other statements or
questions?
MR. DePELICE: Louis DePelice, Green Acres area.
I would like to see the slide for the Green Acres area. You are
proposing either on-slte rehabilitation of Green Acres or a
sewer system for an injector system, is that correct?
MR. HOGANt Basically. Those are proposals we
felt would be done by the present study.
MR. DePELICE: To my knowledge, the town did do
an engineering study and they do have drawings for a sewer system
connected to seetion~C of the bonding that is going to be approve
I believe there is a trunk line and all the engineering was done.
What I want to know is, at the rear of Green Acres there is a
trunk line, a main sewer line from North Haven,. Have you fellows
reviewed that area or looked into that area?
MR. HOGAN: Is there a design for a sewer system
in the Green Acres area?
POST REPORTING SERVICE-
2OS CHURCH 5T . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
O24-41O2
-------
MR. WONTOREK: There was one. There was engi-
neering work done, but that is not part of our present grant
application.
MR. HOQAN: Have you completed that engineering
design work?
MR. WONTOREK: Yes, that was done.
r r
MR. HOOAN: I am aware of the concept, I was Just
not certain
MR. WONTOREK: It is done.
MR. DePELICE: What I am getting at is, the
government in the town does not have the
MR. MURPHY: One of the problems that relates to
your question is, earlier, it was anticipated that the Intercep-
tor line coming from North Haven could not only accommodate this
area, but would pick up the major part of area C of the valley.
But, the major interceptor portion of the design here would have
included the flow from the major part of the upper Farm River
valley, including .White Hollow. Obviously, one can presume that
this was a large diameter pipe. We concluded that number one,
the problems that exist in the White Hollow area were auite
remote and could be solved by a sewer system that would be
environmentally sound. The interceptor component of this concept
would not be accepted the way they are now. This interpretation
POST REPORTING SERVICE
70S CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-4IO2
-------
actually affected the cost of the conventional sewer system for
this area. Our cost estimate for conventional sewer systems in
this area connecting North Haven proved to be, because of grant
eligibility, very expensive. The costs were so high, in fact,
that EPA asked the question what about a non-conventional concept
for sewers, such as a pressurized system that would be able to
take those flows into a small diameter pipe, up hill. This
was explored only on a very superficial level to see what the
cost effectiveness might be, because seriously, we are not
familiar with engineering costs. Nor are we assured that the
town would want to go that route with something that was not a
conventional sewer system.
We also costed out the concept of a pressurized
sewer system to see what the effect would be. The result in this
particular case would be an increase in taxes to the town as a
whole. It would amount to a first year charge to a user of this
amount, which Includes the actual plumbing going up the street
and includes charges this amount would be every year after.
The Green Acres conventional sewer system under the assumption
that it 3s no longer eligible because it does ,not have an
Interceptor going up the valley, reflected very high costs
because of the large lots and relatively low density in that area
Unless the town sought a different arrangement of financing that,
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST MEW HAVEN. CONN
624-4IOZ
-------
these are the costs that we developed which obviously are expensive.
That Is why that area is included as a part of the basic re-analy-
sis. We are recommending for that area that it be included in
this general study.
MR. DePELIOE: You are saying that the pipe is
too large to serve that many homes in the original design?
MR. MURPHY: The concept for it, yes.
MR. DePELICE: You are talking about reducing the
other areas because of impact. But, to me, if you put a fourteen
inch pipe in the ground or a twenty-inch pipe in the ground,
digging the hole, the men working and putting in laterals is the
same. It is Just the cost of the pipe that is the difference.
Now, let's say twenty years from now, let's say someone wants to
come in and develop in North Branford. They are going to say
we can't because the system won't take it. So, they go for a
grant and they say let's increase the system and go around diggin,
up the streets again. And, these people over here, you are going
to hold them up to change the pipe size, because you feel they
are not going to need it twenty years from now.
MR. MENDOZA: We are nqt holding them up any more
than we have already.
MR. DePELICE: Going into section -C again, I have
only lived in the area for a couple of years now, and I think !
POST REPORTING SERVICE
fOS CHURCH ST. NEW HAVEN. CONN
«24 4IO2
-------
rehabilitating the septic system there Is totally Inadequate.
MR. HOOAN: I think the question that the
environmental Impact statement is basically saying back to the
town and the individuals that live up there is, are you willing
to pay $30? for sanitary service and $807 in future years to
have the connection made? Are you and are your neighbors up
there willing to do it? The report is saying because of the
high cost, we are not certain that the neighbors in that area
are willing to do that, to go that route, and from an engineering
standpoint, that is the correct way to go. That is why the
environmental impact statement is recommending additional studies
be done, to find out what the town desires and what the tax pay-
ers desire in that area.
MR. BODWELL: Would you clarify that $300 a year?
You don't mean $300 continuous from now until forever?
MR. HOQAN: Every year, as a user charge. The
assessment is spread over twenty years.
MR. BODWELL: At the end of twenty years, you
would simply pay the users charge? That is really a false figure
the way you are presenting it.
MR. HOGAN: It is a real figure for twenty years.
MR. BODWELL: The way it was presented
MR. HOOAN: I was on the assumption it was a
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2O5 CHURCH ST. N£W HAVEN. CONN.
624-41O2
-------
straight user charge, I am incorrect. That would be for the
initialtwenty years. After twenty years, it would be reduced.
MR. BODWELL: It would be less if someone decided
to pay off their assessment immediately without the interest
charge.
MR. MURPHY: Under the different assumption of the
assessment charge, it could be less in the tenth year but much
more expensive in the second year.
MR. BODWELL: You are going to scare a lot of
people with those figures the way they are presented.
MR. MENDOZA: The cost is there.
MR. BODWELL: I am Just saying that it should be
explained to the people what it represents.
MR. WONTOREK: On that 43,000 for conventional
sewers, is that the total project cost, town share or what?
MR. ZENESKI: I believe that is the total project
cost. But, I will verify that.
MR. WONTOREK: If it is, those numbers are totally
inadequate, because the town at most would only be assessing its
share.
t
MR. ZENESKI: There would be very little funding
involved. It would be all lateral sewers and no funding would
.be made available from the state or the EPA, so it would be all
POST REPORTING SERVICE
205 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN, CONN
C.24 4IO2
-------
48
local costs.
MR. WONTOREK: I thought when you had the map up
that it reflected federal funding?
MR. HOGAN: The only portion that would be ellglbl
for funding would be the blue lines, laterals in that section are
not eligible. The state Is not allowing the seventy-five percent
federal grant and lateral sewers anymore. It was a one-time
program, and the way grant money is going now, in the next five
to ten years if the program goes on, we will -- these costs could
be projected upon eligibility only on the blue lines. The green
would be totally local costs.
MR. ZENESKI: There are two alternatives here
within the conventional sewer alternative. One is to include
Surrey Drive where you do indeed have an eligible portion. The
other would not include Surrey Drive and this would also be
green colored and it is reflected in that table here. You will
also notice that the first year cost and the annual costs for
twenty years is less than it is when you study the Green Acres
area alone. That is, to sewer a small area would cost the town
I
more per family. What we are saying here is that as pointed out
in a number of alternatives, this is a method of comparing the
costs of those alternatives. We canmake a recommendation based
on this and recommend further study.
POST REPORTING SERVICE
70S CHURCH ST NEW HAVEN. CONN
624 4IO2
-------
MR. MURPHY: That one figure shown with Green
Acres really represents one of the four options. The others are
minor variations. But, what happens depends upon Judgment as to
how far well, by taking Surrey Drive out of there and putting
it back in, it effects grant eligibility as we interpret it at
this point in time.
MR. MAC MILLEN: You talked about not getting
involved with ground water, well, up on Route 80, where the
shopping center is, you are going to have to deal with on-site
rehabilitation. In that area, they have filled In the wet lands
so extensively, and they are presently doing it every day.
Whenever it rains, it floods all the stores and completely floods
Route 80. I have lived in this town all my life and this never
happened before. What do you do for an .area like that? It
completely floods right around the buildings and sewage is
pouring right into the river every day. I went to the town hall
and asked them about it and they said that they had an existing
permit to fill in the wet lands. The wet lands are Just being
completely filled in. What would happen, would you have to
advise the town not to continue this or what?
MR. MENDOZA: Any continuing practice filling
wetlands is only going to generate long term problems. It appear^
from what you are referring to that the problem of high ground
POST REPORTING SERVICE
ZOS CHURCH ST ! NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-4102
-------
50.
water might be incompatible to the buildings in that particular
area.
MR. MAC MILLBN: It Seems the town does not have
control over people filling in those wetlands and putting
buildings, and it is Just creating worse problems. It has got
to the point now that once or twice a year, you can't get down
Route 80. The water floods everything. I don't know if you went
in the back of the shopping center, but there is an open sewer
pit that goes straight out into the river. What could possibly
be done with something like that?
MS. NEWBERRY: Where you tested the water, I think
you tested it further down from where he is talking about.
MR. MURPHY: The water color In that area was
lower than other areas in the town. It was better than many othe
areas.
MR. MAC MILLEN: Sewage is going through there.
I walked in back there and the smell was so bad that I had to get
out of there. You have to be there when itoccurs. What is going
to happen, what would you recommend to the town, to take some
kind of legal action to get the people that ai^e filling It or
something like that?
MR. BODWELL: As far as the filling, most of that
was given permission prior to the wetlands existing subdivision
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2O5 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
624-4IO2
-------
. 51
or something of this ca«e. Now, the wetlands commission has
Jurisdiction over this and there should be no more filling with-
out a permit.
MR. MAC MILLEN: If you go down there, it is being
filled every single day.
MR. BODWELL: There is a wetland commission and
t
they are obligated to check these things out.
MR. MAC MILLEN: It is definitely out to lunch.
Someone was given permission, but they have gotten the ground
water so high, all the trees have died due to the high water.
Go and take a look.
MR. BODWELL: I am not arguing with you, I know
the situation. Some things we Just can't control. If anymore
filling is being done, we can control that. A condition prior
to this, we can't do anything about.
MR. MAC MILLEN: What if they already have gotten
permission to fill that area prior, we can't do anything about it
MR. MENDOZA: May I suggest we try to stay back on
any comments that any of you may have that are not in regard to
the recommendations to the board.
MR. CHAMBERLIN: I would like to know the closing
date on the State grants for lateral sewer plans?
MR. HOOAN: The closing date was probably a year
POST REPORTING SERVICE
IOS CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-4IO2
-------
52
a half ago. I don't have the exact date, but It is long gone.
We have kept open as a result of the Impact statement the ability
to give lateral funding on section B sewers. That would be the
last section in North Branford for lateral sewer grants given
in the entire State.
MR. CHAMBERLIN: That grant is still open for
section B?
MR. HOOAN: That is correct. The cost estimates
do account for lateral funding in section B.
MR. PATIKA: John Patika. I would like to say
that I am disappointed with your environmental impact statement
and your conclusions that you have come up with on Surrey Drive.
After all these studies, to come up with I call a non-solution
is terrible. Secondly, please come up there tomorrow. You are
suggesting alternatives that possibly may put in a better septic
|| system. My neighbor across the street has spent my three
h
ji
|| neighbors have spent over $10,000 In the last ten years to try
i!
j| to straighten out their situation. Half his yard is soaked and
I
it will be soaked until the first of probably July, before he
can get in there. I have one-third of my acreage soaked until
the first of June, and possibly, to the mid part of June. I
cannot understand how you can come up with a new intercepting
system when they found septic systems do not solve the problems
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2OS CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
6Z4-4IO2
-------
up there. Ag far as the coats are concerned, I agree with this
gentleman here. I think again, the figures are awfully inflated.!
i
I said this aix months ago and you have not proven to me at this
date that you are not inflating the figures.
MR. MENDOZA: Sir, why do you feel the figures
are Inflated?
MR. PATIKA: These fellows Just mentioned some of
the costs. You are giving an ambiguous figure up there. You say
so much a year to pay for sewer use taxes, and people read the
I newspaper and see sewer use taxes which the city is paying, and
they figure that this is what you are talking about. You are not
talking about that. Either that is what you are talking about
there, or the costs to us to pay for that sewer system when it
gets put in. They built 100 homes down in the Green Acres area
and they are planning to build another fifty. And, they are
planning to build twenty down at the bottom of the hill, all
within a half-mile of the other. There are over 300 homes not
too far from the C section. And then, you say suddenly, that
these figures are up, that is what you said before. They asked
people up in our part of town, saying.it was going to cost
$60,000 per unit to pay for those sewers and you helped to con-
tinue that falsehood by bringing out figures like this.
MR. MENDOZA: I appreciate your comments, but I
POST REPORTING SERVICE
JOS CHUHCH ST NEW HAVEN. CONN
624 4IO2
-------
don't necessarily agree.
MR. PATIKA: I know you don't. I don't agree
i| with your figures.
|!
|j MR. MENDOZA: I would like to try to explain those
ij figures if we could, so that you do have an understanding of
|! what they mean.
MR. MURPHY: We are dealing with the Surrey Drive
area, something less than ten houses. We have costed out two
options that would be available to the community, not relating to
septic systems. Those costs are, I think, you would agree, quite
high. For the second year and the third year, those costs would
only continue to the twentieth year and not the twenty-first
year. Those costs are still significant. In figuring out the
computation for Surrey Drive, we also included the likelihood
l| that there would be additional filling in between green Acres and
ii Surrey Drive. And that would have the effect of reducing
;i
ij
jj individual costs. There are some vacant lots there and the
i1
ii
j1 assumption is that the sewers put in there with all likelihood
i'
would be developed in that area. This was done as an exercise
to see what effect this would have on the high cost being the
ij result of, first of all, no longer having any eligibility for
laterals and having large lot sizes up there. Our conclusion
when we came away was that the costs over the number of homes
POST REPORTING SERVICE
/os <.HURC:H ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
624.4102
-------
-55-1
would be substantial.
The costs as presented the first year and years
I!
|j two through twenty can be Justified in terms of the number of
;| costs per unit. They were not done to scare someone, but they
|j were done to demonstrate the dilemma we found ourselves in
looking at that kind of a solution 'for that kind of an area.
We do not feel we can recommend that kind of a solution. We
feel it wouldte worthwhile to spend some additional efforts,
locally concentrated studies on the area to see what other
options would be available.
MR. PATIKA: I am looking at very shortly, within
j| the next year or two, a $4,000 bill to take care of my septic
system. I know the sewers are not going to come in.. If I take
the numbers up there, and let's take these numbers, which are
$232 a year, times twenty years, that is $4,000 or a little bit
more, plus another 800 some odd, so we are talking $5,000. My
neighbors have spent twice that much at least in inflated figures
over the last ten years. So what I am looking forward to, I am
not looking forward to it, what I am seeing in the future, unless
we get sewers before too long is that kind of a bill. And, I I
i
am talking about three places. j
Almost everyone of those homes on that street 1
has a problem. Whether they want to admit it or not. The most
I
POST REPORTING SERVICE
,11', rHUHOI ST . NLW HAVCN. CONN j
K2t itOl
-------
56
»
recent cost to my neighbor across the street was over $3,000,
in a separate system. You fellows have mentioned setting up a
|! distribution system up there, and it will cost him Just about
II
well, the previous owner. The new owner had inherited this.
He is on a hill and that water has to go someplace. I have a
similar situation, Everything pours downhill to my property.
And there are others also.
Why did they start this whole thing to begin with,
why didn't they Just give all of North Branford sewers when the
funding was available. How much has it cost already, this study,
do you know the approximate figure, what did this study cost the
government, roughly speaking?
MR. MENDOZA: Roughly about $85,000.
A VOICE: This is very important and you fellows
!J
i! have done a very good Job. You don't know our town as well as
I
we do though. People that live here. We appreciate your efforts
i!
ii but what does the EPA stand for? What does It really mean? What
i
I
are they for? Are they for the people that live in a town or
are they for the government. Who do you represent actually
when you do your study, can you answer that question please?
MR. HOGAN: If you are considering sewering the
entire town of North Branford, I would like you to take a look
at New Haven or Branford, or the other 169 towns In the State,
POST REPORTING SERVICE
/O5 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN.
624-4IO2
-------
. _ cy
i They are not
A VOICE: Branford has sewers.
'i
j; MR. HOGAN: Not every single street such as you
are proposing. We have limited grant funds. Based on that, it
it
jj all goes back to the tax dollars you pay to Washington.
II MR. PATIKA: I understand at one time there was
ii
i
ii the availability of tax dollars. That has obviously
j MR. HOGAN: No, the State of Connecticut several
i| years ago, we had a backlog of federal dollars that we had not
Ii
;| committed to sewer projects. The State of Connecticut would have
Ii
!, lost the dollars as of a September 30th date. I believe it was
'i
jj 1976 or 1977. If we had not committed those dollars, they would
!i
ji have been lost and would have gone back to another fund which
i
| would have been redistributed to other states. In an effort not
i*
,i
( to lose the funds, the State of Connecticut went to the local
i municipalities that had sewers available for construction. That
i
i
is the only reason, it is purely a political decision not to
lose construction grant funds out of the state of Connecticut.
It was not really a surplus, there was not a massive availability
We could not advance other major projects fast enough, otherwise
we would have lost the funds. So, that is the only reason grants
were ever given in the State of Connecticut.
MR. MBNDOZA: In every one of these impact
POST REPORTING SERVICE
'>", < Hltm M ST Nf W IIAVI N. < ONN
-------
58
statements, we seem to have a group of people who are very much
In favor of having sewers In the community and we have a group
who do not want the sewers. There appears to be a number of
different factions in every study we are involved with. We have
dealt with issues where if you sewer a community, you can increas<
the growth rate by over one hundred percent. This has an effect
on community facilities, schools, police and fire protection.
All of these are secondary impacts related to a potential sewer
j system within a town. I Just want to point that out.
MRS. CARLETTI: I agree, but you can't stop living
can you? You can't say we are not going to have Industry and lif<
You might as well stop living. You are the young people, you are
going, to have children and you are going to have to put them
somewhere.
MR. MENDOZA: I appreciate your comments.
MRS. CARLETTI: Thank you.
A VOICE: How much was the
A VOICE: It costs about $85,000 more or less for
this impact statement, but it costs the town about three million
in additional costs.
MR. MENDOZA: I don't know if that numl^er Is
correct. I have no idea.
A VOICE: Well, two million.
POST REPORTING SERVICE
2O5 CHURCH ST . NEW HAVEN. CONN
624-41O2
-------
MR. MENDOZA: I don't know If that number Is
correct.
A VOICE: Ask this gentleman here. Just take
this system, five million for this system and at an inflation
rate of ten percent, or thirty percent over the last three or
four years, what does that add up to? Forty percent of five
million is two million.
MR. MENDOZA: Thank you for your comments.
A VOICE: I think this is really good because we
are not going wile with sewers all over the town. I only wish
we did this in the beginning. I think it is better than putting
it through New Haven and shipping it out to the sound, and
polluting the sound.
MR. MENDOZA: If there are no other statements,
I would like to thank you for being patient with us and coming to
this hearing tonight and we will take comments that you may wish
to submit to us up until June 4th. Thank you.
(The hearing was concluded at 9:35 o'clock P.M.)
POST REPORTING SERVICE
?OS CHUHCH ST NCW HAVEN. CONN.
674-4102
-------
APPENDIX C
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH REPORT
-------
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
NORTH BRANFORD, CONNECTICUT FACILITIES PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PREPARED FOR
ANDERSON-NICHOLS, INC.
150 CAUSEWAY STREET
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BY
CHARLOTTE W. THOMSON, PH.D.,
CONSULTANT IN ARCHAEOLOGY
P.O. BOX 615
NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950
617-465-5808
DECEMBER 27, 1978
-------
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
NORTH BRANFORD, CONNECTICUT FACILITIES PLAN
I. PROJECT
The proposed sewer interceptor in the Foxon section of North Branford,
Connecticut shall run from the intersection of routes 22 and 80 westward to
the North Branford/East Haven town line (Map 1).
The interceptor sewer is to be laid beneath existing streets, and cross-
country along Burr's Brook, a tributary of the Farm River.
II. FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Where the interceptor sewer is to be placed beneath existing streets, or
through back yards subject to urban disturbance, soil horizons have already
been disrupted by excavation for the emplacement of one or more utility lines
(Jonathan Bodwell, Town Engineer). Thus there is little or no archaeological po-
tential where the interceptor route crosses through yards or runs beneath the
road.
As can be seen from walkover survey of the area, housing development
south of Foxon Road has been limited by local soil conditions. The areas that
have been developed are relatively high and dry, whereas the undeveloped land
along Burr's Brook is swampy.
III. DOCUMENTATION
David Potrier, Archaeologist of the Connecticut Historical Commission was
consulted. C. H. C. files showed no archaeological or historic sites within the
-------
project area.
Observed field conditions were documented by consulting a number of
soil studies for North Branford, Connecticut. The most authoritative of these
is the Soil Survey, Town of North Branford. New Haven County, Connecticut.
(United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, June
1969)
Where the interceptor sewer leaves the road, its route is through soils
classified as Bowmansville silt loam and Saco silt loam. These flood plain
soils are characterized as poorly drained and very poorly drained, water
table being at or near the surface part of the year.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Because of the extreme wetness of these soil series, it is ineffective to
survey them for archaeological sites, on account of the difficulty of defining
site features in saturated soils. It is therefore expected that construction of
the sewer interceptor in North Branford will not have an impact on prehistoric
or historic archaeological sites in the project area.
A prior archaeological survey prepared by the Connecticut Archaeological
Survey for Flaherty Giavara Associates reached the same conclusions, by other
means.
Charlotte W. Thomson, Ph. D.
Consultant in Archaeology
-------
REFERENCES
BARBER, JOHN WARNER. Connecticut Historical Collections. New Haven:
Durrie & Peck and J. W. Barber, 1838.
CONNECTICUT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY, INC. An Archaeological
Survey of Section B, North Branford Wastewater System, June 1977.
CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY. Soil
Interpretation for Urban Uses, 1969.
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, University of Connecticut at Storrs.
Natural Soil Groups for Connecticut, (not dated)
FLINT, RICHARD FOSTER. The Surficial Geology of the Branford Quadrangle.
Hartford: State Geological and Natural History Survey, 1964.
ROCKEY, J.L., ed. History of New Haven County. New York: W.W. Preston
& Co., 1892.
RODGERS, JOHN. Explanatory Text for Preliminary Geological Map of
Connecticut, 1956. Storrs: State Geological and Natural History Survey,
1959.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. Federal
Insurance Agency. Flood Insurance Study, North Branford, Connecticut,
New Haven County.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Soil Conservation Service. Soil
Survey Town of North Branford, Connecticut, New Haven County, June
1969.
-------
1: INTERCEPTOR ROUTE, NORTH BRANFORD, CONNECTICUT
,EGEND:
//////// Poorly drained and very poorly drained
//// ff Bowmansville and Saco silt loams
-------
Office of the
STATE
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
OFFICER
for Connecticut
59 SOUTH PROSPECT STREET - HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06106 TEL- (203) 566-3005
August 2, 1979
Ms. Janet Burns
Environmental Planner
Anderson-Nichols
150 Causeway Street
Boston, Mass. 02114
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Wastewater Management Program
Korth Branford, Conn.
Dear Ms. Burns:
With respect to the above-named project/ the State Historic
Preservation Officer has reviewed the archaeological survey
report prepared by Ms. Charlotte W. Thomson for Anderson-
Nichols & Co., Inc. and supplemental information available
within this office.
In accordance with the responsibilities of the National
Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190). the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (80 Stat 915, 16 USC 470 as amended),
and Advisory Council Procedures 36 CFR 800, the State Historic
Preservation Officer expects that this project will have no
impact on archaeological, historical or architectural resources
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
The State Historic Preservation Officer notes that this office
has reservations concerning the methodology employed by Ms.
Thomson for the identification and assessment of the impact
of the North Branford Wastewater Management Program upon
archaeological resources. That is, the research methodology
is deficient with respect to the absence of site specific
historic and prehistoric documentation. Further, Ms. Thomson's
logic concerning the ineffectiveness of surveying for archae-
ological sites due to the difficulty of defining site features
in saturated soils is fallacious. Although it may be correct
that the current state of the art is deficient with respect to
the recovery of internal site data in saturated areas, nonethe-
less, it is not the spirit and intent of the National Historic
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER: The person responsible for implementation in Connecticut of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 administered by the Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Washington, D.C.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER/AFFIRM A TIVE ACTION A GENCY
-------
Ms. Janet Burns (Cont'd) - 2 - August 2, 1979
Preservation Act of 1966 and Advisory Council Procedures 36 CFR
800 to concede to the destruction of archaeological data due to
methodological problems.
Despite the State Historic Preservation Officer's reservations
with Ms. Thompson's archaeological research methodology, the State
Historic Preservation Officer expects that the North Branford
Wastewater Management Program will have no effect upon archaeo-
logical, historical or architectural resources listed on or eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. This determination
has been made from an on-site inspection and an evaluation of
existing cultural resource data within this office. Further, the
State Historic Preservation Officer notes that the Connecticut
Archaeological Survey, Inc., previously surveyed a similar project
area in North Branford and failed to identify any archaeological
resources.
For further information, please contact David A. Poirier,
Archaeologist.
Clark J./Strickland
Deputy S/:ate Historic Preservation
Officer;
for
John W. Shannahan
DAP:aas/nk State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Anthony Ciccarelli,
State Coordinator for Connecticut
EPA, Boston, MA 02203
Ms. Ina B. Camblor
CT Dept. of Environmental Protection
Hartford, CT 06115
------- |