Socioeconomic Impacts of Water
Quality Strategies
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc
Cambridge, MA
Prepared for
Municipal Environmental Research Lab
Cincinnati, OH
Mar 82
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
PB82-222894
•••
-------
EPA-600/5-82-001
March 1982
PB82-222891*
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WATER QUALITY STRATEGIES
by
Robert F. McMahon
UrbanjSystemB Research and Engineering, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts 012138
Contract S68-03-2618
Project Officers
Don C. Niehus
Frank Evans
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleat read Imuructions on the reverie befon completing)
1. REPORT NO
EPA-600/5-82-001
2.
ORD Report
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
PBB? 222894
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Quality Strateqles
B REPORT DATE _.
Marrh 1Q82
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTMOR(S)
Robert F. McMahon
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc.
36 Boylston Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
CAZB1B
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA contract #68-03-2618
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory-dn.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati. Ohio 4568 .
OH
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
1*. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Officer: Don C. Niehus, (202) 755-8056
16. ABSTRACT
This publication provides in one place comprehensive guidance on
socioeconomic assessment for planners and engineers involved in areawide water -
quality or facilities planning. It provides a set of methods and techniques for con-
sidering socioeconomic impacts in the water quality planning process. Socioeconomic
impacts considered Include those in the following impact categories: fiscal effects,
employment effects, individual costs and-benefits, land use and growth effects,
public service impacts, sensory impacts, public health effects, and historic resource
impacts.
The guidebook is divided into two parts. Part 1 presents a prototypical
socioeconomic impact assessment process and guidelines for integrating it into the
overall water quality planning process. Four assessment activities are discussed in
the context "of water quality management planning: impact identification, impact
measurement, impact evaluation, and impact mitigation. Techniques for each of these
activities are discussed and examples presented.
Part 2 considers techniques for estimating the impacts of water quality con-
trols for the above impact categories. Socioeconomic issues, impact indicators, and
measurement techniques are presented for each impact category.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
is. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS fThil
Unclassified
21. NO. Of PACES
435
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thtl pagtj
Unclassified
22. PRICE
•FA Farm 2210-1 (t-7J)
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, D.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views or policies of the O.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention,
treatment and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste
pollutant discharges from municipal and community sources, for the
preservation and treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to
minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of
pollution. This publication is one of the products of that research; a most
vital communications link between the research and the user community.
Before pollution control technology is implemented in a given area, it
requires critical evaluation. In particular, it must be shown to be
cost-effective and to minimize environmental impacts. An additional area of
concern that merits consideration in the evaluation process is the issue of
socioeconomic impacts. EPA in recent years has recognized the importance of
land use impacts, financial burden, and community disruption in water
quality management planning. This publication provides in one place
comprehensive guidance on socioeconomic assessment for planners and
engineers involved in areawide water quality or facilities planning.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This guidebook provides a set of methods and techniques for considering
socioeconomic impacts in the water quality planning process. Socioeconomic
impacts considered include those in the following impact categories: fiscal
effects, employment effects, individual costs and benefits, land use and
growth effects, public service impacts, sensory impacts, public health
effects, and historic resource impacts. These types of impacts have
typically not been given adequate consideration in water quality planning.
The guidebook is divided into two parts. Part 1 presents a
prototypical socioeconomic impact assessment process and guidelines for
integrating it into the overall water quality planning process. Four
assessment activities are discussed in the context of water quality
management planning: impact identification, impact measurement, impact
evaluation, and impact mitigation. Techniques for each of these activities
are discussed and examples presented. A particular emphasis of the
guidebook is on alternatives evaluation, rather than on assessing the
impacts of a "best" alternative. The types of water quality strategies
discussed in Part 1 include conventional and alternative wastewater
techniques, stormwater management controls, hydrographic modifications,
water conservation controls, industrial wastewater controls, growth
management controls, and other non-point source controls.
Part 2 considers techniques for estimating the impacts of water quality
controls for the above impact categories. Socioeconomic issues, impact
indicators, and measurement techniques are presented for each impact
category.
This guidebook was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2618
by Urban Systems Research and Engineering, inc. under the direction of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The guidebook was developed during
the period January, 1978 to September, 1980.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Contents v
List of Exhibits x
List of Examples xiii
Acknowledgments xvi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose of this Guidebook 1
1.2 Summary of Technical Approach 2
1.3 Organization of this Guidebook 5
PAST 1; IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES 6
2. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS AND WATER QUALITY STRATEGIES 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Hater Quality Control Strategies 7
2.3 Socioeconomic impact Categories 12
2.4 How Socioeconomic Impacts Occur from Hater Quality
Strategies: Direct Impacts 16
2.5 How Socioeconomic Impacts Occur from Hater Quality
Strategies: Indirect Impacts 19
3. IMPACT IDENTIFICATION 27
3.1 Introduction 27
3.2 Impact Identification Procedures 28
-------
Page
4. IMPACT MEASUREMENT 41
4.1 Introduction 41
4.2 Basic Impact Measurement Concepts 41
4.3 Impact Measurement Procedures 47
5. IMPACT EVALUATION 64
5.1 Introduction 64
5.2 Determining the Significance of an Impact 65
5.3 Screening Techniques 68
5.4 Comprehensive Evaluation Technique: Balance Sheet
Method 75
5.5 Comprehensive Evaluation Technique: Goals Achievement
Account 77
5.6 Comprehensive Evaluation Technique: Linear Additive
Utility Function 80
5.7 Determining a Community Preference 81
5.8 Summary 88
5.9 References 89
6. IMPACT MITIGATION 91
6.1 Introduction 91
6.2 Types of Mitigation Measures 91
6.3 Selection and Evaluation of Mitigation Measures 92
PART 2; IMPACT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES 101
7. PUBLIC FISCAL 102
7.1 Impact Description 102
7.2 Impact Indicators 105
7.3 Preliminary Considerations 108
7.4 Measurement Techniques 108
7.5 Data Requirements 115
7.6 References 118
vi
-------
8. PRIVATE FIRM COSTS 119
8.1 Impact Description 119
8.2 Impact Indicators 123
8.3 Preliminary Considerations 126
8.4 Measurement Techniques 135
8.5 Data Requirements 138
8.6 References 145
9. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 147
9.1 Impact Description 147
9.2 Impact Indicators 150
9.3 Preliminary Considerations 152
9.4 Measurement Techniques 152
9.5 Data Requirements 159
9.6 References 159
10. PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL COSTS AND BENEFITS 163
10.1 Impact Description 163
10.2 Impact Indicators 170
10.3 Preliminary Considerations 170
10.4 Measurement Techniques 171
10.5 Data Requirements 178
10.6 References 178
11. LAND USE, HOUSING, AND POPULATION 181
11.1 Impact Description 181
11.2 Impact Indicators 187
11.3 Preliminary Considerations 190
11.4 Measurement Techniques 191
11.5 Data Requirements 208
11.6 References 213
vii
-------
Paje
12. OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES 215
12.1 Impact Description 215
12.2 Impact Indicators 220
12.3 Preliminary Considerations 220
12.4 Measurement Techniques 223
12.5 Data Requirements 233
12.6 References 233
13. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 236
13.1 Impact Description 236
13.2 Impact Indicators 239
13.3 Preliminary Considerations 240
13.4 Measurement Techniques 241
13.5 Data Requirements 244
13.6 References 244
14. HISTORIC RESOURCES 246
14.1 Impact Description 246
14.2 Impact Indicators 249
14.3 Preliminary Considerations 251
14.4 Measurement Techniques 256
14.5 Data Requirements 257
14.6 References 257
15. SENSORY 262
15.1 Visual Quality 262
15.2 Noise 272
15.3 Odors 281
viii
-------
P.age
16. PUBLIC HEALTH AMD SAFETY 288
16.1 Impact Description 288
16.2 Impact Indicators 290
16.3 Preliminary Considerations 291
16.4 Measurement Techniques 292
16.5 Data Requirements 297
16.6 References 299
APPENDIX A: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WATER QUALITY
STRATEGIES 300
A-l Introduction 301
A-2 On-Site Systems 302
A-3 Centralized Wastewater Systems 310
A-4 Residuals Management 325
A-5 Industrial Wastewater Controls 334
A-6 Infiltration/Inflow and Combined Sewer Controls 339
A-7 Domestic Water Conservation 342
A-8 Urban stonnwater Source Controls 348
A-9 Urban Stonnwater Flow Attenuation Controls 352
A-10 Urban Stonnwater Storage/Treatment Facilities 358
A-11 Urban Soil Erosion Controls 362
A-12 Agricultural Source Controls 367
A-13 Growth Management Controls 374
A-l4 Hydrographic Modifications 384
APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY 388
APPENDIX C: FINANCIAL SCREENING PROCEDURES 400
APPENDIX D: STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS 415
ix
-------
EXHIBITS
Number
2-1 Typical Water Quality Physical Controls
and Management Practices 9
2-2 Components of a Nater Quality Control
Strategy: Urban Stonnwater Flow Attenuation
Strategy 13
2-3 Physical Control Features and Socioeconomic
Impacts 18
2-4 Socioeconomic Issues Associated with Public
Financing Mechanisms 20
3-1 Major Groups Potentially Affected by Hater
Quality Strategies 29
6-1 Types of Mitigation Measures for Socioeconomic
Impacts of Water Quality Management Strategies 94
7-1 Public Fiscal Data Sources 117
8-1 Major Factors Affecting Farmer's Selection of
Water Quality Control Option 124
8-2 A Portion of the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual: 1972 125
8-3 Typical Response of Industries to Local Sewer
Charges and Surcharges 131
8-4 Industrial and Commercial Firm Costs Data
Sources 143
8-5 Agricultural Firm Costs Data Sources 144
9-1 Employment Impacts Associated with Water
Quality Strategies 151
9-2 Employment and Economic Growth Data Sources 160
10-1 Housing Cost Components 169
10-2 Typical Housing Cost Components 172
x
-------
Number Page
10-3 Water Quality strategy Impacts on Bousing
Costs 173
10-4 Private Individual Costs/Benefits Data
Sources 179
11-1 Growth Pattern Determinants 185
11-2 Overview of the GEMLUP Land use and Air Quality
Impact Assessment Procedure 194
11-3 Sample GEMLUP Worksheets 195
11-4 List of Input Variables Needed to Predict Core
Land Oses in the GEHLDP Model 197
11-5 REGION I Approach for Estimating Land Use
Impacts of Wastewater Investments 200
11-6 Growth Potential Indicators 202
11-7 Decision Path for Step 6 Analysis 209
11-8 Wastewater Investment Impacts on Growth 210
11-9 Land Use Data Sources 211
11-10 Methods for Updating Land Use Information 212
12-1 Water Supply Indicators 221
12-2 Solid Waste Service Indicators 229
12-3 Full time Public Employees Per 1,000
Population and Pupils for Municipal and
School District Services, by Municipal/
School District Size and Region of the
United States (North Central Region) 230
12-4 Public Services Data Sources 234
13-1 Recreational Opportunities Data Sources 245
14-1 Historic and Cultural Resources of Interest
in Socioeconomic Assessment 248
14-2 Historic and Cultural Resources Impact
Issues 250
14-3 Historic Resources Data Sources 260
xi
-------
Number Page
15-1 Suggested Checklist for Visual Impacts 266
15-2 Typical Visual Assessment Methodologies 268
15-3 Visual Quality Data Sources 271
15-4 dBA Level and Relative Loudness of
Typical Indoor and Outdoor Noises 274
15-5 EPA Identified Noise Levels Requisite
to Protect the Public Health and Welfare
with an Adequate Margin of Safety 277
15-6 Noise Impact Data Sources 282
15-7 Verbal Odor Descriptions 284
15-8 Odor Impact Data Sources 287
16-1 Hypothetical Damage Function 296
16-2 Public Health and Safety Data Sources 298
xii
-------
EXAMPLES
Number
Page
2-1 Indirect Impacts Associated with a Sewage
Treatment Facility in Smithville 25
3-1 Worksheet WS-1: Summary of Hater Quality
Alternative 31
3-2 Worksheet WS-2: Description of Water Quality
Components 32
3-3 Worksheet WS-3: Impact Identification Checklist:
Direct Impacts 34
3-4 Potential Impact Incidence for Smithville Sewage
Treatment Facility 37
4-1 Selected Impacts Associated with Proposed Smithville
Sewage Treatment Facility 46
4-2 Temporal Dimensions of Socioeconomic Impacts for
Smithville Sewage Treatment Facility 48
4-3 Impact Issues Screening Results 50
4-4 Impact Presentation: Population Increases Due to
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 54
4-5 Impact Presentation: Annual Household user Cost
Impacts of Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 55
4-6 Impact Presentation: Visual Effects of Wastewater
Treatment Plant 56
4-7 Impact Presentation: Historic Locations Affected
by Interceptor Route A 57
4-8 Impact Presentation: Expected Wastewater Treatment
Plant Noise Exposure in Rolling Hills Subdivision 58
4-9 Impact-Type Matrix 60
4-10 Alternative-Type Matrix 61
4-11 Area-Type Matrix 62
xiii
-------
Number page
4-12 Area-Type Matrix 63
5-1 Conjunctive Screening 71
5-2 Conjunctive Screening 72
5-3 Disjunctive Screening 74
5-4 Lexicographic Screening 76
5-5 Ranked Balance Sheet Method Applied to
Alternative Interceptor Routes for
South River Basin 78
5-6 Scored Goals Achievement Account Applied to
Alternative Interceptor Routes for South
River Basin 79
5-7 Linear Additive Utility Function Approach
Applied to Alternative Routes for South
River Basin 82
5-8 Pareto-Optimality. 86
6-1 Mitigation: Impact Prevention and Impact
Management Measures 93
7-1 Total water Quality Capital Costs/"Local"
Costs 109
7-2 Changes in Annual Water Quality Costs 110
7-3 Debt Service Cost Calculation 111
7-4 Tax Rate Change Calculation for Smithville
Sewerage Facilities 113 '
7-5 Revenue Calculation for Fees Associated with
Water for New Growth 116
8-1 Calculation of Annual and Total ICR Payment
Requirements for Lost River Sanitary District 128
8-2 Onion City Firms Affected by Proposed
Pretreatment Requirements 133
8-3 Treatment Cost Estimates 136
8-4 Annual Pollution Abatement Costs 137
xiv
-------
Paqe
8-5 Pollution Abatement investment as a Percentage
of Pair Market value of Capital Stock 139
8-6 Annual Costs as a Percentage of Gross Annual
Sales for Firms by Industry Type 140
8-7 Typical Sewer Surcharge Formula 141
8-8 Agricultural Cost Burden, Exeter County 142
9-1 Construction Worker Employment Impact of
Mew Sewage Treatment Facility 154
9-2 Using an Employment Multiplier to Forecast
Employment 155
9-3 Union City Firms Likely to Suffer Employment
Losses 157
10-1 Average Annual User Costs for Proposed
Smithville Sewer Project — user Bears
Total Cost 165
10-2 Average Annual Costs for Proposed Smithville
Sewer Project — Users and All Households
Share the Cost 166
10-3 Household Tax Burden in Smithville Associated
with Alternative Water Quality Strategies 175
11-1 Summary of Smithville Developable Land 204
11-2 Projected Smithville Bousing unit Increase 207
12-1 Projected Water Consumption Reductions by
Smithville Industries in Response to
Wastewater Controls 226
12-2 Solid Waste Impacts 231
12-3 Converting Personnel Demand into Costs:
Two Approaches 232
14-1 Historic Resources Impact Worksheet 258
xv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The process of developing this guidebook has resembled the
participatory process that normally accompanies an environmental assessment
process. A number of people have contributed to the preparation of this
guidebook during its many stages of development. These contributions have
been invaluable in shaping the form and substance of the guidebook. Any
errors of omission or commission, however, remain the responsibility of the
author.
Special thanks go to the former Project Officer for the contract, Mr.
Don Niehus of the EPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory in
Cincinnati. His guidance and comments have been essential in ensuring that
the guidebook is useful and practical to water quality planners. Frank
Evans ensured that this publication finally was completed in its present
format. He also are grateful to several 208 water quality agencies that
have reviewed portions of the guidebook at its various stages of
development. These include the Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and
Development 208 agency in Elmira, N.Y.; the Regional Planning Council 208
agency in Baltimore; the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 208 agency in
Tampa; the Indiana Heartland Coordinating Council 208 agency in
Indianapolis; the Mid-American Regional Council 208 agency in Kansas City;
the Denver Regional Council of Governments 208 agency in Denver; the
Association of Bay Area Governments 208 agency in Berkeley, CA; and the
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments in Monterey, CA.
The development of this guidebook required key contributions from a
number of DSR&E staff members. Elizabeth Lake served as Principal
Investigator for the project and provided invaluable help in the management
and direction of this guidebook. Christopher Pleatsikas, Malcolm Persen,
Sarah Weinstein, and Clark Binkley of USR&E all developed significant
portions of Part 2 of the guidebook. Jim Hudson served as Research
Evaluator and provided technical editing assistance. His suggestions have
been instrumental in shaping a sometimes academic subject into a practical
format. Finally, the efforts of Jo Bachelder and Barbara Mawn have been
extraordinary on production.
Consultant services to the project staff were provided by
Mr. Terry Friez of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and by Abt
Associates of Cambridge, Massachusetts on the evaluation and ranking of
socioeconomic impacts. Abt Associates developed the groundwork for the
techniques cited in this report. Terry Friez1s guidance in presenting these
evaluation approaches for use in a planning context are particularly
appreciated.
xvi
-------
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDEBOOK
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has, since its inception in
1969, called foe the assessment of socioeconomic impacts as part of the
environmental assessment process. Despite this mandate, socioeconomic
impacts have received spotty attention in the environmental assessments and
impact statements that accompany wastewater facilities plans and areawide
water quality planning efforts. Increasingly, however, socioeconomic
issues, such as land use impacts and user charge impacts, are significant
issues that shape public acceptance of water quality strategies.
EPA has recognized in recent years the growing importance of
socioeconomic issues in water quality management planning in three important
areas. Since January 1977, all Step I Facility Plans for Wastewater
Treatment plans are required to identify the following:
• Estimated total capital costs for the recommended treatment works,
a breakdown of estimated eligible and ineligible costs, and the
estimated Federal, State, local governmental and industrial shares
of the capital costs.
• The expected method of local financing and estimated annual debt
service charges or taxes (based on the expected interest rate for
municipal borrowing) on the total local capital cost of the
recommended treatment works.
• Estimated annual operation and maintenance costs and the estimated
industrial and local government's shares thereof for the
recommended treatment works.
-------
o The estimated monthly charge for operation and maintenance, the
estimated monthly debt of service charge, the estimated connection
charge, and the total monthly charge to a typical residential
customer.
This requirement to consider bottom-line distribution of costs is of
critical importance as the costs of wastewater treatment facilities increase
rapidly. The 1977 Clean Hater Act has also formalized EPA's concern that
multi-use recreation opportunities be considered in the construction of
wastewater facilities. Section 201 (6) of the Act stipulates that no
wastewater treatment plan construction grants be awarded after September,
1978 to grant applicants until recreation and open space opportunities
compatible with facilities have been adequately considered in the planning
process.
The concern for the land use impacts of wastewater treatment facilities
has received probably the most attention by EPA and others. The 1977 Clean
Water Act and subsequent regulations now require a much more sensitive
cost-effectiveness analysis to minimze the funding of excess capacity.
In short, there are two emerging trends for socioeconomic considerations
in water quality planning: 1) environmental quality at any cost is not an
adequate approach; 2) and an explicit accounting of costs, benefits, and
other impacts should be considered in environmental decision-making. As
concern for the consideration of socioeconomic impacts of water quality
strategies has grown, however, it has become increasingly clear that there
is a paucity of adequate guidance on how to identify, measure, evaluate, and
mitigate socioeconomic impacts.
The purpose of this guidebook is to provide water quality planners with
methods and techniques for considering socioeconomic impacts in the water
quality planning process. The emphasis is on techniques for impact
identification, measurement, evaluation, and mitigation. The procedural and
regulatory aspects of the environmental assessment process are not the focus
of the guidebook. While the guidebook is principally designed for areawide
water quality management planning, it is also relevant to sewerage planning
done under the Section 201 construction grants program.
1.2 SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL APPROACH
The guidebook discusses the socioeconomic impact process in terms of the
following four modular activities:
• Impact Identification
• Impact Measurement
• Impact Mitigation
-------
• Impact Evaluation
Each of these activities, summarized in Exhibit 1-1, is described in the
guidebook and procedures for accomplishing these tasks are recommended. In
many cases, alternative methods are proposed so that water quality planners
may accomplish the socioeconomic assessment appropriate to their available
resources. An important assumption of the approach in this guidebook is
that socioeconomic assessment is a decision tool to assist water quality
planners in evaluating alternatives. The identification and measurement of
impacts should not be ends in themselves. Rather, socioeconomic impact
information should be used along with information on costs, environmental
impacts, effectiveness, and implementation feasibility to evaluate
alternatives.
A major assumption in this guidebook is that equal water quality
benefits will result from each alternative consideration. It is assumed
that strategies that do not meet water quality standards will not be
considered in the final evaluation process. The implication of this
assumption is that some of the socioeconomic benefits associated with water
quality, such as public health impacts, drinking water improvements, and
some recreation benefits, are not directly considered in the guidebook since
they are equal for each alternative and presumably not crucial in
distinguishing among alternatives.
In addition to presenting a generic process for doing a socioeconomic
assessment of water quality strategies, the guidebook has an explicit scope,
both in terms of water quality strategies and socioeconomic impact
categories. The types of water quality strategies examined in this
guidebook are limited to the following:
• Conventional centralized wastewater treatment systems
• On-site and alternative wastewater treatment systems
• Residuals management
• Hydrographic modifications
• Infiltration/inflow and combined sewer controls
• Water conservation controls
• Industrial wastewater controls
• Urban stormwater source controls
• Urban stormwater flow attenuation controls
• Urban stormwater storage treatment controls
-------
• ~ Urban soil erosion controls
• Agricultural source controls
• Growth management controls.
This is a fairly inclusive list and should cover most of the types of water
quality strategies that will be considered in either wastewater facilities
planning or areawide water quality planning.
A number of socioeconomic impact categories were considered for
inclusion in the guidebook. Based on a review of existing facility plans
and areawide water quality plans, the following ten socioeconomic impact
categories are included:
• Public Fiscal
• Private Individual Costs/Benefits
• Private Firm Costs
• Employment and Economic Growth
• Land Use/Housing/Population
• Other Public Services
• Recreational Opportunities
• Historic Resources
• Sensory
• Public Health and Safety
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS GUIDEBOOK
The guidebook is organized into two parts:
Part 1: Impact Assessment Guidelines
Part 2: Impact Measurement Techniques
Part 1 focuses on the overall process of doing a socioeconomic
assessment for water quality strategies. Chapter 2 first examines how
socioeconomic impacts occur from water quality strategies. The
characteristics of different control measures are reviewed and their
relationship to socioeconomic impacts are discussed. Chapters 3 through 6
cover respectively the four activities that comprise a socioeconomic
assessment - impact identification, impact measurement, impact evaluation,
and impact mitigation. Numerous water quality strategy examples are used to
-------
highlight the discussion in these chapters.
Part 2 consists of ten chapters that cover specific impact measurement
techniques for the ten socioeconomic impact categories of interest in this
guidebook. These chapters are structured similarly with the following
sections in each chapter: impact description, impact indicators, measurement
techniques, data sources, and references. Numerous water quality strategy
examples are also used in the text.
Two important appendices supplement the text. While Chapters 7 through
16 present the impact measurement side of the guidebook, Appendix A
summarizes impacts by specific water quality control strategies. Each of
the water quality control strategies listed above in Section 1.2 is briefly
described and specific impact issues are listed in tabular form. This
allows the user to use this guidebook in two ways: specific impact
measurement techniques appropriate for any water quality strategy are
explained in the text in Chapters 7 through 16; impact issues associated
with specific water quality strategies are discussed in Appendix A.
Appendix B discusses an important issue that water quality planners
should consider in evaluating water quality strategies, namely
implementation feasibility. Unlike socioeconomic impacts which are the
consequences of a strategy, implementation feasibility is concerned with the
likelihood of a strategy being implemented. It encompasses political
acceptability, legal authority, and administrative capacity issues.
Implementation feasibility is a key issue for water quality planners to
consider in conjunction with impact issues in evaluating water quality
strategy alternatives.
-------
PART 1
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
GUIDELINES
-------
CHAPTER 2
Socioeconomic Impacts and
Water Quality Strategies
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Before proceeding with a discussion of how to conduct a socioeconomic
assessment, it is useful to look at the relationship between water quality
strategies and socioeconomic impacts. The purpose of this section is to
examine how socioeconomic impacts occur from water quality strategies.
An understanding of the relationships between water quality strategies
and socioeconomic impacts is crucial for the successful application of this
guidebook in a particular water quality planning process. In short, you
should have a conceptual understanding of how impacts occur. This chapter
provides an initial conceptualization of socioeconomic impact occurrence.
Section 2.2 first defines and illustrates what is meant by a "water
quality strategy". The type of impacts of interest in this publication are
then briefly discussed in Section 2.3. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 look at how
direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts, respectively, occur from water
quality strategies. Appendix A presents a detailed and comprehensive
checklist of potential socioeconomic impacts associated with specific water
quality control categories.
2.2 WATER QUALITY CONTROL STRATEGIES
A sewer pipe is not a water quality control strategy. Neither is an
urban stormwater detention pond a strategy. Both of these are physical
controls for dealing with water quality problems. A water quality strategy
encompasses three components:
• Physical controls or management practices
-------
• Implementation measures
• Institutional arrangements
Physical controls or management practices are physical actions that
modify or reduce pollutants. Controls include not only end-of-the-line
approaches such as treatment plants but also any physical activity that
modifies the physical generation of wastes in the waste stream process.
Four general types of physical controls in water quality management
include: reduction of waste generation; modification of wastes after
generation in on-site, collection, or final treatment facilities;
redistribution of wastes from one receiving media to another; and alteration
of the assimilative capacity of the receiving media. Physical controls may
range from simple management practices such as contour plowing used in
agricultural erosion control to advanced wastewater treatment plants.
Examples of each of typical controls are shown in Exhibit XX.
Implementation measures are the incentives or inducements that
precipitate or spur an action. In order for physical control actions to
take place, they must- have some type of trigger to insure their
implementation. These implementation measures may take a variety of forms,
such as sewer use charges, sediment control ordinances, operation and
maintenance manuals, or zoning by-laws. They may be regulatory,
enforcement, economic or educational in nature.
Regulatory-
Regulatory mechanisms are fairly common implementation measures in water
quality strategies. Examples range from local stormwater ordinances to EPA
construction grants regulations. Water quality regulations can be typically
classified by the features shown below.
Scope of Regulations
• Regulate type of
activities
• Regulate location
of activities
• Regulate timing
of activities
• Regulate size or
intensity of
activities •
Type of
Regulations
• Specification
standards
• Performance
standards
• Discretionary
standards
• Plan
conformance
Administrative
Mechanisms
• Permits
• L icenses
• Monitoring
• Inspections
-------
Exhibit 2-1
TYPICAL HATER QUALITY PHYSICAL CONTROLS AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
VO
HATER QUALITY
ISSUES
Urban
Stornwater
Municipal
Hastewater
Industrial
Waatewater
Reduct ion
in Waste
• Use of leas salt In
highway delclng
programs
• Street sweeping
programs
• Litter control
prograas
• Hater conservation
• Segregation of garbage
wastes from the waste-
water streaB on-slte
• Greywater systens
• Use of different
•aterlals In the
industrial process
• Segregation of solids
from the was leva ter
stream
• Hater conservation
Modification
of Hastes
• Detention basins
• Sewer lines
• Wastewater treat-
ment facility
• Treatoent and
pretreatnent
facilities
Redistribution
of Hastes
• Grounduater
recharge basins
• Land application
• Land application
• Separate discharge
versus connection
to a nun Id pal
facility
Alteration of
Asslnllatlve
Capacity
• Instreaa aeration
devices
• Flow augoentation
• Sane as above
• Same as above
-------
Economic—
Governmental units can stimulate public and private water quality
compliance actions by a variety of economic mechanisms.
Effluent Charges; These represent a system of charges on wastewater
emissions designed to allocate scarce resources. Their principal
purpose is to discourage an activity rather than to reflect actual costs
associated with a strategy. Some user charges, however, may be set so
high that they serve as an effluent charge or a disincentive.
Performance Bonds; These represent an obligation to pay a specified
amount of money unless performance conditions are met. They serve as an
insurance policy for public agencies regulating private actions.
Tax Incentives; Taxing policies which reduce or defer taxes to
encourage a desired goal may be considered tax incentives. They
represent subsidies from the public sector to the private sector.
Grants and Loans; These also are subsidies and they may be from the
public sector to the private sector or from one level of the public
sector to another level of the public sector.
Public Acquisition of Land; Public investments may be used to restrict
development and other activities. The purchase of development rights,
conservation easements, and purchase/lease back arrangements are all
mechanisms by which \ land-related activities may be restricted.
Private Transfer of Development Rights; Unlike the public purchase of
development rights discussed above, this mechanism involves the transfer
of development rights totally within the private sector. A public
agency may act as a broker in transactions.
Not included in the above list of economic incentives and disincentives
are such items as water quality-related fees, user charges, industrial cost
recovery payments, and assessments. These all represent financing
mechanisms discussed below under institutional arrangements. In essence,
they are payments or compensation for services received and provided for at
public expense. When these mechanisms are implemented in situations where
public wastewater facilities are being used without adequate compensation,
they may serve, however, as an economic disincentive. Thus, the
implementation of sewer user charges in communities that previously financed
wastewater systems by ad valorem taxes has stimulated a reduction in waste
from some water-using industries.
Education—
Educational incentives may be provided under a variety of
umbrellas—public information programs, training programs, technical
10
-------
assistance, guidebooks/manuals, workshops. These devices can be used by the
public sector to influence private sector compliance or by one level of the
public sector to influence public sector compliance at another level. In
relation to regulatory and economic incentives and sanctions, these
mechanisms involve relatively low key approaches in seeking compliance.
Educational incentives may be used in conjunction with other incentives
to achieve water quality compliance. For example, EPA and the states use a
multi-incentive approach in attempting to deal with operation and
maintenance problems of local public wastewater treatment plants. Operator
training programs, O&M manuals, and technical assistance—all educational
incentives—are used with regulatory, financial assistance, and enforcement
to stimulate better O&M.
Enforcement—
Enforcement sanctions involve both administrative and judicial actions
that seek to compel compliance. These range from informal administrative
orders, such as warning letters, to formal administrative sanctions, such as
permit revocation. More stringent judicial sanctions when invoked may
include fines, penalties, or damage recoveries.
Institutional arrangements, the third component of a water quality
control strategy, encompasses the institutions and arrangements to manage
and finance a water quality strategy.
Number and Type of Management Responsibilities—
Generally, a water quality planning agency will have to designate
agencies which will bear responsibility for implementing the structural
controls and the implementation measures. The number and type of
responsibilities that will require management will be dependent on the needs
of the structural and non-structural controls. The selection of
institutional arrangements is by no means, however, necessarily sequenced
after the other components. Institutional design should be coordinated
simultaneously with the other components. There are also a number of
"implementation feasibility" issues to consider in developing institutional
arrangements. Implementation feasibility analysis involves a judgment as to
the likelihood that a particular strategy can be achieved, and includes
administrative, legal, and political considerations. See Appendix B for a
discussion of implementation feasibility considerations for water quality
strategies.
Distribution of Management Responsibilities-
Management responsibilities may be split along several lines:
Public/Private Sector Responsibility; For both technical compliance and
administrative requirements, some management responsibilities may be
distributed among private and public entities. For example, a
11
-------
management strategy for on-site septic systems might include public
ownership of septage trucks.
Geographic Scope of Responsibility; The planning agency feasibility
analysis for institutional strategies will define a feasible geographic
scope of responsibility appropriate for different functions.
Alternatives include countywide or local, state, areawide, special
district, or interstate configurations. A particular strategy may
involve a multi-jurisdictional approach. For example, a sediment
control strategy may involve state standards; local permitting,
review,and enforcement functions; and technical assistance via the
district Soil Conservation Service.
Functional Scope of Responsibility; Water quality management
responsibilities may be given to non-water quality oriented agencies.
These may include agencies whose primary functions are storm drainage,
land use management, or solid waste management. While there are
important implementation feasibility questions surrounding these
designations, there may also be related socioeconomic impacts.
Type of Agency; Many types of agencies may be involved in water quality
management, such as line agencies of general purpose government (state,
federal, local); special districts; public authorities; and
quasi-governmental agencies.
Public Financing Mechanisms-
While costs, type of implementation measures, and institutional
arrangements have all been shown to be critical factors affecting public and
private costs associated with water quality strategies, one of the most
important factors shaping impacts is the type of mechanism used to finance
public-related costs. Public financing is necessary to fund both capital
and operational costs associated with water quality strategies. There are
equity considerations that have to be addressed in the development of
financing schemes. For the water quality planning agency, these equity
considerations may be as significant as least-cost criteria and
implementation feasibility criteria. The principal public financing
mechanisms to fund local water quality costs include: bonds, grants and
loans, general revenues, customer contributions, and user charges.
Exhibit 2-2 illustrates the components of a water quality strategy
addressing urban stormwater.
2.3 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT CATEGORIES
The specific types of socioeconomic impacts used in this guidebook
represent a judgement as to the socioeconomic issues that are most likely to
be encountered in local and regional water quality planning. Not all of the
socioeconomic issues discussed in this guidebook may be relevant in a
particular water quality planning context; similarly, there may be
12
-------
Exhibit 2-2
COMPONENTS OF A WATER QUALITY CONTROL STRATEGY;
URBAN STORMWATER FLOW ATTENUATION STRATEGY
COMPONENTS
DEFINITIONS
EXAMPLES
Control Methods/
Management
Practices
Physical actions that
modify or reduce
pollutants by:
• changing the amount, type,
timing, or spatial loca-
tion of pollutants
• altering the assimilative
capacity of the receiving
media
Stormwater detention
ponds
Temporary ponding
areas — rooftops,
parking lots, play-
grounds
Implementation
Measures
Incentives or inducements
that stimulate or spur a
physical action, such as
surcharges, regulations,
technical assistance, grants,
enforcement sanctions
Regulatory — storm
drainage ordinances
Economic — emission
charges based on
stormwater quantity/
acre
Economic — density
bonuses for
acceptable storm
drainage designs
Economic —
performance bonds to
assure adequate design
Institutional
Arrangements
Institutions, both public
and private, that will
perform the necessary
management functions,
such as implementation,
operation, financing,
monitoring
Local Public Works
Department — design
standards, plan re-
view, construction,
operational financing,
maintenance
Private Developers —
construction, capital
financing
13
-------
additional categories of concern not covered in this guidebook.
Since the focal point of this guidebook is principally on impacts of
water quality plans at the local and regional level, the selection of
socioeconomic impact categories for this guidebook has concentrated on
socioeconomic issues of interest to local and regional water quality
planners. For example, shifts in product prices that result from pollution
control abatement that may be of interest at the national level are not
discussed here. Income changes, on the other hand, are not discussed here
because a review of the literature revealed that income changes from water
quality strategies were difficult to identify.
The selection of the socioeconomic categories to be included in a
guidebook of this type is complicated by the lack of agreement as to what
constitutes a socioeconomic assessment. The basic legislation guiding
environmental assessment in this country, the National Environmental Policy
act (NEPA), provides only broad guidance on the subject. The categories
used in this guidebook have been selected with regard to these recent
judicial decisions, recent social science research, socioeconomic assessment
manuals developed for other types of projects, a literature review of water
quality projects and plans, and from discussions with water quality planners.
As discussed in the Introduction in Chapter 1, it is assumed in this
guidebook that only alternatives that meet water quality standards are
considered for socioeconomic assessment. Thus, it is assumed that equal
water quality benefits will accrue to each of the alternative strategies for
a particular water body. For the purposes of this guidebook, which is
primarily interested in distinguishing impacts associated with different
alternatives, the impacts associated with water quality are not important.
These impacts may affect recreational opportunities, public health, land
values, and water supply. While these water quality benefits are not of
direct concern here, the water quality planner may wish to consider them.
Public Fiscal
This category includes changes in public revenues and expenditures. The
focus in this guidebook is at the local and regional level. Direct
expenditures may include capital and operations and maintenance costs for
public facilities and regulatory and management costs associated with public
regulation. Changes in other public service costs will also produce
indirect changes in revenue and expenditures. Revenue changes will be
affected by user charges, by outside cost sharing opportunities, and by
changes in tax base and tax revenues.
The public fiscal impact category represents a distribution point for
many water quality strategy costs. Costs are eventually distributed to
individuals and firms via a variety of public financing mechanisms including
user charges, property and other taxes, and expendicture cut in other public
services.
14
-------
Private Individual Costs/Benefits
This category is concerned with direct and indirect water
quality-related costs incurred by individuals—users of wastewater programs,
non-users, homeowners, land owners. Of particular interest are changes in
wastewater costs, property taxes, and real estate values.
Private Firm Posts/Benefits
This category is concerned primarily with three groups potentially
affected by water quality strategies—industrial/commercial firms,
developers/builders, and agricultural producers. The types of costs
incurred by these groups include direct compliance costs—capital, O&M, and
regulatory—and non-user costs reflected in property taxes.
Deployment and Economic Growth
Changes in employment will result from water quality strategies in
several ways. There will be direct employment changes associated with the
construction of facilities. Employment changes will also occur from
locational or plant closing changes associated with water quality
strategies. There may also be multiplier effects, i.e, direct employment
changes will produce indirect changes in demand for labor and support
services.
Land Use Housing and Population
This category is primarily concerned with the effect water quality
strategies have on growth patterns, i.e., the location, amount, type,
density, and rate of growth. Domestic wastewater systems and growth
management controls, are particularly important for this impact category.
Land use impacts, in turn, are influential in stimulating a variety of other
impacts. Housing and population changes are considered in this category.
The pre-emption of land for public and private facilities is also an
impact issue in this category.
Public Services
In addition to affecting local and regional sewerage systems, water
quality strategies may also affect other public services in an area.
Changes in the demand, capacity, and performance are of interest in this
category. Water supply, solid waste, drainage are public services directly
affected by a variety of water quality strategies. In addition, growth
changes will stimulate changes in other public services.
Recreational Opportunities
This category is similar to the public services category in that changes
in demand, capacity, and performance are issues of interest. Since direct
15
-------
not of concern in this guidebook, the direct socioeconomic issues in this
category primarily relate to multiple use opportunities and changes in
accessibility resulting from water quality strategies. In addition, effects
of population growth are also of interest in this category.
Historic Resources
This category is concerned with direct damages in physical accessibility
to historic resources, alteration or displacement of historical resources,
and changes in value or importance of historic resources. In addition to
the direct effects associated with construction, many of the historic
impacts from population growth and sensory impacts.
Sensory
Three major socioeconomic issues are included in this category—visual
impacts, noise impacts, and odor impacts. The primary concern here is with
direct adverse impacts resulting from the nuisance aspects of operating or
building a facility. Indirect visual impacts associated with growth impacts
are also considered in this category.
Public Health/Safety
In addition to water quality benefits associated with water quality,
there are a variety of specific public health and safety impacts that may
occur from water quality strategies. Public safety issues may arise in
connection with the construction and operation of facilities; with the use
of stormwater detention facilities in residential neighborhoods; and with
reductions in road, salt on heavily-travelled highways. Public health
impacts are also quite heterogeneous and may occur in land application of
wastewater and from stormwater detention ponds that breed mosquitoes. A
potential indirect impact is the air quality impact associated with land use
effects of sewage treatment facilities.
2.4 BOW SOCIOECONCMIC IMPACTS OCCUR FROM HATER QUALITY STRATEGIES: DIRECT
IMPACTS
Discussed below are the features or characteristics of water quality
strategy components that stimulate socioeconomic impacts. It should be
emphasized that these features or characteristics of control strategies are
useful in identifying potential impact issues. Impacts occur when the
characteristics and provisions of a strategy interact with the conditions
existing at the location where the strategy is employed. Many socioeconomic
impacts are highly influenced by site-related factors. Sensory, historic,
and public service impacts, for example, are very dependent on site-specific
16
-------
Physical Controls/Management Practices
There are a variety of features of physical controls that stimulate
impacts including the following:
• Physical features
• Capacity
• Resource inputs
• Physical by-products
• Construction activities
• Operating characteristics
Location is a unique issue that shapes each of the above characteristics in
stimulating impacts. Certain features, such as construction activities, may
not have any socioeconomic effects. But when combined with location, the
construction activities may affect historic resources or produce sensory
impacts for an adjacent area. Typical socioeconomic impacts associated with
physical controls or management practices are shown in Exhibit 2-3.
Implementation Measures
Not only will implementation measures influence the effectiveness of
control strategies, but they will also stimulate socioeconomic impacts.
Regulatory and economic incentives have the most potential for stimulating
impacts. For example, stormwater control ordinances, pr°etreatment
ordinances, erosion control ordinances, and sewer surcharges—all of these
generally induce private sector compliance costs as well as public fiscal
administrative costs as seen below.
pro piementation Measures
Technical Compliance
Requirements
Administrative
Requirements
Private
Responsibilities
Public
Responsibilities
Public
Responsibilities
Private
Responsibilities
17
-------
PHYSICAL
Exhibit 2-3
CONTROL FEATURES AND SOC1OEOOHON1C IMPACTS
FEATURE
Physical
Capacity
Resource inputs
By-products
Construction
activities
Operating
SPECIFIC
CHARACTERISTICS
Size, height, form,
lighting
Amount
Land
Hastewater --
sludge residuals
wastevater —
water reuse
Hastewater/stornwater
--groundwater recharge
Flood control
Multiple use area
Nuisance aspects
Physical alterations
Excavations
Nuisance aspects
Malfunctions
STRUCTURAL CONTROLS
(EXAMPLES)
Hastewater facilities) stormwater
detention ponds i hydrographlc
controls i incinerators
Hastewater facilities
Any land intensive water quality
strategy, such as certain wastevater
facilities! urban stornwater
facilities
Hastewater facilities
Hastewater facilities
Hastewater facilities; storowater
detention ponds
Storawater facilities) hydrographlc
controls (dams)
Hastewater facilities, particularly
land application systensi sto»-
water detention reservoirs
Large scale facilities, such as
wastcwater facilities
Stornwater facilities) wastewater
facilities, particularly sewer lines
Stornwater facilities) sewer lines
A mmber of facilities
Hastewater facilities
DIRECT IMPACT
ISSUB(S)
Sensory
Land usei private firm coats )
Individual costs; public fiscal
Land use — land pre-enption
Land use—land reclamation r
agricultural benefit— fertilizer
Agricultural benefit — Irrigation)
public services — water supply
Public services — water supply
Public safety
Recreational opportunities
Sensory
Historic resources) public
services —water supply, traffic
Public safety
Sensory
Public health
-------
Institutional Arrangements
The type and distribution of socioeconomic impacts associated with
institutional arrangements will depend on the following factors:
• The number and type of management responsibilities to be performed;
• The distribution of responsibilities;
• The public financing methods used to finance public control
strategies and to finance implementation measures.
Obviously, the greater the number of management functions to be
performed by a public agency, the greater the potential for increased public
expenditures. The size of the impact, however, will be affected by
public/private sector distribution of responsibilities and by the geographic
distribution of responsibilities among agencies.
Public finance mechanisms represent a means of further distributing
public costs to the private sector—to firms and individuals. Examples of
how costs (and other impacts) can be distributed by alternative public
financing approaches are shown in Exhibit 2-4.
2.5 HOW SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OCCUR FROM WATER QUALITY STRATEGIES:
IMPACTS
INDIRECT
If the socioeconomic impact identification process stopped with the
identification of direct impacts, i.e., those attributable directly to the
proposed strategy, it would fail to capture many of the most significant
impact issues. Indirect impacts represent those impacts that are stimulated
by the direct impacts themselves.
For example, a water quality strategy that imposes erosion controls on
farmers might result in changes in the fanner's production costs and/or crop
income. These direct cost and revenue changes may, in turn, stimulate the
impact chain shown below:
Direct Impact
Indirect Impacts
Changes in
Land Values
Conversion
sf Land to
Developed
Uses
Changes in
Housing
Supply
1
Changes in
Population
The impact chain could, of course, go on further as population changes
may trigger changes in public service demand, employment, land use,
recreational opportunities, etc.
19
-------
Exhibit 2-4
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC FINANCING MECHANISMS
Public Financing
Mechanism
l« fluItion
(ftps/Examples
Ispaet Issuns
(1) General Obligation
Donds
Those bondsi arc bneked by the 'full
faith and credit* of tho Issuer and
are generally financed by ad vnlorcn
property taxes and/or revenues from
service charges.
Generally used for capital coats,
such ast
s public mstewater troatnent
facilities
• pulilic stormatcr detention
- facilities
10
O ,
These bonds typically carry lower
interest rates than revenue bonds and
therefore can favorably affect public
expenditures, Amount of indebtedness
Incurred under this nechanlsH ny be
United by staturei this nay require
tradeoffs in financing other cossunlty
projects affecting other public services.
Borrowing, of course, by any Means, raises
local indebtedness snd nay affect bond
ratings and future borrowing potential-
This nay also affect other public services
projects snd nay raise borrowing costs and
thus affect pisjlic expend!tures.
See discussion below (17,8,9) for Inpacts
associated with revenue sources for
bonds—property taxes, user charges, and
special assessments.
(2) Revenue Bands
In this type of bond, payments are
derived strictly frosi charges for
services provided.
These bonds, generally used for
capital costs, are not used by new
institutions or for new projects 'or
which lenders can evaluate revenue
potential. They are ussd in eases
where charges can bo easily Batched
with uses or services provided and
are particularly attractive in
situations where statuatory
limitations prohibit additional
debt via general obligation bonds.
These bonds typically carry higher
Interest charges than general obligation
bonds and thus will Increase public
expenditures for a project. The
indebtedness/bond ratings/borrowing costs
issue, discussed above, is slso relevant
here and say affect tot a', public
expenditures. Because revenue bonds are
not Halted by debt ceilings, other
public service projects requiring
borrowing say not be affected adversely
by this mechanism.
See also User Charge lipacts below.
13) Special Ass
M special assessment bond is
finsnced through revenues fro*
"special benefit assessments'.
Ths assessments are ba*cd on
benefits accruing to properties
affected by n project.
These bonds, genorslly used for
capital costs, are often used for
financing collection sewers snd local
drainage projects where property
benefits are relatively easy to
establish.
Higher interest costs are normally
associated with this mechanism because
of risk—this will affect total public
expenditures for projects. The
Indebtedness/bond ratings/borrowing
costs issue, discussed above, is slso
relevant here and say affect total
public expenditures. Because speciel
assessment bonds are not limited by
debt ceilings, other public service
projects requiring borrowing may not
be affected adversely by this mechanism.
Special assessment impacts may be similar
to above for GO bonds.
-------
Exhibit 2-4 (Continued)
Public Financing
Mechanism
(4) Grants/Loans
I ill I Ion
These aro co'M-itiarliiq sources of
nancy fr™ outside the-
jurisdiction generally used to finance
a portlnn of I he capital coat*, of a
project. They generally are ear-
Marked fnr only certain types of
capital costs a* typified by the EPA
construction qrants program and they
may typically have conditions attached
which will Influence project selection
and therefore socioccononlc impacts.
Uses/Exanplos
• EPA construction grants program
for public wastewater treatment
programs
• Department of Agriculture cost-
sharing grants program for local
erosion projects
• Department of Agriculture low
Interest loan program for public
wastewater treatment programs
Impact Issues
By subsidizing a percentage nf capital
costs, grants and loans will, of course,
reduce project public expenditures In
the recipient jurisdiction. Such cost-
sharing approaches may also stimulate
other significant impacts. Public
expenditures may be increased to the
extent that capital intensive projects.
such as centralized public sewerage
systemst are favored by cost-sharing
grants. Grants for the ancillary capital
costs necessary to the centralized
system may not be avallnblei thus total
public expenditures may be Increased for
strategies elglble for cost-sharing
grants and loans. As shown in Chapter 7*
cost-sharing programs can influence the
type of structural control for a
strategy. As Illustrated In Exhibit 2-3,
a variety of impacts flow from the
characteristics of specific structural
controls. Cost-sharing programs may
Impose conditions, such as industrial
pro-treatment requirements in the EPA
construction grants program, that will
stimulate socloeeonomlc impacts.
Finally, cost-sharing programs may
stipulate other financing mechanisms for
the project, such as the industrial
cost recovery program user charge system
required by P.L.92-500. These require-
ments will affect the distribution of
private cost incidence.
(5) General operating
Revenues
These funds, used sometimes for capital
costs as well as operating costs and
regulatory rosts. may Include a variety
of "unearmirked" sources from
miscellaneous fees, fines, and taxes.
They nay ho used to fund unspecified
capital protects or may be Bct aside in
sinking fumlq and earmarked for specific
purposes
Current operating revenues are
rarely used to fund major capital
costs but may be used for smaller
water quality capital costs, such
as a municipal septage vehicle
Mhen set aside in sinking funds,
operating revenues may be used for
larger capital projects, such as
land purchases.
The use of general operating revenues
obscure the "earned rewards*
financing principle and distribute
private incidence costs tn both users
and non-users of a strategy sinking
funds, much like a private savings
account, uses past revenue*, to fund
current projects. This "psy-as-you-go"
mechanism benefits future users in
contrast with borrowing schemes which
burden future users and residents of
a Jurisdiction.
1C) Customer
Contributions
In this mechanism, potential customers
of s project nre required to provide
capital funds or facilities to prnvldo
them with a service
Industrial cost recovery, although
temporarily suspended by the 1977
Clean Water Act and orcsently under
further study, is a prime example of
this technique Developer
dedications of stormwator detention
facilities, open and collection
sewers in new development's are
other examples.
Industrial cost recovery schemes (They
have been, however, temporarily'
suspended by the 1977 Clean Water Acr)
generally!produce favorably Impacts on
public expenditures and ml ted results
as far as cost incidence tn firms Impacts
The retained revenue provision allows
local cnmmnitles to keep a port on of
capital funds recovered from industry.
(Continued on next page.)
-------
Exhibit 2-4 (Continued)
Public Financing
Mechanism
nofliilHon
Usos/BxamplPS
Impact Iflouca
(61 Customer
Contributions
(Continued)
10
ro
This represents an additional subsidy Cor
the local Municipality above and beyond
the federal grant to the community. In
addition, the local ninicipallty alao
benefits If economics of srnle result
from the Inclusion of industrial capacity
in the local wastewater treatment plant.
Hhile the 1CR represents a cost incidence
to affected firms, a tie-In to the
municipal facility under certain
conditions may be more coat favorable
than an Individual industrial treatment
facility. Potential cost advantages for
municipal tie-In to the industry Include
no interest payments on the Industrial
cost shore and the benefits associated
with economies of scale.
The inpat.ts of developer contributions
are discussed more fully In chapter 10,
private Individual Costs and Benefits in
general, these requirements reduce
public expenditure by shifting costs
to the developer who in turn will shift
all or part of these costs to future
homebuyeiB. This shifting of coqts
represents a private cost incidence
to new homebuyers—both presently within
and outside the community.
(7) User Charges
User charges are revenues derived
from a user nf a projpct and are
based on actual or surrogate use of
a system or strategy.
User charges are used to finance
capital, operating, and regulatory
costs and include wastewater system
user charges, permit fees, and
license fees.
User fees and charges are designed to
maximize the "earned rewardi" principle
by charging users for services
received. Most user charge systems,
whether they are for operating costs
or regulatory costs, rarely reflect actual
user costs. User charge aystevn that
adhere strictly to actual coats associated
with a user may pose excessive coat
incidence to firms and Individuals
User charge systems designed to finance
high fixed charges often stimulate
expansion of a strategy to increase uaers
and thus lower average user charces. In
the case of sewers, this may stimulate
growth-related land use impacts.
IB) Property Taxes
Property tarrs represent a
coimun i l-y w i rln revenue source
bii^crl on t h" assessed valuation of
fin Individual's property
Property taxes are used to finance
capital, operating, and regulatory
costs associated with water quality
strategies. Since the 1977 Clean
Water Act, property taxes may be
used to fund operating costs of
publicly-owned waqtewater treatment
systems in communltlps where
residential properties comprise most
of the system's flow.
Property taxes generally obscure the
true costs of a water quality strategy
to users by distributing cost incidence
to individuals impacts to both users and
non-uaera of a system. Non-users may
not enjoy direct benefits of use but may
enjoy "community benefits* that a
water quality strategy may proffer.
-------
Exhibit 2-4
(Continued)
Public Financing
Mechanism
DpHniMon
URos/examplps
Impact Issues
(9) Special Assessments
Sprclal nn^cisnonts are revenues fro*
propcrtii** that reflect the bcncfita
or a wntpr quality strategy accruing
to the property. Front-footage or
or area cuna(derations arc often
used to di'trrimnc the assessment
amount.
Speclnl assessMent*] are used
priimrlly to fund capital coats
financed through General
Obligation bonds and Special
Asflessnent Bonds.
Like user charges, special assessments
are Intended to maximise the 'earned
rewards* principle. I.e., beneficiaries
pay for benefit!. This ny represent
a substantial cost incidence to
individuals who are large landowners—
both in terns of the direct aasessment
costs and the Increased property tai
assessments. In essence, the carrying
costs for undeveloped land are
substantially Increased through this
mechanism. Mien used to finance
sanitary severs, for example, special
assessments on large undeveloped
properties say stlsulate land
conversion and land use impacta-
(10) Fxpondlture
Cuts in Other
Public Services
This technique Is merely a revenue
transfer from other services.
• Use of bonding capacity to
finance water quality
atrategy rather than other
coaminity capital projects
• Increase in percentage of
general revenues used to
finance water quality
strategy operating costs
The Impact of this technique on other
public services depends on whether the
revenue transfer is done on a one-time
basis to finance a capital cost for a
water quality atrategy or whether an
on-going pattern of revenue erosion for
other public services is established.
By financing water quality strategies
with this technique, the
financial burden is
distributed to the users of the other
affected public services.
-------
Example 2-1 which deals with a- proposed sewage treatment facility in the
hypothetical community of Smithville illustrates other relationships between
direct and indirect impacts associated with water quality strategies. While
this particular example does not pretend to capture all of the potential
impacts and impact interactions that are associated with sewage treatment
facilities, it does illustrate several relevant points about indirect
impacts.
Relationship of Impacts
The likelihood of indirect impacts occurring is very dependent on the
magnitude and likelihood of the preceding impact. This likelihood of
occurrence should be distinguished from the strength of relationship that
exists between impacts. For example, under the right conditions in an area,
there is a very strong relationship between housing changes and population
changes. On the other hand, the relationship between sensory impacts and
land use changes is more tenuous. In essence, then, the likelihood and the
magnitude of indirect impacts is dependent on these conditions: the
likelihood of the preceding impact; and the context of the impact area. One
of the implications of this dependency is that higher order impacts tend to
be less certain because the number of variables affecting them increases
with each link on the chain. Thus, attribution of higher order impacts to
water quality strategies requires great care and judgement.
The strength of the relationship between impacts is perhaps one of the
most influential factors in indirect impacts. Certain impacts will
potentially always trigger other specific impacts. For example, there is
strong correlation between impacts in the "land use-housing-population-
public services" impact chain.
Quantification of Indirect impacts
Clearly, the ability to quantify indirect impacts is directly related to
the relative quantification of preceding impacts. For example, if in
Example 2-1 illustrated above, 1,500 housing units are expected to be
developed in the western part of town, then the quantification of population
effects is fairly straightforward. If on the other hand, new housing starts
in that area are expected to be "substantial", then it becomes more
difficult to attach a quantified population estimate to the housing impact.
Cumulative Effects
The above example clearly demonstrates the need to carefully examine net
effects. For example, the net effects on water supply may result in little
or no change from the status quo. There are potential increases in water
consumption demand associated with population and employment growth (impact
14). These may be more than offset, particularly in the short term, by the
decreases in water supply (impact 17) associated with employment loss.
Similarly, the loss of employment associated with the leather firms may be
more than offset by the increase in employment around the highway
interchange.
24
-------
Example 2-1
linjvit-Ln Annihilated uilli a .'na.'agc Treatment KiaililH in tSmilhuille
narkgmund: Saithuille is u mill lx-ili\)nm ,:nniminiLy of 5,000 loaated along Into rotate Z4 about 20 miles aouth of Center City.
Bccauae of poor aai In Unit limit dounloraKiit uith on-oite uanleuater systems, UK toon IB conaidoring ita firat
BCiMttc trrnLm-.nl, fdnililij. Alxmt 2,000 of the toun'o rcaiilente uill be earned by the firat phaaa of the I'tvjcat.
Local capital coata for Ilia frojf.at aill bo financed by long-term general obligation bonds ahich ail I be paid off
by properlf/ taxca, Itencfit anneoamanto, and inter charges. Looal capital coata aill total S3 million dollars. The
only too indiintrifa in toon — too laathar tanning fiima -- praaently dioahargo to the North River. The proponed
plan callo for them to dim'ontimia thair preoent direct discharges of tanning uaetcs and to pretreat their uaatea
and tie into the nca tuloanaed ocaaga treatment plant. Because of a shortage of sites along the Horth River the
plant aill be built in an araa charaatarinad by large-lot single-family hoaea.
lirtCTS. final Ivaal*
lni!r*at Imaett
14
-------
Example 2-1 (continued)
Associated aith a Seaagg Treatment Facility in Smithville
Direst Impacts
1. Sensory
o Increased aieual
nuieancea
o Inaraaaed noise
nuisances
2. Reereation
o Lota of publio aaaeoa to
boating and canoe
launching area
3. Employment
a Increase in conetruation
related and operational
employment aooooiated
vith the plant
1. Land Uee
o Increase in developable
residential land in
southern part of toon
o Increase in developable
oormeroial land around
Interstate 24 highaay
interchange
6. Public Pineal
o Increase in capital
and operational coots
associated uith public
eeacrage
0. Individual land Values
o Increases in property
values of pi-oposod
eeaered land
Indirect Impacts
7. Individual land Values
o Decrease in land values
in the area surrounding
the treatment plant
8. Recreation
o Increase in demand on
other riverfront publio
boat and canoe areae
9. Employment
o Increase in multiplier
service-related eufloy-
mant
10. Housing
o Increaood number of
housing unite
o Changes in eingle-
fami la/mil ti-fami lu
mix in toun
o Increased rate of
deve lopment
11. Population
o Increased population
o Increased rate of
graath
12. Sap lay men t
o Increase in oameroial
employment
o Increase in construction
employment
13. Emfilojiment
o Increase in multiplier
service-related etiploy-
mer.t
14. Publio Services
o Changes in publia
services demand
IS. Private Firm Coats
o Ctmngee in uasteaater
mats and tax burdens
for firms connected
to municipal systems
16. Knyloument
o Decreases in local
manufacturing enfloy-
ment
17. Fublio Services
o Change in aater eon-
sumption demand
18. Individual Caste
o Changes in aasteaatcr
costs and taxes
19. I'ublio Services
o Cliangas in proposed
later supply Jaoilitioe
construction
-------
CHAPTER 3
Impact Identification
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Impact identification is one of the most important steps in the overall
socioeconomic assessment of water quality management strategies. The
success of succeeding tasks—impact measurement, impact evaluation, and
impact mitigation—will be dependent upon the adequacy of the impact
identification step. Impact identification should serve the following
purposes:
• Identify potential direct and indirect impact issues;
• Identify potential geographic areas affected;
• Identify potential group interests affected.
The identification of potential impact issues should be systematically
done by the planning agency for each water quality strategy under
consideration. In most water quality planning processes, impact
identification is typically an ad hoe process. A few general impact
categories are selected for use in the assessment and varying degrees of
description are used in each of the categories to assess the impact of
alternative strategies. This approach runs the risk of missing relevant
impact issues altogether. The process needs to be systematic and able to
consider a variety of impact issues. By initially being as inclusive as
possible, there will be less chance of new impact issues emerging when the
overall assessment process is nearing completion.
The spatial distribution of impacts is an important aspect of impact
identification. By determining the political jurisdictions in which impacts
are expected to occur, for example, the planning agency will be able to
27
-------
anticipate how to incorporate these areas into the planning process.
Spatial incidence may include a variety of geographic areas. These may be
neighborhoods within immediate sensory contact of a facility; it may be a
waterfront area of a lake that is affected by development restrictions; it
may include a watershed affected by stonnwater runoff regulations; it may
include an entire community affected by a septic system management program;
or it may include an entire region that is directly affected by water
quality standards. It is important to note that areas affected by water
quality strategies do not just include areas for which a strategy is
intended to apply. There may be important indirect or secondary effects on
neighboring areas resulting from the application of a specific strategy.
Foe example, the imposition of growth management controls in one community,
may, under given circumstances, be instrumental in channelling new
development to another community.
The incidence of impacts on particular groups is clearly an important
dimension in socioeconomic assessment. This type of determination is one of
the features that distinguishes socioeconomic assessment from mere
cost-effectiveness analysis. This identification of impacted groups will
also enable the planning agency to incorporate affected interests in the
planning process. By including potentially affected interests throughout
the planning process, there will be less likelihood of groups emerging at
the end of the process and derailing implementation strategies. As in the
case of spatial distribution effects, group or individual incidence may
occur directly or indirectly. For example, specific property owners to be
served by a proposed sewer will be directly affected in a variety of ways.
They will bear user costs for the sewers; and they will incur, to some
extent, increased property value benefits which, in turn, may be translated
into higher property taxes. In communities where the lack of sewers serves
as a major development constraint, non-sewered property owners will also be
affected. Under certain conditions, those property owners may see their
property values adversely affected by sewer service area decisions. Exhibit
3-1 presents a list of groups potentially affected by water quality
strategies.
3.2 IMPACT IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES
The following steps are recommended as procedures for systematically
identifying potential socioeconomic impacts:
IMPACT IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE
Step 1 Describe the alternative or proposed action
Step 2 Determine direct impact issues
Step 3 Determine direct impact incidence
Step 4 Determine indirect impact issues
28
-------
Exhibit 3-1
MAJOR PROOFS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY WATER QUALITY STRATEGIES
SOCIOECDNOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS
• Age groups
• Racial groups
• Income groups
—low
—Moderate
—High
ECONOMIC GROUPS
Industrial/Firms
—By Standard Industrial Classification Code Status
—•wet* versus "Dry*
—Direct dischargers versus those connected to municipal treatment
plant
—By employment size
—water body dependent (marinas, tourism, hotels, fishing)
—Land development groups (real estate, developers, builders)
—Agricultural interests
Property Owners
—Adjacent to pollution control facilities
--Water adjacent properties
—Strategy-served properties versus non-served
—Owners of undeveloped land
—By assessed valuation
—By watershed
—By neighborhoods
—Seasonal
POLITICAL JURISDICTION
• Residents and political leaders of jurisdictions containing strategy
• Residents and political leaders of adjacent jurisdictions
• Residents and political leaders of regional/metropolitan area
OTHER INTEREST GROUPS
• Recreational boaters
• Recreational fishermen
• Other recreational groups (hunters, campers, swimmers, etc.)
• Area or interest-specific environmental groups
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY OR GOVERNMENTAL GROUPS
• Federal
—Other EPA—solid waste, air quality, drinking water, noise
—Corps of Engineers
—Department of Commerce (Economic Development Administration)
—Department of Housing and Urban Development
—Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
wildlife Service)
—Department of Energy
—Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service,
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Farmers
Home Administration
—Coastal Zone Management
• State
—water pollution
—Hater supply/Natural Resources
—Environmental Management/Protection
—Environmental Health/Health
—Planning and Development
—Coastal Zone Management
—Department of Transportation
• Local
—Hater supply
—Environmental Health and Sanitation
—Wastewater
—Planning /Development/Zoning
—Public Works
29
-------
Step 5 Determine indirect impact incidence
Step 6 Aggregate and display results
Step 1: Describe the alternative or proposed action.
Because of the wide range of detail and structure in alternatives, two
approaches are recommended for describing the alternative: a summary
approach shown in Example 3-1 and a more detailed approach shown in Example
3-2. Example 3-1 may be particularly appropriate when a number of
alternative are quickly being generated and a rapid screening and evaluation
is called for. For more detailed analysis. Example 3-2 illustrates the
information that should be abstracted from the basic components of the
alternative. Depending on the type of alternative, not all of these
characteristics would have to be delineated. The worksheets have been
completed as examples.
Step 2: Determine direct impact issues.
The basic method suggested for identifying potential direct
socioeconomic issues is a check list approach. This method requires an
implicit consideration of the alternatives or water quality action while
examining a specific list of potential impact issues. The impact checklist,
shown in Example 3-3, merely requires a "yes-no" type of consideration and
can be completed relatively quickly. The list of issues presented in
Example 3-3 is merely suggested and is not .intended to be exhaustive.
In considering which issues to include in a checklist for a specific
alternative, the water quality planner should consult Appendix A which
contains potential socioeconomic issues for the thirteen water quality
central categories of interest in this guidebook. The sections of Appendix
A that should be consulted are:
A-2 On-Site Wastewater Systems
A-3 Centralized Wastewater Systems
A-4 Residuals Management
A-5 Industrial Wastewater Controls
A-6 Infiltration-Inflow and Combined Sewer Controls
A-7 Domestic Water Conservation
A-8 Urban Stormwater Source Controls
A-9 Urban Stormwater Flow Attenuation Controls
A-10 Urban Stormwater Storage/Treatment Facilities
30
-------
Example 3-1
WORKSHEET WS-1: Summary of Water Quality Alternative
Name of alternative: water Conservation Alternative A: Retrofitting existing toilets
Purpose: To reduce water consumption and wastewater flows in public sewerage
system
Description:
Type of structural
contra I/management
practice: Distribution of plastic bottles or specially-fired bricks for
toilets
Imp fomentation
measure(s): • Free distribution to homeowners & building owners
Institutional
arrangements:
City ordinance requiring retrofitting of existing buildings within
1 year
Public: Public financing of materials and distribution
Private: Installing of materials by homeowners with instruction sheet
Location/area(e)
of coverage: Center city -- 7,500 buildings; estimated
(use nap if
appropriate) 30,000 toilets with water closets
Costs:
Capital
O&M
Regulatory
Public
$105,000
$ 70,000
$ 15,000
Private
Public Financing: • Water and sewer revenues for capital and regulatory costs
• CETA program for one-year administration
31
-------
Bxaapla 3-2
WORKSHEET US-2: Deseriotion of Water Quality Alternative
Components
Scone of Alternative: Smlthvllle Sewerage Alternative A
Structural Control Features/
Management Praotioea
Type of Control/Practice: Centralized sewage treatment facility and collection
Physical Characteristics: Activated sludge treatment plant; 500 yards from nearest
(eise,height Mforrttetc. )
houses; tallest building—30 feet .
Capacity: Average day demands--.4 HGD;
Resource Inputs: 60 acres of presently vacant land adjacent to North River In-'
(aater or land)
eluding boat launching site
By-Producta: Sludge (to be burled In site); Increased development capacity for
proposed service area
Construction Activities:
nuisance aspects: Truck traffic with materials and equipment
Physical alterations: ___^_^_____^^__^____________^___^__
Excavations: Collection system
Operating Charaeterietise:
tfrtiaance aspects: Septage truck traffic
Physical alterations: Occasional odor problems
Inplementaiiyn Keaeuros
Sgffualtory: EPA permit has mandated sizing of facility and location of service
area; EPA permits mandate tie-In of existing Industries to plant;
sewer use ordinance Mill mandate Industrial pre-treatnent
32
-------
Example 3-1 (continued)
Economic: EPA and State Capital Cost Sharing to SmithvlUe for treatment facl.
Hty and Interceptor lines.
Education:
Enforcement: Sewer use ordinance and permits Includes fines for potential
non-compliance
Institutional Arrangements
Management Functions
Regulatory
Economic
Enforcement
Education
a^
Pi sign
Construction
Operation/
Kaintenance
Private
Industrial firms
requiring pre-
treatment
Industrial firms
requiring pre-
treatment
Public
Smlthvllle
Sewer Dept.
Smithville
Sewer Dept.
Smithville
Sewer Dept./
Consultant
Smithville
Sewer Dept./
Consultant
Smithville
Sewer Dept./
Contractor
Smlthvllle
Sewer Dept.
Public
Financing
User Fees
User Fees
EPA/State grant;
General obliga-
tion bonds
EPA/State grant;
General obliga-
tion bonds. Bene-
fit Assessments
EPA/State grant;
General obliga-
tion bonds; Bene-
fit Assessments
User Fees
33
-------
Example 3-3
WORKSHEET US-3: Impact Identification Checklist: Direct Impacts
IMPACT ISSUES
Alternative: Water Conservation Alternative A
IMPACT 1JSUES
IMPACT ISSUES
i.o rum.ic PIKCAI,
JL
1.1 Climifico in capital ami
i.'ootu aattoaiatfij ailh piJilin uatcr
pollution control fiiiiilitirii X
1.2 Changes in adminiolnil iva ami
regulatory coata X
1.3 changes in revenues for public i.vifcr
pollution control facilities
1.4 Clumyca in other public aeiiiica
revenues/expend! luree X
1.5 Changes in ttu. base
1.0 Other
2.0 1'niVATE INDIVIDUAL COSTS/
BEHKP1TS
S. 7 Changes in inter quality ccwf'Ii-
ance coats: charges and Jean X
2.2 Changes in aaler quality compli-
ance coats: profierty taxes
2.3 Changes in other public service
costs
S.I Changes in property values
2.5 Other
8.0 PRIVATE FIRM COSTS
3.1 Changes in aater quality conpZt-
anca costs: capital and operations
3.2 Changes in aater quality confitt-
ance costs: administrative
3.3 Clianges in Hater quality compli-
ance costs: charges and fees
3.1 Changes in water quality cnmt>li-
anae costs: properly taxes
3.5 Changes in other public service
costs
3.6 Changes in property values
3. 7 Other
4.0 KUlWYHEKT/tCOHOHIC CROVTH
4.7 Changes in facility-related
construction employment
4.2 Clumgcn in public enftloyment for
uater pollution control facilities
4.3 Cliangee in employment for firm
affected by aater pollution con-
trol compliance costs
JL.
JL.
4.4 tViimyeo in enjiluymnl/H of firms
•/in; to aanelaratcr efjecta
4.5 (linages in emplaymant/t of fiimo
due to multiplier cffcata
4.S Other
5.0 LAND USK/IIOUSIKC/lVrVLATIOH
6.1 Chaitgca in tyiolluLion control facilities
10.3 Changes in flood potential
-------
A-ll Urban Soil Erosion Controls
A-12 Agricultural Source Controls
A-13 Growth Management Controls
A-14 Hydrographic Modifications
This appendix is particularly helpful in completing the checklist since
it relates impact issues to water quality control strategy characteristics.
Step 3: Determine direct impact incidence
This step requires that potential groups and areas be identified for
each direct impact issue identified in Step 2. The detail of the proposed
alternative or action will affect the ability to identify incidence. As
seen in Examples 3-1 and 3-2, a certain amount of information for affected
areas and groups will be available in the description of the alternative.
The suggested approach for identifying both affected groups and areas is
to use a checklist. The major categories of potentially-affected groups
includes at its broadest level: users, compliants, beneficiaries, those
adversely affected, those who pay, and those who manage or administer the
proposed actions. Not all of these gzoups may be applicable for a
particular strategy. The generic groups listed in Exhibit 3-1 should be
used as a general checklist. Planning agencies may wish to develop a
checklist with specific groups relevant to their study area. It should also
be noted that while this guidebook is not specifically addressing water
quality benefits, planning agencies may wish to include groups that are
obviously affected by water quality. These include boat owners, fishermen,
tourists, and the like.
The checklist for potentially affected areas should be developed
according to local conditions using the following general categories:
service areas; political jurisdictions; special geographic areas, such as
watersheds, lakeshore areas, neighborhood, geographic sections of a
community, regions, economic and housing market areas, and areas defined by
natural or environmentally-sensitive conditions.
Step 4: Determine indirect impact issues.
Unlike Step 1 where the planning agency is concerned with the impacts
that directly occur from the characteristics, this step requires an
identification of the impacts that are stimulated by the direct impacts
themselves. The purpose of this step is to not only identify first-order
impacts but higher-order impacts as well. It is difficult to prescribe what
order of indirect impacts the planning agency should attempt to identify.
The planning agency should not limit itself to an arbitrary number, say 4th
order impacts. Such arbtirariness may fail to identify important indirect
35
-------
impacts or it may identify potential indirect impacts of no importance. As
discussed in Chapter 4, several factors will influence the likelihood of
indirect impacts occurring, including the following: likelihood of the
preceding impact, the magnitude of the preceding impact, the strength of
relationship between impact categories, and the context within which impacts
are occurring. Because only very tentative indirect impacts can be
identified at this point in the assessment process, a great deal of effort
should not be exercised in identifying indirect'impacts.
The recommended procedure is to take the identified potential direct
impacts and identify the complete chain of impacts potentially associated
with that direct impact. The checklist of impact issues used in Example 3-3
should be used to identify each succeeding potential impact in the impact
chain. In carrying out this procedure, the indirect impacts identified in
Appendix A should be consulted. The indirect impacts will give the user of
this guidebook an indication of potential impact chains for different water
quality controls.
Step 5: Determine indirect impact incidence.
This step requires that potential groups and areas be identified for
each indirect impact issue identified in Step 4. Similar to Step 3, a
checklist approach is suggested.
Step 6: Aggregate and display information
This is simply a mechanical step in which information is summarized as
shown in Example 3-4.
36
-------
Example 3-4
Potential Impact Incidence for Smithville Sewage Treatment Facility
Direct Impact Issues
Groups Affected
Areas Affected
1. Sensory
• Increased visual nuisances
• Increased noise nuisances
Property owners
Pleasant Valley neighborhood
adjacent to plant
2. Recreation
• Loss of public access to
boating and canoe launching,
area
Boat and canoe owners
Smthvi? I le
3. Employment
• Increase in construction-
related employment associated
with the plant
• Increase in operational em-
ployment with the plant
Construction industry
Center city metropolitan area
4. Land Use
• Increase in developable
residential land
• Increase in developable com-
mercial land
Property owner
Property owners
Proposed sewer service area., parti-
cularly vacant areas
Proposed sewer service area, parti-
cularly Interstate II interchange
area
5. Public Fiscal
• Increases in capital and
operational costs associated
with public sewerage
Smithville
6. Individual Land Value
• Increase in property value
Property owners
Proposed sewer service area
-------
Example 3-4 (continued)
Potential Impact Incidence for Smithville Sewage Treatment Facility
Indirect Impact Issues
Groups Affected
Areas Affected
7. Individual Land Values
• Decrease in land values
Property owners
Pleasant Valley neighborhood ad-
jacent to plant
8. Recreation
Increase in demand for other
public boat and canoe areas
Owners and users of other public
boat and canoe areas
Other Worth River facilities
9. Employment
Increase in multiplier ser-
vice-related employment
Metropolitan area labor force
Metropolitan area
co
10. Housing
• Increased number of housing
units
• Changes in housing mix
• Increase rate of development
Hew homebuyers; realtors;
developers; builders
New homebuyers; realtors;
developers; builders
Metropolitan area
*
Metropolitan area
-------
vo
Example 3-4 (continued)
Potential Impact Incidence for Smithville Sewage Treatment Facility
Indirect Impact Issues
11. Population
• Increased population
• Increased rate of growth
12. Employment
• Increase in commercial
employment
• Increase in construction
employment
13. Employment
• Increase in multiplier
employment
14. Public Services
• Changes in public services
demand
15. Private Firm Costs
• Changes in wastewater costs
16. Employment
• Decreases in leather-related
employment
17. Public Services
• Changes in water consumption
demand
Groups Affected
New homebuyers
Metropolitan area labor force
Construction industry
Metropolitan area labor force
Public services users
Firms tied into sewerage system,
primarily local leather firms
Employees of local leather
tanning firms
Leather tanning firms; water
supply users
Areas Affected
Smithville
Metropolitan area
Metropolitan area
Metropolitan area
Smithville
Smithville
Smithville
Smithville
-------
Example 3-4 (continued)
Potential Impact Incidence for Smithville Sewage Treatment Facility: Direct Impact e
Indirect Impact Issues
18.
19.
Individual Costs
• Changes in wastewater
costs and taxes
Public Services
• Changes in water supply
capacity
Groups Affected
Users; all property owners
Water supply users
Areas Affected
Sewer service area users;
Smithville
Smithville
^Indicates not discernible or not an issue.
-------
CHAPTER 4
Impact Measurement
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The Impact Measurement step represents the core activity of the socio-
economic impact assessment process. Because of the potentially large number
of impacts that are candidates to be measured, the planning agency will have
to consider:
• What impact issues should be measured?
• What impact indicators should be used?
• How should the impacts be measured?
This chapter provides general guidance in making impact measurement
decisions in the socioeconomic assessment process. The emphasis in the
chapter is on definitions, concepts, and guidance. Specific impact measure-
ment techniques for the ten (10) impact categories used in this guidebook
are presented and discussed in Part 2.
4.2 BASIC IMPACT MEASUREMENTS CONCEPTS
Impact Definition
Impact measurement represents an attempt to measure the effects or
changes brought about by an action or policy. What represents a "change" or
an "effect"? The following figure provides an illustration of impact
definition.
41
-------
Condition
_L
xa Socioeconoraic Conditions
with Action A
Socioeconoraic Conditions
without Action
xb Socioeconomic Conditions
with Action B
Present
Action
Starts
time>
Action A represents a comprehensive public sewerage program utilizing a cen-
tralized land application treatment plant. Action B is more limited public
sewerage program with three (3) small plants. There are less economies of
scale associated with Action B and costs to firms that tie into these plants
will be higher than Action A. If neither Action A or B is implemented,
manufacturing employment levels in the community are projected to fall to x1
or 900; under Action A they are expected to increase xa 1600; under Action
B they are expected to fall to xo or 600. What are the impacts of Action
A and Action B?
Several conditions are portrayed in this figure:
• Present - Existing socioeconomic conditions
• Future Without - Socioeconomic conditions in the future without the
proposed Action A or B. Included in this scenario are all other
actions that alter present conditions.
• Future With - Socioeconomic conditions in the future with either
Action A or Action B. These scenarios also include other actions
that affect present conditions.
In the case where Action A is proposed, the impact of Action A is repre-
sented by A, or the difference between the "future with Action A" and the
"future without." Similarly, in terns of Action B, the impact of Action B
is represented by B. It is important to distinguish B from B1. The
difference B represents is a net impact while B' represents a gross impact.
B1 is the difference between the "future with Action B" and the"present
conditions." When B1 is measured, there is no attempt to forecast or
predict the affect of other variables on the present condition.
42
-------
Using real numbers will help to clarify the difference between B and
B1. Let the socioeconomic condition of interest be manufacturing employment
in a local community. At the present time, employment x totals 1200 people.
Using a "net impact" description, the impact of Action A on manufac-
turing employment is equal to the difference between xa and x1 (1600-900)
or +700 jobs. The impact of Action B is equal to the difference between
xb and x1 (600-900) or -300 jobs. The difference between A and B is 1000
jobs. Using a "gross impacts" approach, the impact of Action A on
manufacturing employment is equal to the difference between xa and x
(1600-1200) or -600 jobs. In this particular example, the net impacts
approach tends to make Action A look more favorable than under the gross
impacts method since the impact amount or magnitude is 700 jobs versus 400
jobs. Conversely, the net impacts approach understates the magnitude of
change for Action B compared to the gross impacts method. Note that the
difference between A or B. however, under both approaches is the same, i.e.,
1000 jobs.
While the net impact approach is the more correct methodological
approach, it may be appropriate to use the gross impact method. In partic-
ular, where the primary emphasis of the impact assessment process is to
chose a more "favorable" alternative than another, either approach produces
the same absolute impact difference between alternatives. Therefore, the
gross impact method is an acceptable approach if the purpose of the
assessment is to highlight absolute differences among alternatives. The
planning agency, however, should attempt to minimize mixing both approaches
in measuring impacts of alternatives. Whatever impact measurement approach
is used, the planning agency should clearly indicate the assumptions and the
limitations associated with each approach.
Types of Measurement
In its broadest terms, impact measurement attempts to translate sub-
jective issues into measureable terms. There are certainly different ways
of accomplishing this, however, and an understanding of the basic types of
measurement is important in both the Impact Measurement and the Impact
Evaluation activity. Impacts may be expressed by different levels of
measurement acording to various scales. The impacts may be described in
terms of monetary, other quantitative, or qualitative measures. Depending
on the type of measurement, various mathematical comparisons and mani-
pulations may or may not be valid in the Impact Evaluation activity. Four
generic types or scales of measurement are discussed below:
Categorical scales; These scales place impacts into discrete cate-
gories but one generally cannot say whether one category is
"better" than another. In this classification type of measurement,
it is possible, however, to design categories such that the infor-
mation can be used to screeen out alternatives in the later
evaluation steps. For example, one can categorize an impact as
43
-------
"short-term" or "long-term".
Ordinal scales; These scales imply a ranking measurement. For
example, ordinal measurements for one impact across four alter-
natives may be expressed along the following five categories:
extremely beneficial, moderately beneficial, neutral, moderately
adverse, extremely adverse. Arbitrary numerical measures may also
be employed to correspond to the above, such as +2, +1, 0, -1, and
-2. One cannot assume that the difference in magnitude involved in
moving from a measurement of 0 to a measurement of +1 is equal to
the difference between impact levels +1 and +2.
Interval scales; These scales provide equal intervals betwen
impact levels and indicate the differences or distances of impact
levels from some arbitrary origin. Interval scales provide a
means of measuring more precisely than ordinal scales the dimen-
sions of an impact. Since a continuous scale is used, relative
differences between impact levels may be compared. For example, if
alternatives for a particular impact category are measured on an
arbitrary 10-100 scale, with 10 representing the lowest impact
level and 100 indicating the highest level, then one can actually
say how much better a particular alternative is compared to
another. If four alternatives. A, B, C, and D, measure 100, 80,
60, and 50 respectively, then the difference between A and B is the
same as the difference between B and C. The mathematical opera-
tions of addition and substraction are valid with interval scales
along with multiplication or division by a non-negative constant.
Ratio scales; These scales like interval scales provide equal
intervals between impact levels, but unlike interval scales, ratio
scales use a non-arbitrary zero point. Using a ratio scale,
impacts can be expressed in dollar terms or in natural physical
units, such as length, weight, time, changes in air pollution
levels, or changes in employment. Multiplication and division by
interval or higher-order variables is valid, as are the operations
of addition and subtraction. Thus, if a household cost for sewage
treatment is $150/year, then it is twice as expensive as household
costs totalling $75/year.
In general, it is desirable to measure impacts on the highest order
scale that is possible. Measurement, no matter what scale used, inherently
involves some degree of abstraction. Ratio scales obviously involve less
abstraction than ordinal scales. It will be impossible, however, to use
ratio scales for all socioeconomic impacts. Many impacts categories, such
as visual quality, can only be qualitatively defined. In these cases the
water quality planner simply has to resort to lower-order measurement scales
to adequately describe impact levels. For some impact categories that are
normally described in qualitative terms, it may be possible to errploy surro-
gates that enable the use of higher order measurement scales° For example,
it may be possible to use csasures of crowdedness and accessibility as
44
-------
surrogate measures for the quality of recreational experience.
Example 4-1 illustrates different type of measures for selected impacts
associated with sewage treatment plant, The impacts are drawn from those in
Example 2-1.
Impact Measurement Dimensions
While not explicitly stated, discussion on impact measurement has
focused primarily on the magnitude aspect of impacts. Clearly, impact
magntitude is a major dimension of impact measurement. There are, however,
other aspects that may be considered in impact measurement. The following
summarizes the most important dimensions:
Magnitude; This aspect is concerned with the amount or size of the
impact and is synonomous with the net impact or gross impact dis-
cussed above.
Direction; This aspect deals with the adverse or beneficial nature
of an impact. Thus, if the impact indicator is change in employ-
ment levels, direction might be indicated as -300 jobs, for
example, or +700 jobs. Thus, it is also possible to indicate
direction within an impact indicator. For example, in the above
example, the impact indicator could have been expressed as "loss of
employment11 or "increase in employment."
Timing; This aspect refers to the occurrence of the impact and may
refer to different periods or times in the future. For example, it
may be important to note for some impacts that the impact will not
take place until 5 years from now. This is particularly important
in projects, such as sewage treatment plants, that may take 5-10
years or more to plan, design, and build. In this particular case,
it is very possible that conditions will alter the magnitude of the
impact before the impact is scheduled to occur.
Duration; Complementing the above concept is the issue of impact
duration. A traditional classification of this aspect is "short-
term" and "long-term." This dimension is particularly important
where the impact magnitude is large. For example, the construction
of a sewage treatment plant may stimulate 300 new construction
jobs, but the impact may only be for a short-term period.
Similarly, on the negative sde, a sewage treatment plant may result
in visual and noise nuisances due to construction-related traffic,
but the impacts will be of a limited duration.
Incidence; As discussed in Chapter 3, an important dimension of
impact assessment is group and geographic incidence. Measurement
cannot really occur in a vacuum. The magntitude and direction of
an impact will vary by geographic area and by group. Using the
construction employment example above, the 300 new jobs have rela-
45
-------
Example 4-1
SELECTED IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED
SMITHVILLE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY
Ol
Impact Indicator
X. Visual Nuisances
X Noise Nuisances
X- Loss of public boat
launching areas
X. Construction-related
employment
X. Developable
Residential land
X, Public Fiscal Cost
o
X- Residential land
values for South-
west sewer service
area
Measurement
Acceptable
Exceeds 45 decibels more
than 8 hours per 24 hours
Too (2) sites pre-empted
+300 new temporary jobs
1,500 acres opened up for
development
$169,000 annual debt
service costs
Moderate increases
Type of
Measure
Categorical
Interval
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Ordinal
-------
tively little meaning unless the impact area is defined. The 300
new jobs may represnt a major impact in a rural community but may
have virtually no significance if the impact area under consider-
ation is a large region.
While all the above measurement dimensions are relatively easy to com-
prehend, the two temporal aspects — duration and timing — deserve some
additional assessment. The selection of a time frame for impact measurement
will affect all of the other measurement dimensions. Clearly, from some
water quality projects, the impacts after 5 years will be different than
those after 15 or 20 years. Example 4-2 illustrates the temporal variations
possible with socioeconomic impacts.
As seen in Example 4-2, there may be considerable variation in the
occurrence and in the duration of socioeconomic impacts for any particular
action. Some impacts, such as the noise and visual nuisances, are temporary
in nature; some impacts, such as debt service costs, are long-term; while
others, such as, residential values, may be relatively permanent in nature.
For water quality alternatives involving construction, it will not be
unusual to have short-term effects related to the construction activities.
One of the implications of varying time streams for socioeconomic
impacts is that the selection of a time-frame for the impact assessment will
have a significant influence on the types and magnitude of impacts captured
in the impact analysis. A relatively short-term time-frame of, say, 10
years may not capture all of the impacts from a project.
4.3 IMPACT MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
The following steps are recommended as general procedures for the Impact
Measurement activity:
Step 1 Perform Scoping Analysis
Step 2 Determine Measurement Approach
Step 3 Determine Baseline Conditions
Step 4 Perform Impact Measurement
Step 5 Present and Display Impacts
Step 1; Perform Scoping Analysis
The essential issue addressed in this step is: Does the impact issue
appear to be an impact and thus warrant further consideration?
Answering this question involves a verification of the potential impacts
identified in the Impact Identification module. Up to this point, identi-
fied impacts only potential impacts — based primarily on the attributes or
characteristics of the proposed alternatives. In this step the context or
the setting for the propped action is considered. The analysis should
attempt to determine whether conditions are ripe for the potential impact to
occur. Types of key conditions to consider for each impact category are
47
-------
4-X
Tenporal Dimenniono of Soatoeoonoaia InpaatB for Snri.lhm.lle Sewage Treatment Facility
X. Visual Huieanaea
X. Soiee Nuisances
Lose of Public
Boat Launching
Araae
X. Conatruation-
Ralatad
Snfloyment
0)
X, Residential
Laid Opened
Up for
Development
X, Debt Service
Coeta
X. Residential
Land Values
Present
• -
l_
234
( Hot to Scale )
10
16
85
TIME
(yearn)'
-------
discussed in Part 2. The results of the scoping analysis may be presented
as shown in Example 4-3.
It should also be emphazised that direct impacts are screened first. If
a direct impact issue falls out using the key conditions test, then the need
to screen for the indirect impact issues related to the direct impact is not
required.
Step 2; Determine Measurement Approach
Several issues are addressed in this step:
• What level of analysis should be applied to the impact?
• What technique should be used to measure the impact?
• What impact indicator should be used to measure the impact?
• What geographic area and time frame is most appropriate?
In considering the desirable level of analysis, the planning agency
should determine what impact issues are most important or significant.
Significant impact issues may be defined in several ways and thus the
planning agency should consider incorporating public participation in this
decision. For example, the selection of significant impact issues may be
judged by the following criteria:
• Impact issue is perceived by the public-at-large as important;
• Considerable controversy has surrounded this issue in previous
occasions;
• A particular group or area that will be potentially affected
requires special attention;
• The magnitude of the impact is expected to be severe;
• The proposed action or project is large in scope;
• The proposed action or project is precedent-setting in nature.
Ideally, those impacts that are considered the most important would be
given the most attention in terms of measurement approaches. More resources
would be devoted to those issues that are of the roost concern. This deci-
sion, however, will in fact be dependent on the available impact measurement
methodologies for that impact issue. As discussed in Part 2, impact
measurement approaches vary from intuitive judgements and desk-top analysis
to data intensive models requiring computer analysis. For some important
impact issues, the more sophisiticated measurement approaches may be simply
beyond the means of a planning agency's resources. The methodology may
require a vast amount of data or it may involve a model that is not com-
pletely understood by the planning agency. In general, the following
factors should be considered in choosing a methodology for measuring impacts:
• Level of measurement requirements
• Confidence in measurement approach
• Comprehensibility to user and public
• Resource requirements (time, cost, staff)
49
-------
EXAMPLE 4-3
IMPACT ISSUES SCREENING RESULTS
POTENTIAL IMPACT ISSUES
X. Increased visual nuisances
Xz Increased noise nuisances
X, Loss of public aeons to boat
and canoe launching ana
X. Increase in construction-
related eimloument
X^ Increase in operational employ-
ment associated aith plant
X. Increase in developable
6 residential land
X? Increase in developable
eaamreial land
Xg Increase in public seuerage
capital and operational costs
Xg Increase in property values
Xlg Decrease in land valves
X-- Increase in demand for other
public boat and canoe launching
areas
X-, Increase in multiplier service
related employment
jr.. Increase in number of housing
' unite
X,. Changes in eingle-family/multi-
" family i-ix in toon
IS Increased rate of development
Xle Increase in population
X1? Increase rate of groath
X.. Increase in commercial emoloy-
item
19 Increase in construction em-
ployment
jr.. Increase tn multiplier ser-
vice-related exoloymnt
X21 Change in public eeroioe
demana
Xv, Change in oasteuater costs
" and tax burdens for firms
JT.- Decrease in local manufae-
™ turino employment
Xf. Change in aater eonsunption
demand
jr.. Change in individual aaste-
aater costs and taxes
Xg, Change in proposed aater sup-
Dlu facilities construction
SCREENING RESULTS
Probability
of Ocaursnet
I
I
a
a
a
a
a
a
M
£
a
i
a
i
a
a
H
a
a
a
a
a
H
H
a
H
H
Consider for
Measurement
So
So
So
Jes
So
Zee
Zee
Jes
les
So
Zee
Bo
Zee
So
So
Zee
So
Zee
Zee
Zee
Zes
Zee
Zee
Bo
Zes
So
Cements
Conditions don't indicate impact.
Seas as above
Expected to be too minimal to be of
concern
Stimulating impact issues, X-, and
Xs, not impacts
Host construction uorhers will cam-
mute to construction yob
Sea development ie likely to be
eingle-fanily
Other areas in region are expected
to absorb nea development
See X2S
Affected firms consumption is small
coopered to overall camunity use.
Financing of nea aater storage tanks
not exaected to be affected
(L=lou; M=Medium:
so
-------
In order to balance the needs of desired measurement with available skills,
time constraints, and costs, it may be necessary to go through several
iterations of matching measurement techniques with impact issues.
Closely tied to the selection of mesurement techniques and the level of
analysis is the selection of impact indicators. Impact indicators are mea-
sures uesd to describe the impact. A variety of impact indicators are pre-
sented for each impact category in Part 2. In initially considering the
selection of impact indicators, the following considerations are appropriate:
• Impact indicators should relate to readily identifiable or familar
concerns as much as possible. For example, aggregate costs of a
project are more difficult to relate to than per household costs or
changes in the property tax rate. This factor essentially calls
for a focus on end impacts, where possible, rather than inter-
mediate ones. This factor also recognizes the desirability of
using indicators that are traditionally used, such as the unemploy-
ment rate, dwelling units/acre, and average daily traffic.
• Legal or mandatory requirements should be met. Federal, state, or
local requirements may spell out certain concerns to be evaluated
for certain projects. For example, EPA regulations for wastewater
treatment plants call for per household costs for wastewater
projects to be indicated.
• Indicators should be understandable. Impact indicators represent
the attributes of a proposed action in the evaluation of alter-
natives. If they are complex and not easily understood by the
public, then the evaluation task may be rather difficult. Abstract
indexes or indicators involving technical jargon should be avoided
where possible.
• Where necessary, use surrogate or proxy indicators. For many
impact issues of a qualitative nature, it will not be possible to
directly estimate the impact. In these cases, surrogate indicators
may be appropriate if they are not too obtuse and are uesd with
care and explained in footnotes. An example of a traditional indi-
cator used for school crowdedness is the teacher/pupil ratio.
Finally, this step should delineate the time frame and geographic area
for analysis. It is generally easy to estimate most impacts during the
short-term and becomes exceedingly more speculative as the time period
extends out beyond 10 years. Generally, the impact period used in water
quality impact assessment is 20 years. This time period appears to be based
on reasons of convenience — many local and state socioeconomic projections
use a twenty-year time period. While the 20-year time period is a reason-
able compromise to use, it should be emphasized that impacts of a short and
longer duration may occur. For example, some water quality projects may be
financed with 30-year bonds. Fiscal and individual cost impacts, then, will
51
-------
be in place for a 30-year period. Some construction-related effects, on the
other hand, such as visual and noise nuisances, will be short-term in nature
and should be noted.
As noted in Section 4.2, the geographic incidence of socioeconomic
impacts will vary by type of impact. Preliminary indications of geographic
incidence have been presumably noted in Step 1 and they should be refined
where needed in the actual measurement of impacts in Step 3. In Step 2, the
planning agency should place some boundaries in the analysis. This will
inevitably be a process involving compromises. The following factors should
be considered in defining areas for analysis:
• Expectation of impact — The initial area estimated in identifying
impacts and possibly modified by the Step 1 scoping analysis can be
used as an initial area. It may be possible, based on local
knowledge, to estimate which areas will be most affected by the
impact. Thus, areas where the impact incidence is expected to be
minor may be eliminated for consideration.
• Existing data collection units — Because of the difficulties
often encountered in aggregating and disaggregating data from
existing data collecton units, it is more often most practical to
use existing data collection units as the area of analysis. These
may include political jurisdictions, service areas, and market
areas.
• Methodology requirements — While not generally desireable, it may
be practicable to define the impact area of analysis to be con-
gruent with the areal limitations of a particular impact measure-
ment methodology. This obviously has to be done with caution. If
a potential methodology has areal capabilities that are simply
incompatible with the area of expected impact, then it may be
necessary to drop the methodology for consideration rather than to
attempt to obscure impact measurement results with an inappropriate
methodology.
It may be necessary to go into the actual measurement step with a tentative
impact area which may be modified once the data collection and estimation
activities begin.
Determine Baseline Conditions
This step is concerned with developing a profile of existing conditions
for each of the impact issues being considered for impact measurement.
Whether the impact measurement task uses a "net impact" or a "gross impact"
approach, as discussed in Section 4.2, a profile of existing conditions will
be required.
In establishing the baseline conditions, the planner is primarily
interested in the existing conditions for those impact indicators that des-
52
-------
cribe the impact issue. Establishing the baseline will be more straight
forward for some impact indicators than others. For example, if the impact
indicator is the increase in construction jobs associated with a new sewage
treatment plant, then a profile of baseline construction employment would
include the number and distribution of construction jobs in the impact
area. Data is normally available for many of the socioeconomic impact cate-
gories, such as land use* employment, housing, population, and public ser-
vices. These sources are listed in each of these categories in Part 2. The
problem in establishing baseline conditions in the impact categories,
however, may stem from the availablility of data for the year in which the
baseline is being established. It may be necessary to gather primary data
in these cases if the effort is expected to be minimal.
Step 4; Perform Impact Measurement
In this step, impacts are measured in as many of the dimensions indi-
cated in Section 4.2 as possible, namely:
• Magnitude
• Direction
• Timing
• Duration
• Incidence
The most intensive aspect of this step will be the measurement of the
magnitude of the impact. Impact measurement techniques for a number of
impact indicators in each socioeconomic impact category considered in this
guidebook are presented in Part 2.
While the appropriate measurement technique will have been selected
prior to this step, the actual measurement process may reveal the need to
select an alternative measurement approach. If, for example, a broad-brush
measurement technique reveals an impact in an important impact area of
greater-than-expected magnitude, the planner may wish to use a more sophis-
ticated technique.
Step 5; Present and Display Impacts
The portrayal of impact information is a key aspect of impact assess-
ment. Information has to be presented in a clear and understandable format.
When impact assessment is concerned with the comparison of alternatives,
impact information should be presented in a framework that will enable the
selection of alternatives to take place. There are a variety of mapping and
graphic techniques that are useful in presenting individual impact infor-
mation for one or more alteratives. Some are briefly presented in Examples
4-4 through 4-8.
The presentation of impact information in water quality decision-making
is complicated when there are several impact measures to be considered and
more than one decision-maker. For example, in the case of the Smithville
53
-------
Example 4-4
35,000
Impact Presentation:
Population Increases Due to Regional Vasteaater Treatment Plant
30,000
25,000
20,000 __
15,000
10,000
Millville
Westville
Smithville
Warwick
Avon
Millville
Warwick
Smithville
ffeetville
Avon
5000
1980
1995
-------
Example 4-5
Impact Presentation: Annual Household User Cost Impacts of Regional Vasteuater Treatment Plant
$60 __
50
40 -.
a
so -t
*» 20 --
10
Smithville
Avon
Warwick
Westville
Millville
-------
Example 4-6
in
Presentation: Visual Effects of Wastewater Treatment Plant
Looking west towards Skunk Hill
Looking north towards State Park
Looking east
Ground level
Water surface
Landforras
No view of tanks
Partial view of tanks
-------
Example. 4-7
Impact Presentation: Historic Locations Affected by Interceptor Route A
r
W2
>*2
— Valley View Farmstead National Register Site
Town Square Historical District
Chepachet Indian Burial Area
57
-------
Example 4-8
Itnpact Presentation: L'xpeatcd Wantewatcr Treatment Plant Noise Exposure in Rolling Hills Subdivision
Noise
Exposure
(dBA)
in
CD
50
40
SO
20
10
I
I
I
I
4:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 12:00 Noon
TIME OF DAX
4:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 12:00 Midnight
-------
sewage treatemnt facility used throughout this chapter, the pcsentation of
impact information is more complicated if it is a regional facility that
will serve four other communities. In areawide water quality planning,
impact asessment will typically involve comparing alternatives and their
related impacts across several watersheds or communities.
The problem in presenting impact measurement information results from
the number of dimensions associated with impact measurement, i.e., magni-
tude, direction, timing, duration and incidence. When all of these dimen-
sions have to be considered for several alternatives involving several
impact indicators, then the presentation of impact data is particulry dif-
ficult in a two-dimensional matrix. It is impractical to attempt to create
a single matrix will all of the desired information.
Four different types of matrices, shown in Examples 4-9 through 4-12,
are suggested as appropriate for displaying these dimensions given more than
one alternative. Example 4-9 is an "impact type" matrix in which, for a
specific impact indicator, impact magnitude is displayed for various
alterntives in various affected areas. This type of matrix is most relevant
when an impact issue, say household user costs, is perceived as particulrly
important in the evaluation of alternatives. The "alternative-type" matrix
shown in Example 4-10 highlights the differences among areas in several
impact categories for one particular alternative. Finally, Examples 4-11
and 4-12 illustrate an "area-type" matrix which is useful for
decision-makers in one particular area in comparing alternatives across
several impact categories.
The choice of matrix type will depend on the type of evaluation process
that will take place in the assessment process, importance of individual
impact issues, the number of geographic areas of interest, and the number of
alternatives. The alternative-type and area-type are the most commonly used
types of impact display matrices. The alternative-type is particularly use-
ful when there are substantial differences among alternatives in several
areas. The area-type matrix is useful when the number of affected areas is
small but there are a number of alternatives to consider. It may be appro-
priate to display information in one matrix, and use one of the other
matrices to supplement the basic matrix.
59
-------
Example 4-9
MPACT-TYPE MATRS
Impact Category: Annual Household user costs
($/household)
^Alterna-civ&s
\
\
Areas\
Smithville
Westville
Millville
Warwick
Avon
A
$26
67
31
41
67
B
$50
61
58
70
58
C
$55
48
51
62
57
D
$89
29
79
48
36
E
$31
64
28
27
78
A,B}C3D,E are various sewage interceptor routes for a proposed regional sewerage
facility
60
-------
Example 4-10
'ALTERNATIVE-TYPE MATRIX
Alternative: Interceptor Route A
X. Area
>y
Impact >^
Indicators^
Visual
conflicts
Annual house-
hold user
costs
Annual house-
hold non-usei
costs
Ibpulation
increases
1980-1995
(persons)
land pre-
empted (acres
ifeu manufac-
turing jobs
Historic
locations
adversely
ifffctea
Smithville
Slight
$26
$15
1200
75
)
0
0
Westville
Extensive
$67
$16
400
220
600
1
Millville
Slight
$31
$20
2000
100
700
4
Warwick
Moderate
$41
$11
800
SO
100
0
Avon
Slight
$67
$28
350
300
1500
12
61
-------
Exarrple 4-11
AREA-TYPE MATRIX
Communitu: Smi thviIle
k
^Alternative
Impact\
Indicator^
Visual
conflicts
Annual house-
wld user
tosts
fftnual house-
lold non-user
JOStS
population in
jrease 1980-
1995 (persons
land pre-
empted (acres)
t&w manufac-
turing sobs
Astoria
locations
iffected
s
A
Slight
$26
$25
1200
}
75
0
0
B
Moderate
$50
$31
1000
60
250
3
C
Moderate
$55
$33
1200
80
250
3
D
Slight
$89
$48
1200
350
600
8
E
Extensive
$31
$18
1200
100
0
2
A3B3CtD,E are various sewage interceptor, routes for a proposed regional
sewerage facility.
62
-------
Example 4-22
AREA-TYPE MATRIX
Area: South River Basin (Smithville, Uestville, Millville,
Warwick. Avon)
^^ Ivernatives
Impact ^v
Indicator sX^
Visual
conflicts
Annual house-
hold user costs
Annual house-
hold non-user
costs
Population in-
creases 1960-
1995 (pei-sons)
Land pre-empted
(acres)
New manufac Lur-
ing jobs
Historic loca-
tions affected
A
Slight
$39
$1?
4750
745
2900
17
B
Slight
$61
$22
6500
600
'-5800
S
C
Moderate
$57
$20
3200
650
3000
13
D
Moderate
$65
$24
9000
900
3200
2
E
Extensive
$30
$15
8500
550
4000
31
AtBfCfDfE are various sewage interceptor routes for a proposed regional
sewerage facility.
63
-------
CHAPTER 5
Impact Evaluation
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The first two impact assessment tasks are concerned with the identifi-
cation and measurement of socioeconomic effects associated with alternative
water quality control strategies. The third task is concerned with develop-
ing an approach for evaluating and ranking water quality control stra-
tegies. The essence of the evaluation process is the comparison of the
impacts associated with each alternative, in order to illustrate the signi-
ficant similarities and differences for decision-making.
Only if an impact-by-impact comparison indicates that one alterative
consistently offers higher benefits is the choice of a "best" alternative
obvious. In reality, a point-by-point comparison generally yields ambiguous
results: one alternative may proffer both greater benefits and higher costs
than another alternative; certain impacts may occur wth one alternative, but
not another. In such cases, the ranking among alternatives is not clear.
The selection of the"best" alternative depends upon the relative importance
or weight given by the evaluator to one impact versus another. This is made
more problematical when both quantifiable and nonquantifiable impacts are
involved.
Another problem which may arise in the ranking of alternative water
quality management strategies is that of multiple decision makers or
interest groups. For any particular impact arising from a specific alter-
native, a number of groups may be affected. These groups may include resi-
dents, businessmen, farmers, developers, fishermen, boaters, elderly, poor,
etc. Various geographic groups may also be affected: those in the imme-
diate vicinity of a facility, those in the surrounding neighborhood, the
community as a whole, and in the region. Bach group may perceive a parti-
cular impact in a different way. Both the magnitude and direction of a
64
-------
perceived impact may vary, from extremely adverse to extremely beneficial.
In addition to these varying types of incidence of the expected impacts, the
relative importance associated with each impact issue may vary across the
interest groups.
Section 5.2 suggests criteria that may be used by evaluators in deter-
mining the significance of individual consequences of an alternative. The
evaluation process may be simplified if unworthy alternatives are eliminated
prior to detailed evaluation. Section 5.3 presents several screening tech-
niques which may be used to narrow the evaluation process to the best alter-
natives. The next several sections discuss a variety of comprehensive
evaluation techniques. Onlike the previous impact assessment tasks, where
specific steps are prescribed, this chapter suggests several atlernative
techniques of varying complexity for decision-makers to use in the evalua-
tion process.
5.2 DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AN IMPACT
At the heart of the alternative evaluation process is the evaluation of
each impact measure. Whatever technique is used to evaluate or compare
alternatives, each technique requires an initial evaluation of the
individual impacts or attributes of an alternative.
The impact measures, or attributes, spell out the consequences of an
alternative. The significance or importance of these consequences depends
on the value that each evaluator places on the consequences. This valuation
process may be done implicitly or explicitly. There are several explicit
means for determining significance, including the following:
• Comparisons with objectives;
• Comparisons with existing conditions;
• Precedent-setting change; and
• Impact incidence.
Each of these is discussed below.
Comparisons with Objectives
An objective may be defined as a desired course of action and is nor-
mally considered to be an attainable goal. The objective serves as a stan-
dard against which the impact result may be compared. The variation of the
impact result from the stated objective provides a basis for valuing the
impact result. For example, if one of the stated objectives of an area is
to keep the unemployment rate below 5%, and alternative sewer plans for
Smithville will have varying impacts on employment in the community, then it
is possible to determine the significance of the employment impacts with
respect to the unemployment objective.
The use of objectives as a yardstick for evaluating impacts depends on
the ability of the evaluator to be aware of articulated objecives. The pre-
65
-------
sence of a comprehensive package of socioeconomic objectives in a community
is unlikely. There are a number of ways in which objectives may be deter-
mined. Objectives may be determined directly by large-scale survey tech-
niques but this is an expensive proposition for a water quality planning
process. Alternatively, the Advisory Committee or other public partici-
pation mechanims can be used to directly determine objectives with respect
to the impact issues being considered. It is also possible to use indirect
sources to infer community objectives for many of the impact issues. The
reliability of these inferences should be carefully considered. For
example, it is possible to indirectly determine objectives from newspaper
articles, public meeting records, elections and other secondary sources, but
they require careful interpretation before describing an objective to these
sources. More reliable indirect sources include standards that have been
formally incorporated into by-laws, ordinances, and judicial opinions.
Briefly described below are two ways in which socioeconomic objectives
may be articulated.
Performance Standards and Carrying Capacity--
The use of performance standards as a means for evaluating impacts has
become increasingly popular at the local and national level. Water quality
and air quality standards are prime examples of performance standards used
in environmental assessment. The use of performance-based local land use
controls began in the 1950's, but has only achieved widespread use in the
past ten years. The use of performance standards for socioeconomic
conditions has proceeded on a more tentative basis as there is less
certainty as to what constitutes acceptable standards. The Public Services
impact category, for example, has a number of performance standards, such as
teacher/pupil ratios or the number of acres of recreation land/1000 people.
There is less agreement on many of these socioeconomic impact performance
standards, however, and it is perhaps more appropriate to label these
standards as suggested guidelines or "rules-of-thumb." In any case, local
and national socioeconomic standards should be considered as means for
evaluating the significance of water qulity-realted socioeconomic impacts.
Closely related to the notion of performance standards is carrying capa-
city. The latter often is the basis for establishing performance stan-
dards. Standards for environmental carrying capacity are generally based on
some estimate of the limits of a natural resource. For socioeconomic impact
issues, on the other hand, quality of service or quality of life considera-
tions are often used to express carrying capacity. The number of visitor-
days for a particular recreation facility or average daily traffic for a
highway are examples of carrying capacity concepts used in establishing per-
formance standards. While public services have been one of the most fertile
socioeconomic areas for carrying capacity concept, the notion is spreading
to other socioeconomic impact issues as well. For example, the fiscal capa-
city of a community may be evaluated according to a number of performance
standards, including the following: amount of per capita debt, percentage
of uncollected taxes, amount of debt/assessed valuation. The evaluation of
66
-------
such fiscal performance standards will in part determine a community's
credit rating.
Thresholds—
Thresholds are akin to perforance standards in that they represent yard-
sticks against which to evaluate impact results. They are distinguished
from performance standards in the degree of specificity in which they are
normally defined. While performance standards are generally expressed in
specific terms, and define upper or lower limits of an action, thresholds
serve more like red flags or warning signals and may be expressed in
ranges. For example, population increases normally trigger higher order
public service impacts. The carrying capacity for a number of public
services will be affected by different population increases. It may be
difficult to translate specific population levels into specific capacity
overloads for a public service. Consequently, the threshold for a public
service capacity, such as water supply, may be a population increase of
4,000-5,000 people.
The water supply system may in fact be able to adequately supply water
beyond this population increase. The 4,000-5,000 figure, however, provides
a warning signal about capacity.
EPA has recently applied the threshold concept to individual cost
burdens arising from public sewer projects. The threshold is based on
annual user costs at a percentage of median family income. If, for example,
the annual user costs associated with a proposed sewer alterative exceed 1%
of median family income of $10,000, the alternative is considered too much
of a cost burden and EPA requires modification or rejection of the alter-
native.
Comparisons with Existing or Without Project-Conditions
Using this criteria, the evaluator may value the consequence of an
alternative based on the amount of relative change that the consequence
represents. A convenient yardstick against which to measure relative change
is the exising condition of the impact issue or the projected measurement
for the impact issue without the proposed alternative. As discussed in
Chapter 4, these respective yardsticks are the two different ways in which
impact magnitude may be defined. What is suggested under this approach is
that the impact magnitude be expressed as relative change. Thus, a value
may be placed on an impact consequence not in terms of its absolute meaning,
but rather in terms of its relative change. This simply requires the use of
the ratio of impact magnitude to "existing* conditions or to "without
project" conditions.
In the absence of well-defined performance standards and other objec-
tives, this technique probably is one of the most widely-used means for
evaluating individual impacts. Relative change is particularly well under-
stood by the public and is thus quite useful, when values are solicited from
67
-------
the public. It is easy for the public to identify with impact consequences
phrased in terms of the following: "This alternative will increase manu-
facturing jobs in Smithville by 60%."
Precedent-Setting Change
This criterion for evaluating an impact result is more value-laden than
the above approaches. The actual impact consequence of a water quality
alternative may be relatively small but the nature of the impact may be such
that it is a significant impact. Two examples illustrate this criteria. In
Example 4-1, the acres pre-empted for the interceptor routes in Smithville
are not terribly large in any alternative. The acreage exempted, however,
may have significant value in Smithville far beond the magnitude proposed
for taking. If, for example, the acreage in Alternative B includes the last
working farm in Smithville, then its signifiance may be greater than the
impact in Alternative O where far more acreage is concerned. This is a good
example where, perhaps, another impact measure might have been appro-
priate, such as the "number of farms displaced." Since sewers in Smithville
may allow higher density development to occur, this is a very plausible
impact. If there are no apartments in Smithville, this type of impact may
be considered precedent-setting. Even if only 75 units of new apartments
are projected for any alternative, the magnitude may not be the critical
issue. The fact that apartments are a precedent-setting land use in
Smithville may be the issue affecting the significance of the impact issue.
Incidence
This criterion recognizes the distribution of the impact consequence
rather than the magnitude of the impact as the factor affecting
significance. Incidence may be used as a means for defining significance in
either a single-decision maker or multiple-decision maker situation. In
Example 4-9, assume a single decision-maker is the model. If one of the
concerns of th decision-maker is the equity of annual household user costs,
then Alternative C would be valued fairly high because of the distribution
of annual household user costs in each of the five affected communities. If
there are multiple decision-makers involved, however, from the point of view
of Smithville and Millville, Alternative A is clearly more valued than
Alternative C.
Tnis example clearly indicates the importance of point of view in the
determination of significance levels for individual impacts. It also shows
that incidence is an important factor to use in determining impact signifi-
cance even if there is only one decision-maker.
5.3 SCREENING TECHNIQUES
Introduction
The screening approaches presented in this section will not generally
lead to a ranking of alternatives. Screening provides a process of sequen-
68
-------
tially comparing alternatives on the basis of impact values so that alter-
natives may be eliminated or retained for further consideration. Alter-
natives are generally classified into one of two categories: "acceptable"
or "unacceptable." Without further information, no choice can be made among
the acceptable alternatives. Therefore, a ranking approach must then be
applied to this smaller set of alternatives, involving less effort than if
applied to the entire set of alternatives. As a first step then, screening
may eliminate from further consideration alternatives which are unlikely to
be contenders for the best choice.
Search for Noninferior or Nondominated Alternatives
This technique involves the comparison of the impacts of one alternative
with the impacts of another alternative, considering all impacts simul-
taneously. The process considers "dominated" and "nondominated" alter-
natives. If one alternative has impact values that are at least as good as
those of a second alternative, for all impact categories, and if the first
alternative has one or more impact levels which are strictly better than
those of the second alternative, then the second alternative is dominated by
the first, and should be eliminated from further consideration. However, a
complete ranking of the alternatives cannot be obtained, since no choice may
be made among the dominated alternatives or nondominated alternatives with-
out further preference information.
The search for nondominated alternatives involves pairwise comparisons
of the alternatives, say, alternative p and alternative g. If alternative p
dominates alternative q, then alternative q is eliminated from further con-
sideration. Likewise, if alternative q dominates alternative p, then alter-
native p is excluded. If neither alternative dominates the other, then both
are retained and additional comparisons are made between those alternatives
and other alternatives. Once all pairs of alternatives have been compared
in this fashion, the remaining alternatives are nondorainated. Note that
once an alternative has been eliminated as being dominated, it need not be
considered in any more comparisons.
Eliminating the dominated alternatives serves as a useful first step,
before applying any of the other screening or ranking techniques to deter-
mine a best alternative. If there is a unique nondominated alternative,
then the choice is obvious. In most cases, however, further evaluation must
be made of the tradeoffs among the various impact categories.
Conjunctive Screening
Conjunctive screening implies that all constraints or standards must be
satisfied for an alternative to be considered acceptable. All factors are
used simultaneously and an alternative must be acceptable with regard to
each coequal factor. The procedure cannot differentiate among acceptable
alternatives, since no preference information is employed. The methodology
is simple and ensures that all relevant constraints are satisfied.
69
-------
The approach may be used to eliminate alternatives which do not reach
minimum acceptable levels (lower bounds) or which exceed maximum acceptable
levels (upper bounds) of various impact measures. For an alternative to be
acceptable, all such constraints must be satisfied. However, the procedure
makes no distinction between alternatives which just barely meet the
criteria and those which satisfy the conditions with room to spare. The
decision-maker might vary the levels of the acceptable levels to check the
sensitivity of the acceptable set of alternatives to the particular values
of the bounds. The bounds might be varied to determine how much change
would be required to exclude one more alternative or, alternatively, to
include one more option. Such screening is inexpensive and doesn't require
refined impact data. The comparisons result in a set of "go-no go" deci-
sions, all of which must be answered in the affirmative for an alternative
to be considered acceptable.
An example illustrating the application of the conjunctive screening
process is presented in Example 5-1. Two impact categories are presented:
X]_, the number of present vacant acres opened up for development, and
x2» the number of existing industries capable of connecting to the
sewerage system. The corresponding lower bounds are x. and x_. In
this particular case, no upper bounds are specified. The cross hatching
indicates the acceptable region. Alternatives A, B, and C are all
acceptable. Alternatives D, E and F are all unacceptable, since they
violate one or both of the constraints.
Other than saying alternatives A, B, and C are all acceptable, no
further differentiation may be made among the alternatives without pre-
ference information. The fact that alternative B may be farther from the
bounds than the other alternatives does not imply that alternative B is any
better or any worse than either of the remaining acceptable alternatives.
If both of the bounds were reduced slightly, alternative F might then become
acceptable, while increasing one of the bounds might eliminate alternative A
or alternative C.
In the example shown in Example 5-2, upper bound constraints are incor-
porated into the example via two additional impact categories. One impact
category, x3, is the number of acres of community parks disturbed by the
construction of the interceptors; while x4 is the community's amount of
municipal bonded debt. In this example, x-3 and x4 represent
maximum levels of acceptability. In order for the alternatives to pass the
screening test, they cannot violate any of the constraints. In this parti-
cular case, again only alternatives A, B, and C are acceptable. Alterna-
tives D, E, and F each violate one or more of the constraints.
While these examples have used constraints associated with the magnitude
of impact measures as a means for screening out alternatives, impact inci-
dence could also be incorporated as a constraint and screened using the con-
junctive screening technique.
70
-------
t
Example 5-1
Conjunctive Screening
•
E
•
F
Acceptable
Unacceptable
A
B
C
D
E
r
Alternatives
Various public
sewerage
interceptor
location
alternatives
Socioeconomia Impact Indicators
x • #
-------
Example 5-2
Conjunctive Screening
Impact
Indicator xl
unacceptable
E F
• •
acceptable H
ABC
• • •
Impact
Indicator X2
unacceptable
D F
B A
Impact
Indicator 3
•*• acceptable
B C F
itnacceptab le~+
E D
Jmpact
Indicator 4
•*• acceptable-
E C
-% •-
A B
-• •-
O
-•-
oaci Indicators
XT = £ of vacant acres opened up
for development
x = c of existing industries
cczjdble of connecting to the
seuerage system
x = .* o* acres o/ community
parks disturbed by
cons trustion
= municipal bonded debt
yiZternatives
A, B, C, D, E, F are various
sewerage interceptor location
alternatives.
Constraints (all must be met)
'^l' *2 ™ n"-n'^mwn acceptable goals
if i = maximum acceptable levels
Acceptable Alternatives
A, B, C
Unacceptable Alternatives
D, E, F
72
-------
Disjunctive Screening
This approach represents a variation of the conjunctive screening tech-
nique in which an alternative need only pass some specified fraction of the
conditions to be acceptable, rather than being required to satisfy all of
those criteria. No one condition may be considered exclusionary by itself.
For example, assume that p out of the N constraints must be satisfied.
Conjunctive screening is a special case of disjunctive screening, with p=N,
implying that all constraints must be satisfied. If p=N-l, then any one of
the constraints may be violated, for p=N-2, any two of the constraints may
be violated, etc. The smaller the ratio of p to N, p/N, the less restric-
tive the screening process. In the extreme, p°l excludes an alternative
only if all of the constraints are violated, and p«0 excludes none of the
alternatives, since all of the constraints may be violated.
Using the same example as presented in Example 5-2 in the discussion of
conjunctive screening, now assume that only one of the two constraints must
be satisfied, for an alternative to be acceptable, as shown in Example 5-3.
The cross-hatching indicates the acceptable region, which is now much larger
than in the case of conjunctive screening, where both of the constraints
must be satisfied. As before, alternative A, B, and C are still acceptable,
since both conditions are met. However, now alternatives D and E are
acceptable, as well, since only one of the two conditions is violated.
alternative F is the only option which is unacceptable, since both condi-
tions are violated. Other than saying that alternatives A, B, C, D, and E
are all acceptable, no further differentiation may be made without pre-
ference information. While alternative f violates both criteria slightly
and is considered unacceptable, alternative E violates the constraint on
x^ by a large margin, but is considered acceptable, since the constraint
on X2 is satisfied.
Lexicographic Screening
Unlike the disjunctive screening process, lexicographic screening
ensures that the most important criterion is always considered. In dis-
junctive screening, the most important criterion might be violated, but an
alternative could still be acceptable, if the other, less important, con-
ditions are satisfied. In the lexicographic screening approach, however,
the lower-ranked factors need not necessarily be considered. If all factors
are considered, then the lexicographic approach is identical to the con-
junctive screening approach.
The process starts by identifying all those alternatives which satisfy
the most important conditions. If only one alternative meets that condi-
tion, then that alternative is chosen as the optimal choice. If more than
one alternative meets that condition, then those alternatives are screened
according to the second most important condition. Again, if a single alter-
native meets that condition, then that alternative is optimal; otherwise,
the set of alterntives passing the second screening test are screened
73
-------
Example 5-3
Disjunctive Screening
- 1
Unacceptable
Acceptable
A \
B
C
D
E
F
Alternatives
Various public
sewerage
interceptor
location
alternatives
Socioeconomic Impact Indicators
x. • # of vacant acres opened up for development
x « # of existing industries capable of
connecting to the sewerage system
Constraints (only 1 of which has to be met)
V
74
minimum acceptable goals
-------
according to the third criterion. The process continues until a single
alternative remains or all criteria have been considered* If all of the
conditions or constraints have to be met, then the set of alternatives that
result from lexicographic screening is identical to the set of acceptable
alternatives resulting from the conjunctive screening process* Referring to
the example shown in Example 5-4 with minimum levels £^ and SL2*
associated with impacts Xj_ and x2/ respectively, assume that Xj_ is the
most important impact* Therefore alternatives E and F would be screened out
in the first step. Once both impacts are considered, the results are
identical, regardless of the order, and only alternatives A, B, and C
remain, as in the case of conjunctive screening*
The search for nondominated alternatives is a basic screening approach
that should be applied to a set of alternatives before any of the other
screening approaches or comprehensive evaluation techniques are applied. It
is a very useful efficient means for eliminating inferior alternatives from
further consideration.
The use of the other screening alternatives is optional. Where there
are a number of alternatives still in the running, even after nondominated
alternatives have been identified, the screening techniques may be used to
narrow down the set of alternatives to a manageable number. Caution is
advised however, in using these techniques as the examples have shown, they
can be very powerful techniques. Determining "acceptable" standards and
constraints in terms of socioeconomic impacts can be very arbitrary and
problematical. As discussed in Section 5.2, performance standards for most
socioeconomic impact categories have not been established with as much
certainty as they have in other environmental impact categories. Where
readily accepted standards don't exist and where local objectives setting
activities in the water quality planning process is being used to define
those cut-off points, considerable discretion is urged. To use highly
disputed constraints in such a powerful screening tool as conjunctive
screening may result in attractive alternatives being prematurely eliminated.
5.4 COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION TECHNIQUE: BALANCE SHEET METHOD
Description
The balance sheet approach is one of the most widely used evaluation
techniques in evaluating alternatives. In this approach the information
from the impact measurement step is presented without alteration to the
decision-maker (s ) . Impact information is not reduced to commensurable units
or compared to standards or objectives. Each decision-maker simply
implicitly superimposes a set of values and weights on the information to
reach an overall judgement regarding the "best" alternative.
A variation on the simple balance sheet method is the ranked balance
sheet approach. The same implicit approach is applied by the decision-
75
-------
Example 5-4
Lexioographic Screening
Acceptab le
Unacaeptab le
A
B
C
D
E
A Iternatives
Various public
sewerage
interceptor
location
alternatives
Sodoeconomic Impact Indicators
x. « # of vacant acres opened up for development
x_ * # of existing industries capable of
connecting to the sewerage system
'•*£••
Constraints (^ mue* be met)
AI , A_ » minimum acceptable levels for x , x
respectively
76
-------
maker(s). Instead of a best alternative, alternatives are ranked. The
ranking is typically done on an ordinal basis, i.e., A>B>C>D>
E >, or whatever ranking is derived. -It is possible to say, for example,
that Alternative A is prefered to B or B is preferred to C, but one can't
say how much more preferred. Example 5-5 illustrates the ranked balance
sheet approach.
Discussion
Balance sheet methods avoid many of the technical problems associated
with scoring impact results or weighting impact attributes. The attractive-
ness of this "non-scored" plan stems, to a large degree, from the practical
and political difficulties associated with scoring and weighting. While the
balance sheet approach can be considered an optimization technique, it fails
to explicitly consider how the best alternative or ranking is determined.
This makes it impossible to consider tradeoffs among alternatives or to
suggest impacts that should be modified by mitigation measures. The balance
sheet approach is often a good technique to initially use in an evaluation
process. It commits decision-makers to a choice. These choices, in turn,
then can be considered by the decision-makers in explicitly defining weights
and values. Without giving some explicit consideration to these issues, the
Balance Sheet method basically resembles a black box approach for evaluation.
5.5 COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION TECHNIQUE: GOALS ACHIEVEMENT ACCOUNT
Description
The fundamental requirements of the Goals Achievement approach is the
prior articulation of goals or objectives before evaluation. Objectives
must be generated for each impact issue. This is somewhat similar to the
Constraints approach where minimum and maximum levels are set for each
impact issue except for one. Unlike the Constraints approach, the levels
set in the Goals Achievement approach are goals—not "accept-reject"
threshold values. The Goals Achievement approach is an optimization method
like the Balance Sheet method except that goals to which impact outcomes can
be compared are explicitly stated.
The variations in this approach revolve around the extent of rating or
scoring of the impact consequences with respect to the goals; and the
relative weights attached to the impact issues. In the Scored Goals
Achievement Account, shown in Example 5-6, explicit values or scores are
placed on the impact consequence, based on a comparison of the impact
outcomes with the goals for the respective impact issues. The scoring step
represents, of course, a significant departure from the Balance Sheet
approach in that impact outcomes are expressed in the same or commensurable
units. This reduction removes the problem of trying to compare apples and
oranges. A very common scoring technique that planning agencies use in the
Goals Achievement approach, and one that is subject to the least criticism,
is to score all outcomes on the least demanding of scales, namely an ordinal
scale. The impact outcomes then would be evaluated with respect to each
77
-------
Example 5-5
Ranked Balance Sheet Method Applied
to Alternative Interceptor Routes for South River Basin
Decision Criteria
2. The j
cons'
Impact .
1. Aggrt
Rivei
Evaluate
yreferred alternative is that alternative whose impacts are
Idered to maximize the decision-maker (s) goals.
information
zgate Impacts of Interceptor Alternatives A,BfCtDtE on South
n Basin (Smithville, Westvillef Millvillet Warwick, Avon).
Alternatives
Irpattt
Visual
asnflicte
Annual houtf-
nald locr 008*8
Annual kouaa-
hold non-user
oostt
Population in-
creases 191,0-
11SS tofftonaJ
Land prv-mptcd
(aareal
Uta mat factor-
ing jcba
Historic loca-
tions afjtjvca
,on Results,
A
Slight
SS3
tl?
irso
7iS
2300
'•>
B
Slight
(61
S22
esoo
too
ssoo
£
c
Mdarate
ts?
$10
KM
esc
3000
13
D
Koderau
(85
tit
moo
too
3200
J
c
Extmnta
sta
SU
BSOO
SM
4000
31
The South River Basin Citizens Advisory Committee ranked the alterna-
tives as follows: A >E >C >D >B
78
-------
Example 5-6
Scored Goals Achievement Account Applied to
Alternative interceptor Routes for South River Basin
Decision Criteria
1. The preferred alternative is that alternative whose scored impacts
are considered to maximize the explicitly-shown goals.
Impact Information
1. Aggregate impacts of interceptor alternatives A,BtCfD,E on South
Paver Basin, (Smithville, Vestville, Warwick, Avon).
Coal*
flight
< $40
< tio
< SOOO
< too
> ssoo
< :o
>>,. Alternative*
><
Impost ^*^
Vtmal
conflict*
Annual household
uaar oorta
Amual houMthold
nontiser coats
Population in-
oraotaa 1980-
19BS (peraona]
Land prt-anptad
(oaraaj
Sau manufaaturing
joba
Szatonc loeonona
affected
A
0
0
-
0
-2
+1
-2
B
0
-2
0
-1
-J
+2
0
C
-1
-2
0
•H
-1
+1
-2
D
-1
-2
-1
-2
-2
«
0
E
-2
+J
•»]
-2
0
,2
-3
-3 = extensive adverse impact
-2 = moderate adverse impact
-1 = slight adverse impact
0 = negligible impact
+1 = slight beneficial impact
•1-2 = moderate beneficial impact
+3 = extensive beneficial impact
Evaluation Results
The South River Basin Advisory Committee feels Alternative A best
maximizes their goals.
79
-------
goal or objective to determine whether they increase, decrease, or leave the
goals achievement about the same. Arbitrary values may be assigned, say +1
if goals achievement is enhanced, -1, if goals achievement is decreased, and
0 if there is no effect on goals achievement. An ordinal notation system of
--» -, 0, +, ++ is also commonly used.
Discussion
The goals Achievement Account approach incorporates explicitly-defined
goals into the decision-making process. While this is a desirable advance-
ment over the Balance Sheet approach, it does require prior articulation of
goals on the part of the decision -maker. In situations where aggregate
goals and/or weights are required from a committee, this may involve
considerable difficulty.
The use of ordinal scores for the impact consequences reduces the
impacts to commensurable units. While this does not enable an aggregated
preference score for each alternative to be developed, it does abstract the
diverse impact information into a more comparable evaluation format, for
some decision-makers, this may represent a loss of information. Others will
view this as a necessary step to ease the decision-making task.
The selection of an alternative in the goals Achievement Account
approach is similar to that in the Balance Sheet method. Alternatives may
be ranked, but it is not possible to express the strength of preference. It
is possible to say that Alternative A is preferred over Alternative E, but
is not possible to say by how much.
5.6 COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION TECHNIQUE: LINEAR ADDITIVE UTILITY FUNCTION
Description
The utility function evaluation method is a means of generating a single
overall index of preference for an alternative that can be compared with
other alternatives preference indices • This preference, expressed on an
interval scale, is referred to as a linear additive utility function. It
represents the aggregated weighted scores of each impact or attribute. The
linear additive utility function can be mathematically expressed as:
u(xlm' x2n""Xmm) •" wlvl
•••wmvm(xmm)
where wm represents a weight associated with impact categories and
vm(xmm) is the scoring (expressed on an interval scale) placed on the
impact consequence. The scoring indicate the relative size or desirability
of various levels of the corresponding impacts. Weights, on the other hand,
represent the relative importance of a change in one impact compared to a
change in another impact. The ratio of two weights, say wxj/wx2»
represents the tradeoff that the decision-maker is willing to make in terms
of how much impact xj_ he is willing to give up to gain an additional unit
80
-------
of impact X2«
The end product of a Linear Additive Utility Function approach is
illustrated in Example 5-7. It requires several steps:
1. Determine the score or value of each impact consequence and express
on an interval scale;
2. Determine the weighting factors for each impact attribute;
3. Determine the weighted values of each impact attribute;
4. Aggregate the weighted values for each alternative;
5. Compare aggregated preferences across alternatives;
6. Select the optimal alternative, i.e., the alternative with the
highest score.
Discussion
The Linear Additive Utility Function involves relatively easy compu-
tations. It also is desirable in terms of generating rankings that reflect
variations in preference. In addtion, like any of the approaches that
involve impact weighting, it allows decision-makers to perceive and make
tradeoffs among alternatives.
On the negative side, many decision-makers will be reluctant to use an
approach that involves reducing all of the impact attributes to a single
index. The use of a single number to express an alternative may simply be
too abstract and artificial for some decision-makers. This approach also
requires the most involvement by decision-makers of any approach presented
in this guidebook. Not only must weights be determined for the impacts, but
much more specific and explicit scores must also be developed for the impact
consequences. Thus, this approach will require a great deal of time and
interaction between decision-makers and a technical planning staff.
5.7 DETERMINING A COMMUNITY PREFERENCE
Introduction
When there are multiple decision-makers involved in the evaluation pro-
cess, the final step in the evaluation process must address the issue of
aggregating these individual preferences into a community or committee
choice. While the objective of each individual is to choose that alterna-
tive which maximizes his or her own utility, the objective in this step is
to choose the alternative which maximizes social well-being. Social well-
being is a function of the individual utilities of the members of the com-
munity. As the individual preferences vary according to the differing goals
and priorities of the affected groups, it is unlikely that a unique alter-
81
-------
Example S-?
Linear Additive Utility Function Approach Applied to Alternative
Interceptor Routes for South River Basin.
Decision Criteria
1. The preferred alternative is that alternative which yields the
highest aggregated preference score.
Impact Information
1. Aggregate impacts of interceptor alternatives AjB^C^DfE on South
River Basin (Smithville, Vestville, Warwick, Avon)
^\. Altfmectioft
Itrfoat >^
jneioator»\^
V-.nal
conflicts
Arnual hotaehoU
uttr aoitt
Annual houfthoU
non*M«cr co»t*
Papulsf^n in-
ar*ca*e 1980-
1995 (personal
— (3nC 7JHI tHIiULUS
losrft)
JVoLi nenufcetwnng
loot
Eiazonc loeos:ont
cfftcstc
A
Slight
S3!
$17
1710
745
2900
17
B
Slight
$81
SM
6500
600
3800
£
C
Hodarccta
SS7
£20
3200
SSO
3000
i:
0
Uodtrstf
$6i
Sit
9000
900
3200
2
£
Extensive
$30
SIS
asoo
SiO
4000
31
82
-------
Example 5-7 (continued)
Impact Scoring
1. Impacts have been scored on the basis of the following:
0.00 = least preferred
1.00 = most preferred
Iraeac ^v
•incieotan^v
VimaZ
eonfliat*
U*IT OOttt
non-war costs
ertaaai 1980-
19SS (ptrwonti
teefftj
San oomifsatunne
JOBS
afftend
A
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.30
0.00
0.40
I
0.80
0.10
0.20
O.SO
O.SO
0.80
0.10
C
0.40
0.20
0.40
1.00
O.SO
0.10
O.SO
D
0.40
f.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
1.00
s
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.10
1.00
1.00
0.00
Aggregated Scores
1. Weights have been assigned on.^ scale of 1.0 - 15.0; weighted
scores determined; and aggregated preferences determined.
2.
score
weighted
scores
83
-------
Example 5-7 (continued)
Veighting
Factor
Alternatives
Impact
Indicators
4.0
Visual
conflicts
li.O
Annual household
user ooBtB
1S.O
Annual household
non-user easts
10.0
Population in-
creases, 1980-
IBSStpersons)
1.00
1.0
land pre-empted
(acres)
.40
.so
.so
12.0
Sou Manufacturing
job*
Historic locations
affected
33.30
27.SO
24.79
10.00
41.00
Evaluation Results
Alternative E is the preferred alternative; the ranking of
alternatives is as follows: E>A>B>C>D.
84
-------
native would be simultaneously preferred by all committee members. If such
were the case, the choice would be obvious. In most cases, however, selec-
tion of any particular alternative will imply that some groups benefit while
others are hurt.
Reducing the Search to Pareto-Qptimal Alternatives
A guiding principle in the evaluation of alternative water quality
management strategies should be to eliminate clutter and possible compli-
cating factors whenever those factors will not affect the preferred final
choice. Therefore, once the individual preferences of the advisory commit-
tee members have been determined, it would be desirable to screen out
dominated alternatives, so that the aggregation process need only consider
Pareto-optimal alternatives. The concept of Pareto-optimality is parallel
to the concept of non-inferior or dominant solutions discussed earlier.
Pareto-optimal solutions imply that no one individual may be better off
without hurting one or more of the other individuals. Alternative p
dominates alternative q if every individual feels that alternative p is just
as good as alternative q, and at least one individual feels that alternative
p is strictly better than alternative q. Alternative p is Pareto-optimal if
there is no other alternative q, such that alternative p is dominated by
alternative q. Pareto-optimal solutions are "better" than dominated solu-
tions, from the viewpoint of collective choice, but no further differentia-
tion may be made among Pareto-optimal solutions without preference infor-
mation regarding tradeoffs among individuals.
Only ordinal individual preferences are required, as no consideration is
made of the strength of preferences. In any particular case, the margin of
superiority may be large or small. Alternatives are compared on each
individual's particular preference scale, with no interpersonal comparison
of utilities necessary. Although no single alternative is usually dominant,
the choice problem may be appreciably narrowed by reducing the search to
Pareto-optimal alternatives. Dominance does not imply a complete ordering
on the set of alternatives, since it is not possible to compare all alter-
natives. In this case the search for dominance is with regard to individual
preferences, while earlier the search was with regard to impact levels.
Consider the example illustrated in Example 5-8, with two individuals
expressing utility functions, u1 and u2, respectively. Alternatives A,
B, and C are dominated solutions, for the following reason: B dominates A,
so A is inferior; but D dominates B, so D is also inferior; C also dominates
A, but F dominates C, so C is inferior as well; in addition, E dominates B,
and E also dominates C. Therefore, D, E, and F are Pareto-optimal, since
there is no feasible alternative which dominates any one of them. No
further choice may be made among alternatives D, E, and F without some
information on the preferences for the tradeoffs among the individual
utilities, as D is preferred by individual 2, but is least preferred by
individual 1, among the Pareto-optimal solutions, while F is most preferred
by individual 1, but is least preferred by individual 2.
85
-------
Example 5-8
PARETO-OPTIMALITY
D 9
(Pareto-optitnal)
2
M
E 9
(Pareto-optimal)
S •
(inferior) F -
fPoreto-optimaJJ
C 9
(inferior)
A 9
(inferior)
u
AjBfCjDiEfF = Alternatives
1 2
u t u = individual or group preferences
86
-------
The search for nondominated alternatives involves pairwise comparisons
of the alternatives, say, alternative p and alternative q, with respect to
individual preferences* If alternative p dominates alternative q, then
alternative q is eliminated from further consideration. Likewise, if alter-
native q dominates alternative p, then alternative p is excluded* If
neither alternative dominates the other, then both are retained and addi-
tional comparisons are made between those alternatives and the remaining
alternatives. Once all pairs of alternatives have been compared in this
fashion, the remaining alternatives are Fareto-optimal. Note that once an
alternative has been eliminated as being dominated it need not be considered
in any more comparisons. Only alternatives remaining in the set are con-
sidered in the aggregation of individual preferences.
Voting Schemes
Voting schemes refer to approaches for aggregating ordinal preferences
into a community preference measure. While voting schemes are subject to
shortcominings, particularly the "tyranny of the majority" problem, voting
procedures are relatively easy to apply and may be appropriate for a
particular water quality decision making process.
In majority voting, each individual votes for his favorite. The winner
must receive at least 50% of the votes. With more than two alternatives, a
majority decision is not ensured. Therefore, if no majority is reached, a
modificaton of majority voting involves a runnoff election between the top
two vote-getters. Depending on how the majority voting scheme is defined,
however, it may be possible that the true favorite is eliminated before
reaching the runoff. Another modification of majority voting in cases where
a majority is not reached is to eliminate the least preferred alternative
and vote again, reducing the set of alternatives and revoting until one
alternative achieves a majority (eliminating inferior alternatives). In
plurality voting, each individual again votes for his favorite, with the
winner being that alternative which receives the largest number of votes, a
majority is not required. In each of the above approaches, each individual
has one vote, indicating his or her first preference.
The Cordorcet Rule states that the winner in an election is that alter-
native which wins by a simple majority over all other alternatives in pair-
wise comparisons. While the majority and plurality voting schemes only con-
sider the first preference, the Condorcet rule does begin to examine all
alternatives. Such a deicison rule is still subject to the paradox of
voting and may yield intransitive results, cyclical majorities,and ambiguous
outcomes. It does, however, make it more difficult for a minority candidate
to win. It is also more likely to lead to a consensus than a simpler
approach, as it won't leave a majority of the voters dissatisfied.
The Copeland approach again involves pairwise comparisons, but the
winner need not win all of the pairwise comparisons. In this case, the win-
ner is that alternative which wins more pairwise comparisons than any other
alternative. A score is computed for each alternative which is the dif-
87
-------
ference between the number of wins and the number of losses. The alter-
native with the highest score wins. This approach is in the spirit of the
Condorcet rule. If there is no Condorcet winner, the Copeland approach
chooses that alternative which can win the most pairwise comparisons. No
method is completely satisfactory, but the Copeland method is recommended
since in most cases it minimizes the number of dissatisfied voters.
In Borda voting, each alternative is given a score according to its rank
in the preference order of each individual. The worst alternative is given
a score of 0, while the best is given a score of M-l, where there are H
alternatives. The second best is given a score of M-2, while the next to
worse is given a score of 1, and so on. The scores of the various alterna-
tives are then summed across individuals and the winner is that alternative
with the largest total. The voting scheme reflects the entire preference
order of each individual and weights the positions in each order. All pre-
ferences are incorporated, rather than only first choices or pairwise com-
parisons. Borda voting is not independent of irrelevant alternatives.
Therefore, the results may be manipulated by excluding one or more alterna-
tives.
Social Welfare Function
The concept of a social welfare function assumes that individual pre-
ferences are measured on an interval scale and that interpersonal
comparisons of utility are possible. Because strength of individual pre-
ferences are considered, it is an appealing approach. The social welfare
function approach assumes that social welfare is a function of the indivi-
dual utilities. Let wm represent the social welfare associated with
alternative m, then
wm =
where uk is the utility of alternative m as expressed by individual k, for
k=l, 2, m...k. In general, alternative p is preferred by the community
to alternative q if and only if
wp > wq
The social welfare approach is essentially a linear additive model and
requires the individuals to have weights assigned to them or determined by
them. This may pose major problems for a group to determine on an inter-
active basis. Two hurdles are "Who sets the weights?" and "How should
weights be determined?" If unequal weights are difficult to justify politi
cally, equal weights may be used, in which case, the weight assigned to the
utility of each individual is simply equal to one, or, if normalized, the
inverse of the number of individuals.
5.8 SUMMARY
The preceding sections have described several activities that should
88
-------
take place in the impact evaluation process. While it is easy to get over-
whelmed by the mechanics of each technique, a modular process should be
applied, The selection of which technique to use in each module should be
primarily based on the following factors:
• The techniques should be easy to use, both computationally and
procedurally;
• The techniques should be comprehensible in their logic to
decision-makers;
• The techniques should be capable of handling multiple-objectives;
• The techniques should be able to deal with intangible impacts;
• Decision-makers should be able to make tradeoffs.
In the discussions presented for each of the techniques, it is clear
that there is no one package of techniques that maximizes all of these
criteria. Clearly, decision-makers should select an approach that is
appropriate to the complexity and significance of their decision-making
needs. For example, the use of a linear additive utility function for
impacts that have been primarily measured on an ordinal basis is not
warranted.
S.9 REFERENCES
Abt Associates Inc. Man and Matert A Social Report. Prepared for the
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior under Contract No.
14-06-D-7342, 1973.
Social Assessment Manual; A Guide to Preparation of
the Social Well-being Account. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior under Contract No. 14-06-0-7342(5), 1975.
Baecher, G.B.; Gros, J.; and HcCusker, K. Balancing Apples and Oranges;
Methodologies for Facility Siting Decision. International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis. Schloss Laxenburg, Austria, 1975.
Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Department of the Interior. Guidelines for
Implementing Principles and Standards for Multiobjective Planning of Water
Resources. Washington, DC, 1972.
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior. Environmental
Quality Assessment in Multiobjective Planning. Denver, Colorado, 1977.
Cohon, Jared L. Multiobjective Programming and Planning. Submitted for
publication by Academic Press, 1977.
. and Marks, David H. "A Review and Evaluation of
Multiobjective Programming Techniques". Water Resources Research.
11(2):208-220, 1975.
89
-------
Dorfman, R., and Jacoby, H.D. "A Model of Public Decisions Illustrated by a
Water Pollution Policy Problem." in Public Expenditures and Policy
Analysis, edited by R. H. Haveman and J. Margolis. Chicago: Markham
Publishing Company, 1970, pp. 173-231.
Eckenrode, R. T. "Weighting Multiple Critria." Management Science.
12:180-192, 1965.
Gros, J. "Power Plant Siting: A Paretian Environmental Approach." Nuclear
Engineering Design. 34:281-292, 1975.
Heer, John E., Jr., and Hagerty, D. Joseph. Environmental Assessments and
Statements. New York: Van Nostrant Reinhold Company, 1977.
Leopold, Luna B., et al. A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact.
U. S. Geological Survey Circular 645. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971.
MacCrimmon, Kenneth, R. "An Overview of Multiple Objective Decision
Making." in Multiple Criteria Decision Making, edited by James L. Oochrane
and Milan Zeleny. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina, 1973.
Oblinger-Smith Corporation. Methodology to Evaluate and Measure Potential
Environmental Impacts Resulting from Alternative Plans. Prepared for the
Mid-America Regional Council, 1977.
Raiffa, Howard. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on choices under
Uncertainty. Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley, 1970.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. Evaluation of Preliminary Denver
Areawide Treatment Alternatives. Prepared for Denver Regional Council of
Governments under Contract No. P008079-0101/5, 1976.
Sorenson, Jens C. A Framework for Identification and Control of Resource
Degradation and Conflict in the Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone. Masters
Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1971.
Warner, M. L., et al. An Assessment Methodology for the Environmental
Impact of Water Resources Projects. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-1871. Columbus, Ohio:
Battelle-Columbus Laboratories, 1974.
Whitlatch, Elbert E. "Systematic Approaches to Environmental Impact
Assessment: An Evaluation." Water Resources Bulletin. 12(1):123-137, 1976.
90
-------
CHAPTER 6
Impact Mitigation
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of mitigation is to alleviate adverse socioeconomic impacts
resulting from water quality control strategies. Mitigation is often given
minimal attention in the assessment of water quality alternatives. Miti-
gation measures essentially enable adverse effects to be eliminated, mini-
mized, or managed, by reducing or eliminating adverse impacts the planner
may be able to rescue an alternative from being eliminted for further consi-
deration. Alternatives that are attractive in terms of most of the impact
categories may have one or two adverse socioeconomic impacts that may jeo-
pardize the alternative's evaluation. By explicitly considering mitigation
measures in the planning process, the adverse impacts can be mollified and
thus save an otherwise acceptable alternative.
Types and examples of mitigation measures are discussed in Section 6.2.
Section 6.3 discusses considerations in the selection and evaluation of
mitigation measures.
6.2 TYPES OF MITIGATION MEASURES
There are basically two types of mitigation measures: those that
attempt to alter or prevent the impact; and those that accept the impact and
attempt to deal with it by decreasing its adversity. For the sake of clas-
sification, these two types of mitigation measures will be referred to as
impact prevention measures and impact management measures respectively.
Impact Prevention Measures
Impact prevention measure primarily involve changes in the water quality
control strategies themselves. Alternatives may be made in the structural
91
-------
controls, the implementation incentives, or the institutional arrangements.
the focus of impact prevention measures is on the characteristics of the
strategy that are responsible for the impact. Generic examples include
reduction in the scope of the project, changes in the location of a project,
alterations in the regulatory requirements, changes in the financing mecha-
nisms, and shifts in responsibility in the institutional arrangements of a
water quality strategy. Examples of impact prevention measures for growth
impacts of a wastewater treatment plant are shown in Example 6-1.
Impact Management Measures
Impact management measures represent additional measures or activities
to deal with expected impacts. The use of impact management measures is
particularly suitable in situations where the use of impact prevention
measures is not feasible or would create additional impacts. For example,
consider a proposed stormwater detention pond for an existing residential
neighborhood. The pond is objected to for several reasons, particularly for
visual and public safety impacts. A first approach in mitigating these
impacts would be to consider changes in the location or the size of the
facility. Evaluation of these options might indicate, however, that the
cost would be prohibitive and/or the effectiveness of the stormwater stra-
tegy would be greatly diminished. Thus, impact management measures might be
more appropriate. For this particular example, safety fencing and shrub/
tree plantings would be proposed and incorporated in the strategy. Other
examples of impact management measures are shown in Example 6-1.
Generic types of mitigation measure appropriate for impact issues within
each of the major socioeconomic impact categories being considered in this
guidebook are presented in Exhibit 6-1.
6.3 SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The selection and evaluation of mitigation measures should proceed in a
manner similar to the overall evaluation of water quality strategy alter-
natives. Alternative mitigation measures should be generated and
evaluated. It is unlikely, however, that a great number of alternative
mitigation measures will be available for each impact issue. Thus the
evaluation of mitigation measures should consider both impact prevention and
impact management measures simultaneously. It also is advisable to consider
combinations of mitigation measures involving both impact prevention and
impact management.
The evaluation criteria are the same as those for regular water quality
strategies except for effectiveness:
• Cost
• Effectiveness
Water Quality
Impact Mitigation
92
-------
_Example_6-l
MITIGATIOHi IMPACT PREVEHT20H AND IMPACT MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Esaasle #1
IKPAC? ISSUE: drouth impacts of uasteuater ttuatmunt faailiti.ee
IMPACT PREVENTION HEASUPES:
o Reduce the capacity of the uasteuater treatment facility
o Seduce the capacity of the eeuer interceptors
o Reduce service area coverage
o Stage the construction of interceptors
™?ACT MASASEMSJIT MEASURES :
o Vee Boning density controls to limit the amount of potential groath in service areas
o Use sewer tap-in fees to regulate the amount of connections
o Use groath management controls, such as building permit quotas and capital improvement
requirements, to stage groath
o Use public acquisition techniques to regulate amount of land available for groath
Exaale #2
IMPACT ISSUE: Coat incidence to users of a proposed uosteuoter treatment facility
FtiPAC? PREVENTION MEASURES:
o Reduce scope of project
o Use a mix of alternative and conventional systems
o Alter financing mechanisms to distribute some costs to non-users
o Regionalize aith neighboring community to get economies of scale
IMPACT KASAGEMEST MEASURES:
o Provide cost sharing via user's loan program
o Seek additional cost sharing from outside of community to lessen user burden
Example US
r\
-------
Exhibit 6-1
TYPES OF MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SOCIOEOONOMIC
IMPACTS OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
A. PUBLIC E3JENDITURES
Impact Is»ue»
A-l • Capital costs for publicly con-
structed projects
Mitigation manures
• Reduce scope of project
e Choose less expensive alternative
e Alter project timing
e Seek cost sharing from other levels
of government
A-2
O+M costs for publicly operated
projects
Reduce scope of project
Altar design of project
Share responsibility with other public
agency/government or with private sector
Other management costs assoc-
iated with institutional
arrangements
Reduce or alter nanageoant functions
Alter level of government responsibility
for management functions
Alter public/private responsibility for
management functions
B.
COST INCIDENCE TO FIRMS
Impact Issues
B-l
Compliance costs (capital and O+M)
for privately constructed projects
Mitigation Measures
Reduce or alter requirement*, standards,
specifications for effected firms
Eliminate requirements for some effected
interests
Eliminate geographic areas to be affected
Alter timing of requirements
Provide public cost sharing
Alter mix of economic incentives--
subsidies, tax programs, charges
Provide information on other types of
public and private sector financing
opportunities
Provide information on alternative
technologies
B-2 e Compliance costs (administrative)
for programs affecting private
sector
Alter mix and type of regulatory, eco-
nomic, and administrative incentives
94
-------
Exhibit 6-1
(Continued)
C. EMPLOYMENT AMD ECONOMIC GBOWTU
Impact Issues
C-l • Employment loss from existing firms
affected by cost incidence ~
Mitigation Measures
same as those for cost incidence
(see above)
Special programs for retraining and/or
placement in different jobs
C-2 e Future employment opportunities
affected by public wastewater
policies, growth management
policies, and in-stream waste-
load policies
e Alter water quality policies and
programs limiting industrial constraints
for moving into an area
D. COST INCIDENCE TO INDIVIDUALS
Impact Issues
0-1 e User and non-user costs assoc-
iated with public projects and
programs
Mitigation Measures
e Same as those for public expenditures
(see above)
• Alter financing mechanisms that dis-
tribute costs
• Provide public cost sharing
• Provide information on other public
and private sector financing oppor-
tunities
D-2
Costs associated with property
value effects
• Alter structural, location, construction,
or operating characteristics of struc-
tural controls
e Alter mix of implementation measures
e Provide compensation
E. lANO USE/HOUSING/POPULATION
Impact Issues
E-l • Scarce or valued undeveloped land
pre-empted for public sector
project
Mitigation Measures
e Reduce or alter scope of project
e Change location of project
E-2 e Private sector land pre-empted for
private sector compliance require-•
ment
e Reduce or alter requirements for affected
land owners
e Eliminate requirements for affected land
owners
e Provide information on alternative tech-
nologies
95
-------
Exhibit 6-1
(Continued)
Impact Issues
t-3 e Existing private and public land
uses affected by adjacent public
or private sector structural
projects
Mitigation Measures
• Reduce or alter scope of project
e Change location of project
e Alter nuisance-producing structural.
construction, or operating aspects of
water quality control strategy
e Provide additional buffer land or
vegetation/screening
E-4
Changes in amount, type, location,
and density of various land uses
Alter appropriate growth management
strategies
Reduce or alter scope and location of
wastewater facilities affecting land
development capability
E-S • Changes in rate of growth
Altar appropriate growth management
techniques
Alter timing of wastewater strategies
affecting large development capability
E-6 e Changes in future housing oppor-
tunities (amount, type and loca-
tion)
Same as E-4
E-7 • Changes in future population
patterns (amount, type, and loca-
tion, and growth rate)
• Same as E-6
F. PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact Issues
F-l • Changes in the performance or
adequacy of existing public
services
Mitigation Measures
Alter scope of water quality projects and
programs affecting the demand for, capacity
of, or service areas of affected public
services
Increase performance capabilities of
affected public services
Provide new service or facilities
6-1
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Impact Issues
Changes in tne adequacy of exist-
ing recreational opportunities
Mitigation Measures
Same as F-l
Change location of projects affecting
recreation site
96
-------
Exhibit 6-1
(Continued)
Impact Issues
0-2 • Changes in physical accessibility
to water-related recreational
opportunities
Mitigation Measures
• Reduce or alter scope of project
e Change location of project
• Provide nev access points
H. HISTORIC RESOURCES
8-1 • Changes in physical accessibility
to historic resources
Mitigation Measures
e Same as fi-2
H-2 • Alteration or displacement of
historic resources
e Sane as H-l
• Restore affected uses
H-3 • Changes in value or importance
of historic resource
as H-l
Altar nuisance producing structural.
construction, or operating aspects of
water quality control strategy
Provide compensation for losses
Provide additional buffer land
or vegetation/screening
SENSORY
Impact Issues
1-1 e Visual nuisance impacts
Mitigation Measures
Alter nuisance producing structural,
construction, or operating aspects
of water quality control strategy
Provide additional buffer land
1-2 • Visual fit with setting impacts
e Reduce scope of project
e Screen offending project aspects
a Change location of project
e Increase buffer land
1-3 • visual compatibility/identity
impacts
as 1-2
1-4 e Visual view and vista impacts
e Reduce scope of project
e Change location of project
• Provide new access points
97
-------
Exhibit 6-1
(Continued)
1-5
Impact Issues
Visual natural eleoent changes
Mitigation Measures
Reduce scope of project
Change location of project
Restore affected elements
1-6 •
Noise impacts from project
site activities
Altar nuisance producing structural,
operating, or construction aspects
of water quality strategy
Provide additional buffer land
1-7
Noise impacts from traffic-
related activities
• Change location
e Reduce or altar scope of project
• Provide alternative transport modes
• Altar traffic patterns
I-e
Odor impacts from project site
activities
• Sane as 1-6
J. PUBLIC HEALTH ASP SAFETY
Inpact Issues
J-l • Public health and safety hazards
associated with water quality
control strategies
Mitigation Measures
• Reduce or alter scope of project
e change location of project
e Provide additional measures to prevent
health and safety hazards
e Change hazardous or dangerous producing
structural, operating or construction
aspects of project
• Provide contingency and back-up measures
• Develop early warning monitoring
98
-------
Implementation Feasibility
Impacts
Environmental
Socioeconomic
Cost
In many cases, the mitigation measures will add costs to the overall
project. In particular, impact management measures are likely to involve
additional costs.
Effectiveness
There are two types of effectiveness issues: water quality and impact
mitigation. The imposition of the mitigation measures—particularly impact
prevention measures that involve altering the scope of the project, the
implementation measures, or the institutional arrangements—may diminish the
effectiveness of the water quality strategy in meeting its water quality
goals. This criteria should be handled simiarly to regulate water quality
strategies, i.e., mitigation measures that result in reducing technical
effectiveness below an acceptable level should not be considered for further
evaluation.
In terms of evaluating impact mitigation effectiveness, it is important
to have some understanding of how much mitigation is desirable. This
"amount of adversity" may be dictated by some overriding threshhold stan-
dard, by some level of need, or whatever is the basis for the determination
of significance in the impact measurement step.
It may be possible, however, to mitigate only to a certain level. This
level may fall below the desired amount.
Implementation Feasibility
Like any other water quality strategy, mitigation measures may face
implementation feasibility constraints. These may include legal authority
problems, administrative feasibility issues, and political acceptability
problems. For example, a mitigation measure for reducing growth impacts
associated with wastewater treatment plants may be to alter the proposed
service area for the treatment plant. This may be politically unacceptable
to members of a community. Similarly, in order to alleviate the cost burden
of a wastewater treatment facility on the expected users, the mitigation
measure may involve shifting more of the capital costs to the
cororounity-at-large via the property tax mechanism. Again, this may have
severe political ramifications and prove politically infeasible.
99
-------
Impacts
Mitigation measures may stimulate new impacts or alter the magnitude and
incidence of existing impacts. These impact changes have to be identified
and estimated and re-entered into the socioeconomic impact profile for the
alternative. For example, if additional fencing and landscaping require-
ments are suggested as a mitigation measure for sensory impacts associated
with stormwater detention ponds, then the impact on costs and the distri-
bution of those costs should be estimated and noted on the impact profile
for the alternative.
100
-------
PART 2
IMPACT MEASUREMENT
TECHNIQUES
101
-------
CHAPTER 7
Public Rscal
7.1 IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
This impact category is concerned with the impact of water quality con-
trol strategies on governmental expenditures and revenues. In addition,
public fiscal impacts include effects on public financing ability, such as
borrowing capacity. While areawide water quality strategies will often
encompass public financing from many levels of government, the focus in this
guidebook is on local and regional level fiscal impacts.
The public fiscal impact category represents a distribution point for
many water quality strategy costs. Costs are eventually distributed to
individuals and firms through a variety of public financing mechanisms
including user charges, property and other taxes, and expenditure cuts in
other public services. Impacts on private firms and individuals are con-
sidered in other impact categories in Chapters 8 and 10 respectively.
Impact Issues
Water quality management strategies affect expenditure and revenue pat-
terns of local governments in a variety of ways. The direct costs asso-
ciated with control strategies, such as the construction of a sewage treat-
ment facility or a septage disposal site, raise the level of public expendi-
tures. Indirect costs associated with increased development effects on
public services may also increase public expenditures. It is also very
important in this impact category to carefully consider the effects of dif-
ferent institutional arrangement and public financing mechanisms. Alter-
native public financing mechanisms will affect both the level of local
public costs and the distribution of costs to private firms and individuals.
102
-------
Direct Costs ~
Public expenditures for water quality strategies can occur in several
ways:
• Capital costs. If the controls involve the construction of
publicly-owned facilities, facility design, construction, land
acquisition, and equipment purchase costs will be incurred. The
construction, expansion or upgrading of treatment works, the
extension of sewer lines and infiltration/inflow corrections are
some examples of water quality controls with significant capital
costs. Debt service or interest costs should be included in
capital costs.
• Operating and maintenance costs. These costs are incurred in the
day-to-day operation of the facilities. Materials costs for
chemicals, electricity, labor charges, and depreciation on
buildings and equipment are typical components of OfiM costs.
• Administrative and regulatory costs. The costs associated with
administering, monitoring, and enforcing water quality strategies
are included in this category.
This last category is often not given sufficient consideration in
fiscal impact analysis in areawide water quality planning. For numerous
water quality strategies, however, the major public costs will primarily
include administrative and regulatory costs. On-site wastewater management
strategies and urban soil erosion control strategies are two examples in
which public regulatory costs may be significant.
Indirect Costs —
Water quality control strategies can affect the level of economic
activity in a community. For example, regulations imposed upon construction
activities and high user charges levied on industrial discharges to publicly
owned treatment facilities may adversely affect businesses, resulting in
decreased employment opportunities and population outmigration. This pro-
cess erodes the tax base, and can leave community finances worse off than
before. On the other hand, water quality control strategies may encourage
business activity through multiplier and accelerator effects. These busi-
ness and industrial location decisions are relatively difficult to predict
in a water quality planning effort. Water quality compliance costs are only
one of many factors affecting business location decisions. These impacts
are discussed more fully in Chapter 9.
Changes in economic activity and population brought about by sewage
treatment facilities, for example, will also affect the demand for public
services which in turn may affect public expenditures and revenues. This
type of indirect fiscal effect, i.e., the costs of servicing new develop-
103
-------
ment, has been a major focus of impact assessment, particularly on the urban
fringe, in the last 10-15 years. The ability to comprehensively consider
these types of fiscal impacts within areawide water quality impact assess-
ment: may be relatively difficult. The impact chain for 2 sewage treatment
facility, for example, may look like this:
Sewage
Treatment
Facility
— J
Effect on
Developable
Land
-
Housing
' Impacts
{Popula t ion
1 Impacts
Employment
Impacts
Multiplier
Employment
Impacts
^M
Public
Service
Impacts
Public
Fiscal
Impacts
In this particular case, a sewage treatment facility increases developable
land which in turn provides new housing and employment opportunities. These
indirect impacts stimulate, in turn, population and additional employment
impacts. Finally, additional demands on public services are translated into
public fiscal impacts. The ability to quantify public fiscal impacts is
directly related to the quantification of several preceding impacts. If,
for example, it is not possible to quantify expected housing starts, then it
will be very difficult to determine public fiscal impacts.
Institutional Arrangments—
Water quality control direct costs will obviously be affected by the
size of the control strategy, but administrative and regulatory costs will
also be affected by the following:
• number and type of management responsibilities
• distribution of management responsibilities.
For example, on-site wastewater management strategies may be structured with
a variety of regulatory and enforcement responsibilities. The distribution
of public management responsibilities may be divided according to:
• public/private sector responsibility
• type of public agency
• geographic scope of responsibility
• functional scope of responsibility
Continuing with the on-site wastewater management example, it is possible to
structure a number of different public/private sector combinations of
management responsibility. The amount of public*cost will also be affected
by the geographic scope. The on-site wastewater management agency may be
set up on a sub-community special district basis or it may be set up on a
104
-------
regional basis. Some of the on-site wastewater management responsibilities
may be shared by more than one local or regional government with different
functions. The extent to which these responsibilities necessitate the
start-up of new agencies or can be added to existing agencies will affect
the size of public expenditures. Finally, the type of agency will affect
the public financing mechanism that can be used which as discussed below may
affect the level of public expenditures.
Public Financing Mechanisms—
One of the most important factors shaping public expenditures and
revenues associated with water quality strategies is the type of mechanism
used to finance strategies. Public financing considerations for water
quality strategies may encompass a number of issues. These include
equity—the distribution of costs between users and non-users; efficiency—
whether each user is charged on the marginal cost of providing service;
revenue adequacy—the ability of.the charge structure to expand revenues as
costs increase; and administrative simplicity.
The availability of outside cost sharing possibilities will also, of
course, have a major influence on the size of local public fiscal impacts.
The impact of different methods of public financing were summarized in
Exhibit 2-4 in Chapter 2. As seen in the exhibit, private firm and private
individual costs are also affected by these different methods of public
financing.
7.2 IMPACT INDICATORS
The number of fiscal impact indicators is quite extensive. The use and
selection of indicators will, to some extent, be related to the type of
public financing mechanisms used in the water quality control strategy. For
example, for capital intensive projects, a public agency will be required to
finance the strategy through some type of borrowing mechanism—probably
general obligation bonds or revenue bonds. Impact indicators that reflect
the project's impact on a community's debt level, then, would be appro-
priate. Many areawide water quality strategies, however, will not involve
any capital costs—only annual administrative costs, for example. In these
cases, the community's indebtedness is not of concern.
The indicators discussed below do not include household or individual
user indicators as these are discussed in Chapter 9, Individual Costs/
Benefits. Since fiscal impacts only represent a distribution point for many
cost impacts, the presentation of individual cost impact indicators with
fiscal impact indicators in the assessment process is suggested.
Suggested fiscal impact indicator types are as follows.
• Changes in Annual Hater Quality Costs
• Changes in Overall Debt Characteristics
105
-------
• Changes in Tax Rate
• Changes in T=x Base
• Changes in Other Public Service Costs
Each of these types of impact indicators is discussed further below.
Changes in Annual Water Quality Costs
In this category, costs associated with a water quality strategy may be
expressed relative to existing water quality costs. These costs may be
expressed in total terms or broken down by type of costs—capital costs,
operation and maintenance costs, and administrative costs. They may also be
broken down by agency observing the costs. Examples include:
• Percent increase in annual erosion control costs
• Percent increase in annual Planning Board stormwater management
control costs
• Percent increase in annual sewer costs
• Percent increase in annual sewer operation and maintenance costs
Water quality costs may also be expressed in relation to overall local
costs. For example, it may be useful to express local sewer costs as
follows:
• Increase in ratio of total annual sewer/costs total annual local
annual operating costs
In general, this indicator type is the least difficult to develop and
express. However, it also provides relatively little information on fiscal
impact compared to other impact indicators.
Changes in Overall Debt Characteristics
For water quality strategies involving capital costs, some type of
borrowing through the issuance of bonds, may have to be used to finance
capital costs. The following debt indicators are useful fot expressing
water quality fiscal impacts:
• Percent increases in total debt
• Percent increases in net debt
• Increase in ratio of net debt/full taxable market value
106
-------
• Percent increase in debt service costs
• Changes in bond rating
It is useful to distinguish between net and total debt. Net debt is
equal to general obligation debt (tax-supported) minus revenue bond debt
that is self supporting. Tax-supported is debt that is repaid from the
general taxes of a jurisdiction—it is backed by its full taxing power.
Both general obligation bonds and revenue bonds are likely to be sources of
capital cost financing for water quality projects. Net debt may be partic-
ularly relevant because of the legal ceiling limitation placed on debt in
many states.
The ratio of debt/taxable market values and debt service costs are
particularly useful indicators generally considered to be important by
bankers and investment houses, such as Moodys and Standard & Poor's. The
latter firms are responsible for issuing municipal bond ratings that
influence interest rates that proposed bonds will have to bear. In some
cases, the necessity to incur a substantial amount of new debt, such as that
required for new wastewater facilities, will be significant enough to alter
a community's bond rating (i.e., credit capacity).
All of the indicators in this category are useful indicators to reflect
the fiscal impact of direct capital costs associated with water quality
projects and indirect capital costs associated with other public service
requirements.
Changes in Tax Rate
Those local wastewater costs not directly paid by users will be borne
by the taxpayers of a community as a whole. Changes in the tax rate are
useful in portraying overall local fiscal impact and individual burdens. A
community's wastewater costs or other public service costs—whether they be
operating and administrative costs or capital costs, (annual debt service
costs) will be ultimately reflected in the tax rate. Typical indicators are
the following:
• Absolute increase in the tax rate
• Percent increase in the tax rate
Changes in Tax Base
This indicator is most useful for expressing indirect fiscal impacts
resulting from gains and losses in population or employment base. Example
indicators include the following:
• Absolute increases in the total assessed property valuation
• Percent increases or decrease in the total assessed property
valuation
107
-------
Changes in Other Public Services Costs
In the Public Services impact category in Chapter 12, costs nay be
generated for particular public service impacts that result indirectly from
water quality strategies. It may be useful to express these fiscal impacts
in a manner similar to changes in water quality costs. Examples include:
• Percent or absolute increase in annual school costs
• Increase in ratio of annual school costs/total annual local
jurisdiction's operating costs
7.3 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
A key consideration prior to measuring fiscal impacts is the required
level and scope of effort in this impact category. As mentioned in Section
7.1, a number of fiscal impacts encompassing tax base changes and other
public service costs may be triggered by population and employment-related
impacts. Obviously, these indirect impacts have to be determined prior to
attempting to define for a particular water quality strategy the full range
of fiscal impacts.
A second and less involved consideration that should be made involves
the type of costs and financing being used in the water quality strategy.
Specifically, if there are no capital costs involved with a particular
strategy or if no form of debt financing is being used, then the need to
develop information and indicators on debt characteristics is not necessary.
7.4 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
The first step in determining local fiscal impacts, if not already
determined in the cost analysis for the water quality strategy, is to com-
pute the "local share". The local share is equal to total costs less
federal and state shares and other local shares (for example, in a regional
project). The "local share" may be used for a local government or special
district. See Example 7-1 for an example of calculating the local share for
tne community of Smithville. Once the local share for relevant capital,
operation and maintenance, and administrative costs have been determined, it
is possible to measure specific fiscal impact indicators.
Changes in Annual Water Quality Costs
This indicator category merely requires the development of percentage
increases using the following ratio:
PROJECTED COSTS-EXISTING COSTS
EXISTING COSTS
Examples are shown in Example 7-2. This indicator category may also
108
-------
KXMtt'LE 7-1
TOW, UATKII QUAUTY CAPITAL COSTS/"LOCAl." COSTS
(.4 mgd plant and interaeptore to nerve tuun
Stop
Step
1.
2.
Step
1.
Z.
3.
Description
t - Engineering fees
II
Survey and borings
Engineering fees for
seaer design
Step II - Subtotal
III
Const ruction coat
contract 77-1
Engineering fees
contract 77-1
Eaacmente and legal
fees
Step III - Subtotal
Total Project Coat
Total
Coat
$ 14,700
20,800
45.550
$ 66,350
$790, 950
7Z, 400
S3, 600
$886,950
$968,000
Cost Brealuloan
Eligible Honoligible
Cost Cost
$ 14,700 $ -
18.550 2,250
45,550
$ 64.100 $ 2,250
$749,950 $41,000
65.150 7,250
23,600
$815,100 $71,850
$893,900 $74,100
of Saithoille)
Eligible Coat Breokdoun
State
Sliare
$ 2,200
2,000
e.aso
$ 9.650
$112,500
9.800
$122,300
$134,150
Pcdara I
Sliare
$ 11,050
13,900
34.200
$ 48,100
$562,450
48,850
$611,300
$670,450
£000!
Share
$ 1,450
1.850
4.500
$ 6,350
$75,000
8,500
$81,500
$89,300
Total Cost
to Smithville
$ 1.450
4,100
4.500
$ 8,600
$116,000
13,750
23, 600
$153,350
$163,400
-------
EXAMPLE 7-2
CHANGES IN ANNUAL WATER QUALIT? COSTS
Example 7-2A
Existing 1980 Smithville Annual Erosion Control Regulatory Costs: $35,000
Proposed 1985 costs: $48,000
Proposed 19SO costs: $63,000
Proposed 2000 costs: $78,000
Impact: 37% increase by 1985 in annual costs
80% increase by 1990 in annual costs
123% increase by 2000 in annual costs
Example 7-2B
Existing 1980 total annual sewer costs: $345,000
Existing 1980 Smithville total annual operating budget: $6,530,000
Proposed total annual sewer costs in 1985: $791,000
Projected total Smithville total annual operating budget: $8,500,000
Impact: Ratio of Smithville annual sewer costs/operating
budget will increase from .05 in 1980 to .09 in 1985.
110
-------
use comparative ratios to express impacts. This simply involves dividing
the relevant water quality cost by a base such as total annual local govern-
ment operating costs. Examples are shown in Example 7-2 also.
Changes in Overall Debt Characteristics
Except for changes in bond ratings, the indicators in this indicator
category are derived similarly to those in the above indicator category.
One problem encountered in this indicator category may involve the calcula-
tion of full market value of local'property. In most communities, full
market value of property is not kept up to date and only assessed valuation
is shown on the property tax rolls. The analyst then will be required to
determine the equalized or full market value-, fro published figures from the
State Office of Taxation or an approximate 'conversion figure from the local
tax assessor. For example, the local tax asessor may be able to say that
property is assessed "at approximately 45% of full market value."
The determination of annual debt service costs for a particular water
quality strategy involving capital costs, if not provided by the engineer,
will require some minor calculation on the part of the water quality
agency. If the size of the debt, the interest rate, and maturity date are
available, then the analyst can calculate annual debt service cost of the
debt from a standard book of financial tables, under the heading Annual
Payment or Installment to Amortize $1 or $1000. A debt service cost example
is shown in Example 7-3.
The interest rate depends on the general level of interest rates and on
the local credit rating. For the purposes of available water quality
planning, it is not necessary to determine the exact interest rate likely to
be obtained on a particular capital cost.
Example 7-3
DEBT SERVICE COST CALCULATION
Assuming that the debt ie $5,000,000, the interest rate is 7* and
the term is 20 years; use a compound interest table or amoritiaation
table that sheas annual payments necessary to amortize a $1 or 61000
debt. Find the page with ?% interest, then look under 20 years at 71
interest. In this particular ease, a factor of 0.094393 is given to
amortize a Si loan. Then simply multiply the factor by the amount of
debt as shoan below:
$5,000,000 x 0.084393 = $4?1,S6S <• annual average debt service
(Note: if the table is for a il debt, multiply the factor tunes
the full amount of the debt. If the table is for a $1000 debt, mul-
tiply the factor times the debt in thousands — 65 million equals $S,000.
This method yields an annual average amount and not a precise
figure since principal payments are scheduled in specific amounts,
the interest oill vary accordingly. The above method, houever, using
standard amortisation tables, oill produce a reasonably accurate
estimate of annual debt service.
Ill
-------
The local treasurer in a community or a local financial analyst can be con-
sulted or an approximation can be made by the water quality planner using
current interest rates levied in comparable situations.
Maturity, or debt term, is the number of years required to repay the
debt. This will generally be based on the expected life of the water
quality strategy capital item. It will also depend, in the case of revenue
bonds, on the annual revenues projected for the project. In the case of
general obligation bonds, it will depend on the general financial capacity
of the jurisdiction, including the existing debt repayment schedules of the
jurisdiction.
The last indicator in this category—change in bond rating or credit
capacity—is a useful indicator to measure if a particular well-developed
project is being considered. The analysis necessary to make a judgement
about bond rating changes is likely to be beyond the needs of impact assess-
ment for areawide water quality assessment. In any case, a comprehensive
screening procedure useful for bond rating analysis and for determining if a
community can afford a propoed project has been developed by EPA in accor-
dance with Program Guidance Memo 79-8. This screening procedure is pre-
sented in Appendix C.
Changes in Tax Rate
The procedures for determining changes in the tax rate are straight-
forward. There are two types of expenditures that may be reflected in the
tax rate: 1) direct water quality strategy costs (such as, debt service
costs, operation and maintenance costs, and administrative and regulatory
costs); and 2) other public service costs resulting from indirect population
and employment effects. The latter category is much more difficult to pre-
dict and the water quality planner may only want to reflect fairly reliable
estimates in tax rate change calculations.
A methodological hurdle that confronts tax rate change analysis for
either of the above cost categories is the problem of changing tax base.
For example, if annualized wastewater costs are projected for, say a 10 year
period, actual tax rate effects resulting for wastewater costs during that
period will depend on tax base changes. It may be relatively difficult to
predict a jurisdiction's expected tax base 10 years from now unless the
jurisdiction has developed a fiscal impact model. A traditional solution is
to simply extrapolate the existing tax base using a projected growth rate.
A problem with any tax base projections, however, is the change in actual
market value of the tax base over time. The impacts of tax rate change
beyond five years are difficult to predict. Thus, a common approach in
presenting tax rate change impacts is to simply calculate the expected
change for only the current or next year. See Example 7-4.
112
-------
EXAMPLE 7-4
TAX RATE CHANGE CALCULATION
FOR SMITBVILLE SEWERAGE FACILITIES
Project Costs: 1981 Debt Service Costa = $450,000
1981 0 + M Costs = $ 90,000
1981 Total Sewer Costs = $540,000
Amount financed through user charges = $280,000
Amount financed through property taxes = $540,000-380,000 =
$260,000
Amount currently financed through
property taxes = $ 50,000
Projected tax revenue income needed = $160,000-50,000 =
$110,000
Current property valuation (Tax Base) = $35,000,000
Current tax rate/$1000 valuation = $56/$1000 valuation
Current tax rate revenue generated = $35,000,000 x 56 =
$1,960,000
Tota.1 tax revenue needed in 1981 to meet existing operating costs
and new sewer costs = $1,960,000
110,000
$2,070,000
Required tax rate to meet additional sewer revenue needs:
= $1,960,OOP 55
2,070,000 X
= $59.14
1981 Tax Rate increase due to additional sewer costs:
= $59.14 - 56 = $3.14 =
5.6% increase
113
-------
Changes in Tax Base
This category of fiscal impacts is largely concerned with tax base
changes resulting from indirect land use effects—particularly from housing
and employment effects. This may be a potentially interesting issue in a
jurisdiction since a claim often used to promote the implementation or
expansion of a public sewage system is accelerated or increased commercial
and industrial development.
The input for determining tax base changes associated with indirect
development will come from housing and employment impacts shown in the
impact chain in Section 7.1. Thus, the number of housing units attributable
to the water quality strategy may be translated into assessed valuation
figures using average house valuation figures from the tax assessor's
office. Since this development will occur over time, it will be necessary
to make inflationary adjustments to the average valuation figures at certain
time intervals. For commercial and industrial impacts, employment/valuation
ratios can be developed using recent local examples. These can be applied
to the employment impacts to determine their contribution to tax base
changes.
An additional tax base issue that may need to be calculated is the
decrease in tax base resulting from the conversion of private land to public
land for a water quality strategy. A land application system, for example,
may comprise a few hundred acres. These conversions should be determined in
the land use impact category. The tax base losses can be obtained directly
from the tax assessor's losses.
Changes in Other Revenues
Changes in property tax revenues are, of course, only part of the
change on the revenue side of local finances. Although property tax and tax
base generally represent the most aspects of local revenues, increasingly
localities are depending on a more diversified revenue picture. The prin-
cipal sources of local revenue include:
• Taxes; real and personal property; income; sales; and
other miscellaneous areas.
Own Sources
• Changes/Miscellaneous Revenues; fees and permit
revenue; interest earnings; fines, etc.
• State; Sales and income tax redistribution; motor
funds tax; cigarette and alcohol tax; educational and
Intergovern- other categorical assistance.
mental
Transfers • Federal; Revenue sharing; block grants; categorical
assistance, etc.
Many of the intergovernmental transfer sources are geared to population
114
-------
multipliers and formulas. Thus, you should take expected population changes
to the local finance officer in a community to see how these revenue for-
mulas might changes with a given change in population.
You will be able to calculate fairly easily changes in fees and
revenues associated with utilities. See Example 7-5. In terms of other
miscellaneous charges, you should use per capita estimates. For example,
municipalities levy use charges for a variety of items — school lunches to
use of public buildings. Take the annual revenues from these typical
miscellaneous revenues and divide by the population to determine per capita
revenue from user charges. Use this latter figure to multiply by population
changes to calculate revenue from these sources attributable to new growth.
Changes in Other Public Service Costs
Costs determined in Chapter 12 for public service impacts may be
expressed in a manner similar to water quality costs, i.e., in percentage
change terms on comparative ratios as shown in Example 7-2. Public service
costs associated with indirect population growth may be compared for a par-
ticular project, such as wastewater treatment facility, with changes in
revenue. This comparison, known as cost-revenue analysis, is used by many
communities to evaluate the fiscal impact of new development. Chapter 12
presents several techniques for estimating the "cost side" of new deve-
lopment.
7.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS
The most important data consideration in this impact category concerns
the "local share" of water quality strategy costs. This information should
be developed in conjunction with the water quality strategy prior to impact
assessment. If the local share for particular water quality strategies has
not been determined, then the first step in this fiscal impact analysis will
be to derive these figures if possible.
As seen in Exhibit 7-1 most of the other data required in this impact
category should be readily available from local secondary sources or local
government officials.
115
-------
Example 7-5
REVENUE CALCULATION FOR FEES
ASSOCIATED WITH WATER FOR NEW GROWTH
Population Increment:
Existing Average Daily
Water Consumption:
Total Annual Water
Consumption:
Water Rate:
Water Revenues:
5000 people
85 gallons per person
85 gal./person x 5,000 people x 365 days
per year = 155,125,000 gallons
$1.75/1000 gal./household plus $.50/1000
gallons
Portion A (1st 1000 gallons for each house-
hold)
• 5000+ 3.5 (household size} = 1429 homes
9 1429 homes x $1.75 = $2,501
Portion B (Excess amountJ
• 155,125,000 - 1,429,000 = 153,696,000
• 153,696,000 x $.50 = $76,848
1,000
Total Water Revenue:
$2,501 + $76,848 = $79,349
116
-------
Exhibit 7-1
PUBLIC FISCAL DATA SOURCES
Data Item
Data Source
Use
Local share of water
quality costs
Existing water
quality costs
Full market value
of local property
Existing debt
service costs
Local interest rate
for municipal bonds
local bond rating
Existing tax rate
Housing and
employment impacts
Other public
service costs
Existing local
operating budget
breakdown
• Water quality strategy
cost analysis
• Local annual report
• Appropriate local water
quality agency
• State Taxation Office
• Local Tax Assessor
Estimate
• Local annual report
• Local treasurer
• Local treasurer
• Local Tax Assessor
• Land use (Chapter 11)
and Employment (Chap-
ter 9) Impact Categories
• Other Public Services
Impact Category
(Chapter 12)
• Local annual report
• Latest U.S. Census of
Governments* Governmen-
tal Finances; Finances
of Municipalities and
Township Governments,
Bureau of the Census
Changes in Annual water
quality costs
Changes in annual water
quality costs
Changes in debt charac-
teristics; changes in
tax base
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Changes in tax rate
Changes in tax base
All indicator measure-
ments except water
quality cost changes
Changes in water
quality costs; changes
in other public service
117
-------
7.6 REFERENCES
Moak, Lennox, and Hillhouse, Albert. Concepts and Practice in Local
Government Finance. Prepared for Municipal Finance Association.
1975.
Municipal Finance Officers Association. Debt Financing of the State
and Local Share of Constructing Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities. Prepared for EPA. July, 1978.
Musgrave, Richard and Peggy. Public Finance in Theory and
Practice. McGraw Hill and Co. 1973.
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company. Financial-Arrangements for
Water Quality Management Planning. Prepared for EPA. October, 1976.
Real Estate Research Corporation. The Costs of Sprawl; Detailed
Cost Analysis. Prepared for EPA, CEQ, HUD. April, 1974.
Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc. Methods for Financing
Water Pollution Abatement from Point Sources. Prepared for EPA.
August, 1971.
Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc. The Distribution of
Water Pollution Control Costs. Prepared for the National Commission
on Water Quality. 1975.
118
-------
CHAPTER 8
Private Firm Costs
8.1 IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
The implementation of water quality strategies will affect many
regional and local firms in the planning area. Of concern in this impact
category are the direct water quality compliance costs and benefits for
firms. Two types of firms are of particular interest: businesses that
discharge sanitary or industrial wastewater directly to a water body or to a
municipal sewage treatment plant; and agricultural producers.
This impact category, like the fiscal impact category, serves as a
distibution point for cost impacts. In virtually every case, over the long
run, the water quality control costs are passed on to the consumer as price
adjustments. To the extent that firms succeed in passing these costs along,
they shift part of the cost burden to the consumer. For the most part these
consumer costs are not of concern in this guidebook because of the
difficulty in assessing them at the local and regional level. One consumer
cost impact that is discussed in Chapter 11, however, is the effect of land
development water quality compliance costs on housing costs.
Impact Issues
New or additional costs to firms result from charges, fees, and other
expenses of complying with water pollution control regulations. These costs
may result from maintaining a pretreatment facility, maintaining a
stormwater source control program, or paying user charges and Industrial
Cost Recovery (ICR) payments to the municipal wastewater treatment
facility. A firm may also face tax increases or special assessments as the
result of public costs of water pollution control. For example, a community
119
-------
that is constructing a new sewage treatment facility may fund a portion of
its capital costs from property taxes or front-footage assessments because
of the oenefits that theoretically occur to everybody in a community that
has public sewerage, and because of the benefits that accrue to properties
that are served or have access to public sewerage. Land intensive firms,
such as farms, may not even be tied into the public sewerage but may pay a
substantial share of public wastewater costs if property taxes and
front-footage assessments are part of the public financing mechanisms.
As in the case of differences among industries, the impact of water
pollution abatement requirements on individual firms—and particuarly
individual plants—will be markedly dissimilar, This is the result of
several interrelated factors, including:
• Efficiency—An efficient plant is likely to encourage pollution
abatement investment by its owners.
• Plant size and age—These are often good indicators of efficiency.
Because there are substantial economies of scale to most pollution
abatement processes, per unit abatement costs for larger plants are
less than for small plants.
• Firm size—Larger firms often have better access to capital
markets, and can thereby secure more favorable terms in acquiring
the capital required for abatement investments. Larger firms
generally have more flexible capital structures and can more
readily shift capital on an intra- or inter-plant basis. Also,
larger firms generally are required by investors and/or creditors
to earn a smaller return on capital than smaller firms to qualify
for the same interest rate on borrowed capital. This is a direct
result of the perceived risk factor in investing in smaller firms.
• Market position—Much of the increased investment required for
pollution abatement will be reflected in price changes. How much
of the increased cost can be passed on to the consumer will depend
on the demand for a firm's product and the position of that firm in
the industry.
• Profitability—Firms with higher profitability generally have
better access to capital markets.
• Capital structure—Firms currently characterized by higher debt
burdens than the average for their industrial sector generally can
acquire needed capital only on less favorable terms.
• Production processes—Some production processes are inherently less
polluting and, therefore, require smaller investments to meet
abatement standards.
120
-------
The degree to which a firm can successfully shift its increased costs
varies roost directly with the position of the firm in its product markets.
The extent to which a firm can control its costs or charges through market
pressure will also dictate the degree to which it may pass along water
quality control costs. For example, if the firm has oligopolistic control
(where there is little competition among sellers) of its product markets, it
may be able to pass along most of its increased costs. On the other hand,
where there is much competition among sellers and prices are crucial, a
unilateral price increase due to pollution control may be implausible if the
firm wants to stay in business. By the same token, the firm may be able to
control the prices it must pay for other production factors.
The distribution of these costs between O&M (operating and maintenance)
and capital cost may also have an impact on the degree to which firms must
recover their increased costs. Tax laws, such as rapid amortization,
low-cost loans or other capital subsidies may reduce the net cost to the
firm for capital equipment, thereby decreasing its need to pass along
increased pollution control costs resulting from capital equipment
expenditures. The existence of such incentives may influence firms to
tradeoff increasd capital expenditures for decreased O&M costs, where such a
tradeoff is feasible.
Firms that find it difficult to pass along pollution control costs may
choose other alternative actions in response to these costs. One of the
available options may be to alter the method of production. Changes in
production method may, in certain instances, reduce the firm's pollutant
output directly, by changing a firm's effluent volume and/or
characteristics. This may result in a reduction in the firm's pollution
control costs. Changes in the method of production may also bring about
changes in the firm's employment profile since new methods may be more or
less labor intensive or may require different skill mixes. A firm may alter
the quality or type of raw materials it purchases in order to offset
increased costs. For example, a firm may use less metal and more of cheaper
substitutes, such as plastic, in its products. Of course, such input
changes may have an effect on gross sales.
Generally speaking, the firm faced with increased costs from water
pollution control will choose some combination of the above approaches to
cover these costs. It may, for example, raise prices for its finished
products, alter its method of production for these products, lay off workers
to accommodate pollution abatement expenses, attempt to increase
productivity and/or increase market share.
Where, for one reason or another, a firm can neither pass its increased
costs to the consumer nor absorb them, it is faced with one long run
alternative, it must go out of business. However, where increased pollution
costs contribute to a decision to close a firm, other considerations are
also present that prompt the firm's failure. For example, a firm may have a
plant that is marginally profitable due to obsolete equipment. If the firm
121
-------
cannot pass along its pollution control costs and cannot finance modernizing
the plant, it may be forced to cease production. Many firms that cite
pollution control costs as the immediate reason for shutting down would have
shut down within a short time as a result of competitive market pressures.
A further impact on the firm resulting from pollution-control costs is
the relation of magnitude of the control cost at its current location to
costs in other regions of the country. In other words, areas where firms do
not have to pay large water quality control costs may attract industry from
areas where these costs are higher. By the same token, an area may lose
industry to a competing region with lower wastewater pollution control
expenses costs. While few firms move from an area due to pollution control
expenses alone, these costs may influence a firm looking for an area to
locate or relocate a plant, This movement is called accelerator growth and
is fully discussed in Chapter 9, Bnployment and Economic Growth.
Impact Issues; Agricultural Producers
Hater quality control strategies for agricultural producers, as
outlined in Appendix A of this guidebook, may place a variety of
restrictions on agricultural production methods or may require the
implementation of specific physical pollution control activities.
Alternative production methods, also referred to as best management
practices, include altered planting periods, different crops, or altered
location of activities on a farm. Physical actions may include livestock
waste storage areas or erosion control terraces. The principal agricultural
non-point sources addressed by local and areawide water quality strategies
are the following:
• soil erosion
• fertilizer runoff/seepage
• pesticide runoff/seepage
• livestock water runoff/seepage
The individual fanner has been concerned about soil erosion for many
years—mostly because of agricultural productivity reasons, however, rather
than due to water quality concerns. There have been a a number of Federal
and state programs designed to assist the fanner in controlling erosion,
including cost sharing programs, technical assistance, loans, and tax
credits. These incentives have been traditionally offered to encourage the
farmer to participate in soil erosion control programs and to equalize
economic impacts among farmers.
The increased controls represented by water quality strategies
represent additional compliance costs for some farmers. Other farmers may
not be affected at all by restrictions because of their current agricultural
practices. The water quality compliance costs for affected fanners may be
122
-------
considered as an additional production cost as shown in Exhibit 8-1 (See
item 8).
If the proposed water quality practices require new production methods,
then yields and therefore income may be affected. The affects on income are
also, of course, highly infuenced by the particular agricultural market and
by the existing productivity of the farm. As with industrial and commercial
firms, the ultimate impact of higher production costs will depend on the
nature of the demand for the fanner's products, i.e., the ability of farmers
to pass increased costs along to the consumer. Where yield is affected by
water quality cost impositions, then more productive farms will benefit over
less productive ones. Thus, under reasonably uniform water quality
restrictions, farms in highly productive areas would benefit relative to
farms in less productive areas.
It should also be noted that the imposition of pollution control
requirements on agricultural practices may produce individual farm
benefits. These positive aspects will have to be emphasized by implementing
agencies. On-farm benefits may include the following:
• reduced erosion and loss of productive land;
• efficient use of costly nutrients and pesticides;
• increased water retention in certain fields and thus reduction of a
portion of production costs.
8.2 IMPACT INDICATORS
Industrial and Commercial Firms
There are three types of issues that are important in considering
impact indicators for this impact category:
• types of compliance costs;
• types of firms affected by pollution abatement requirements;
• amount of compliance burden.
Types of compliance costs may be broken down by type of action
required, such as sewer charges, erosion control, pretreatment; or by type
of cost, such as operation and maintenance costs, or annual costs. Types of
firms may encompass a number of classifications depending on the level of
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code used. See Exhibit 8-2 for a
portion of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual; 1972 published by
the Office of Management and Budget. It is also possible within this
indicator to indicate actual firms affected. Amount of compliance burden in
its simplest form may indicate the amount of annual or capital pollution
control costs. There are a number of ratios, however, that more precisely
123
-------
Exhibit 8-1
MAJOR FACTORS AFFECTING FARMER'S SELECTION OP
WATER QUALITY CONTROL OPTION
A. CROSS REVENUE«
1. Expected Pcieei
2. Expected Production
Gross Revenue • (1 X 2)
B. PRODUCTION POSTS BY OPERATIDNi
1. Land Charge
2.
3.
4.
Tillage
Labor
Equipment
Fuel
Interest
Scheduling
Fertilisation
Labor
Equipment
Fuel
Pertiliser
Interest
Scheduling
Pest Control
Labor
Equipment
Fuel
Pesticides
Interest
Scheduling
5. Planting
Labor
Equipment
Fuel
Seed
Interest
Scheduling
6. Harvesting
Labor
Equipment
Fuel
Interest
Scheduling
7. Storage and Transport
Labor
Equipment t Facilities
Fuel
Interest
Scheduling
Pollution Control Prac-
tice Design,Construc-
tion, Installation,
Operation i Main-
tenance
Laoor
Equipment
Fuel
Interest
Scheduling
TOTAL PRODUCTION COSTS - 1+2+3+4+5+6*7+8
NET REVENUE • (Gross Revenue - Total Production Costs)
C. OTHER FACTORS (Risk, Uncertainty, Attitudes, Preferences, etc.)
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Control of Water Pollution froa Cropland, Volune I; A Manual for Guideline
Development, prepared for O.S. Environnental Protection Agency,
EPA-600/2-7S-026a, November 1975.
124
-------
Exhibit 8-2
A PORTION OF THE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION MANUAL; 1972
Cod*
TUlt
a PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS
291 Petroleum Refining
2911 Petroleum refining
295 Paring and Roofing Materials
2951 Paring mixtures and Mocks
2952 Asphalt felta and coatings
299 Misc. Petroleum and Coal Produeta
2992 Lubricating olli and greases
2sn Petroleum and coal pruduns. Dec
30 RUBBER AND MISC. PLASTICS
PRODUCTS
301 Tirei and Inner Tabes
3011 Tlreg and inner tubes
39S Rubber and Plastics Footwear
3021 Bobber and plastics footwear
303 Reclaimed Robber
3031 Reclaimed robber
304 Rubber and Plaitica Hoee and Belting
3041 Bobber and plastics how and betting
3M Fabricated Rabber Products, nee
3969 Imbricated robber products, nee
397 SUscena-neous Plastics Produeti
3879 Miscellaneous plastics products
31 LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS
311 Leather Tanning and Finishing
3111 LeaitBor tanning and finishing
313 Boot and Shoe Cot Stock and Findings
1131 Boot and shoe cut stock and findings
314 Footwear. Except Rabber
3142 House slippers
3143 Men's footwear, except athletic
3144 Women's footwear, except athletic
3146 Footwear, except robber, aec
31S Leather Gloves and Mittens
3151 Leather (loves and mittens
316 Luggage
3161 Luggage
317 Handbags and Personal Leather Goods
3171 Women's handbags and parses
3172 Personal leather goods, nee
319 Leather Goods, nee
3199 Leather goods, nee
32 STONE. CLAY. AND GLASS PROD-
UCTS
321 Flat Glass
3211 Flu glass
322 Glass and Glassware, Pressed or Blown
3221 Glass containers
3229 Pressed and olown glass, nee
323 Products of Purchased Glass
3231 Products of purchased glass
324 Cement, Hydraulic
3241 Cement, hydraulic
325 Structural Clay Products
Oodt
mart TUlt
3251 Brick and structural clay tile
3253 Ceramic wall and floor tile
3255 Clay refractories
3259 Structural day products, nee
328 Pottery and Related Products
3281 Vitreous plumbing fixtures
3282 Vitreous china food utensils
3283 Tine earthenware food utensils
3284 Porcelain electrical sappUes
3289 Pottery products, nee
327 Concrete. Gypsum, and Plaster Products
3271 Concrete block and brick
3272 Concrete products, nee
3273 Ready-mixed concrete
3274 Lime
3275 Gypsum products
328 Cut SlMie and Stone Products
3281 Cut stone and stone products
329 Misc. Nonmetallic Mineral Products
3291 Abrasive products
3292 Asbestos products
3293 Gaskets, packing and sealing devices
3295 Minerals, ground or treated
3296 Mineral wool
3297 Nonclay refractories
3299 Nonmeialllc mineral products, nee
33 PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES
331 Blast Furnace and Basic Steel Prefects
3312 Blast furnaces and steel mills
3313 ElectrometaUorglcal products
3315 Steel wire and related products
3316 Gold finishing of steel shapes
3317 Steel pipe and tubes
332 Iron and Steel Foundries
3321 Gray Iron foundries
3322 Malleable Inn foundries
3324 Steel Investment foundries
3325 Steel foundries, nee
333 Primary Nonferroas Metals
3331 Primary copper
3332 Primary lead
3333 Primary sine
ygy^ Primary •*M>fi*f
-------
indicate individual firm burden* such as the following: annual costs as a
percentage of gross sales; pollution control investment as a percentage of
fair market value of capital stock.
Impact indicators, then, may be structured around the above types in
various combinations, including the following examples:
• annual sewer user charges in $/gallon;
• number of electroplating firms affected by pretreatment costs;
• annual pretreatment costs/gross sales for XYZ Jewelry Company.
Agricultural Producers
Similar to industrial and commercial firms, cost incidence indicators
for agricultural producers may be categorized into three types:
• type of compliance costs;
• types of farms or agricultural activity affected by pollution
abatement requirements;
• amount of compliance burden.
The types of compliance costs may be classified by soil erosion costs,
fertilizer and pesticide control costs, and livestock waste costs. These
may also be expressed in operation and maintenance terms, capital costs, or
annual costs. Types of agricultural activity may be broken down by types of
farms, such as livestock, poultry, and type of crops. Size of farms
affected may also be a useful indicator here as well, such as farms smaller
than 100 acres or farms with gross income less than $100,000/year. Annual
pollution abatement costs as a percentage of annual production costs; annual
pollution abatement costs as a percentage of annual gross income; per acre
compliance costs; and changes in yield/acre are all useful indicators of
agricultural compliance burdens.
Indicators can be developed that incorporate one or more of these three
types of indicators, such as the following examples:
• average annual soil erosion costs for South River watershed farms;
• average soil erosion capital costs/acre for non-producing farms;
• decrease in bushels of wheat/acre yield due to fertilizer controls.
8.3 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
There are a number of issues affecting the type of analysis and the
level of effort in this impact category.
126
-------
Regulatory Issues
Two water quality strategies, namely EPA pretreatment regulations and
Industrial Cost Receiving (ICR) provisions, have the potential of
significantly affecting the magnitude of private firm costs. At the time of
the writing of this guidebook, however, the cost impacts of these programs
are unclear.
The ICR program, which is designed to recover from connected industries
some of the capital costs associated with publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) expansion, has been suspended by EPA. It may with further
Congressional review be reinstituted at a later date.
Three of the main purposes of ICR were as follows:
• require industries to pay their fair share of public treatment
facility capital costs;
• reduce inequities between industries that must self-treat and
discharge directly to streams and those industries tied into
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs);
• minimize unnecessary overcapacity in POTWs anxious to attract
industry.
In any case, because of the uncertainty associated with the ICR
program, ICR impacts are not considered in this guidebook. An example of
typical ICR cost apportionment is shown, however, in Example 8-1.
EPA's pretreatment regulations under Section 307 of PL92-500, on the
other hand, are still incomplete. EPA is still developing final effluent
limitations. In setting future pretreatment standards, EPA is focusing on
21 industry categories believed to be discharging pollutants of the greatest
concern. These industries are as follows:
• Electroplating
• Leather Tanning & Finishing
• Petroleum Refining
• Textile Mills
• Automatic 6 other Laundries
• Iron & Steel Manufacturing
• Ore Mining
• Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing
• Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
• Steam Electric Power Plants
• Timber Products Processing
• Coal Mining
• Machinery & Mechanical Products
Manufacturing
• Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
127
-------
Example 8-1
CALCULATION OF ANNUAL AND TOTAL ICR PAYMENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR LOST RIVER SANITARY DISTRICT
(1.9 MGD New Secondary Plant; 1977 Start Up)
USER
A. Significant (10%+)
Sometime Oil
B. Mijor (5-10X)
Avenge Ice Cmni
C. Minor (1-SK)
Bouncy Batay Shoe
D. Minor Group (-1X1
Daily Egg -s
Hot Fireclay! P"1 •"
Reliable Gasf £"[]£
Long Wire J
E. Dry-Sanitary Only1
Accountable Data, Inc.
Dedgn
Deny Flow
and LMdinai
200,000 g flow
1 ,200 Int. BOO
1.000 IDS. S&
1 50,000 g flow
600 lot. BOD
1,OOOIbs.S£
70.000 g flow
350 IDS. BOO
590 lot iS.
3,750 B flow
30 IDS. BOO
45 IDS. S£.
1 5,000 g flow
30 Ibs. BOD
30lbs.&S.
SI 7.836
Mm G/D/Yaar
Flow
S3.527.20
2.64540
1^34.52
66.13
264.54
SL505
IteTD/Yaar
BOO
S3J06J)0
1,503.00
876.75
75.15
75.15
»J54
LbUD/Yesr
Si
S854J30
854.00
503.86
38.43
4 X SI 79.71
25.62
TOTAL
$ 7.387.20
$ 6,002.40
S 2^15.13
S 718J4
S 365J1
Total ICR Per Yur Payable for the First Year2 $ 16.088 J8
Total ICR (1977-2007): at a constant rate would bi 30 yanX SI 6,088.88- $482,666.40
' Grantn hn ehawn net to I
2ICR b to b« ramaluMd «nd updated «eh ynr tend
upon fnonftorimj of inBustrivI
Source: Environmental Protection Agency , "Industrial Coat Recovery
Systems", MCD-44, November, 1976.
128
-------
• Paint & Ink Formulation 6 • Paving & Roofing Materials
Printing
• Plastic 6 Synthetic Materials • Pulp & Paperboard Mills &
Manufacturing Converted Paper Products
• Rubber Processing • Soap & Detergent Manufacturing
For many areawide planning agencies, it will be difficult to assess cost
impacts until these regulations are published in final form.
The Effect of Private Firm Financing Methods
Ideally impact assessment in areawide planning would be able to show
the effects on industries of self-treatment versus connection to a POTW.
This is probably impractical within areawide water quality planning for at
least two reasons: 1) the difficulty in getting financial data from affected
firms; 2) the wide variety of financing mechanisms available to firms that
can alter the financial impact of water quality control alternatives. These
financing mechanisms include:
• rapid amortization of pollution control facilities;
• investment tax credits;
• industrial development bonds;
• SBA loans; and
• centralized purchasing.
In general, in cases where water quality controls will entail capital
investment on the part of firms, it will be very difficult for the water
quality planner to assess actual annual costs because of the individual firm
financing decisions.
Individual Firm Physical Responses
An additional uncertainty in estimating actual financial impact of
water quality controls on industrial and commercial firms involves internal
plant changes in response to controls. Faced with increased pollution
abatement costs, a firm, where possible, may attempt to reduce pollution
abatement-related costs through a variety of practices. As suggested in
Section 8.1, faced with sewer and surcharges, a firm can select one or more
of the following responses:
• pay the fee
• pretreat wastes prior to discharge to POTW
129
-------
• improve housekeeping procedures
• change process technology
• change products manufactured
• reduce output, possibly to zero and go out of business
• self-treat wastes prior to direct discharge
In a study of 101 industries and their response to sewer surcharge in
Atlanta, South San Francisco, Chicago, Salem (Oregon), and Dallas, it was
found that the four most typical responses were those shown in Exhibit 8-3.
While not all these responses were effective in significantly reducing the
financial effect of sewer charges, the study of these firms found that many
responses were effective in reducing costs.
Screening Analysis
Industrial and Commercial Firms—
The screening step in this impact category should focus on the
following activities:
• determine and categorize water quality control strategies proposed
for industries and firms;
• determine approximate number and type of firms affected;
• determine type of information sources available about industries
and their waste characteristics.
Each of these activities is briefly discussed below.
The first activity should summarize, probably by community, the types
of alternative strategies proposed for industries and firms. The point of
this activity is to note the potential cumulative aspect of water quality
controls on industries and firms. It is probably most convenient to
classify strategies along the following lines:
For POTW-Connected Industries
• local sewer use charges or surcharges;
• local water use charges;
• Federal or locally-motivated pretreatment requirements;
• local water conservation requirements.
130
-------
Exhibit 8-3
TYPICAL1 RESPONSE OF INDUSTRIES TO LOCAL SEWER CHARGES
AND SURCHARGES (ATLANTA, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CHICAGO, SALEM (OR), DALLAS)
I Plants
Comments
Water Conservation
38 Strong drought response in Salem
and South San Francisco
Improved Housekeeping 53
Installed or Augmented Treatment 44
Altered Production
Most common response to charges
In many of these cases,
regulations were the main reason
for installing pretreatment
41 Includes changing products,
inputs, process flow, or
equipment
^•Multiple responses possible.
Source: Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc., "Responses to Local
Sewer Charges and Surcharges," prepared for Council on Environmental
Quality, October 1979.
131
-------
For Direct Discharging Industries
• NPDES-tnandated self-treatment requirements
The second and third activities will probably be best accomplished if
done simultaneously. In order to do this, it will be necessary to determine
the ma]or secondary data sources containing information about local
industry. The following sources are the types of data sources that should
be gathered and examined in this screening activity, if they are available:
• NPDES Discharge Permits;
• industrial waste directories;
• POTW facility plans;
• industrial directories.
In addition, POTW administrators should be contacted to determine the
type and availability of records that show the names of firms connected to
the POTW. In some communities, sewer charges may be based on water use and
in these cases the water departments will have to be contacted.
At the completion of these screening activities, the water quality
planner should be able to identify types of controls and be able to match,
at a minimum, the number of firms affected by each strategy. In some cases,
specific affected firms can be grouped for each control strategy, as shown
in Example 8-2. In this example. Federal pretreatment target industries are
identified by SIC code and the state industrial directory is used to
determine affected firms in union City.
The key decisions to make at this point revolve around the following
issues:
• Which industries should be looked at in more detail for impacts?
• Should impacts be looked at on a firm-by-firm basis?
In addressing these issues, it should be kept in mind the importance of
this impact category to the Employment and Economic Growth impact category.
The Private Firm Cost impact category should serve to identify those firms
that are most vulnerable to employment losses or plant closure due to
pollution abatement costs. Thus, at a minimum, the analysis at this point
should proceed to examine in more detail those plants that are most
vulnerable to added pollution abatement costs. Given the probable lack of
actual financial information on a plant-by-plant basis at this point, the
water quality planner should attempt to determine the following categories
of firms:
132
-------
Example 8-2
UNION CITY FIPMS AFFECTED BY
PROPOSED PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
Firm
Major Product Category
Electronlaters
Miscellaneous
Macnine Tools. Parts.
and Maeal Parts
Other Metal
Products
Plastics
Leather
Textiles
Food
Advanced Plating
A.A. Brunei
Eagle Electroplating
Edward P. Oarrepy
Bard Chrone Division
Independent Electroplating
Metal-Rote
New Method Plating
Qualatron Electroplating
Reliable Plating
Anderson Corp.
Anderson Tool & Stamping
John Bath Co.
Cincinnati Milacron
Cees Knife
Croopton t Xnowles
GiR Screw Machine
Henry L. Hanson
Jameabuey Corp.
lundquist Tool Mfg.
Morgan Construction
Parker Mfg.
Packer Metal Goods
Seed t Prince Co.
Thomas Smith Co.
Warner t Swasey
Lindberg Corp.
Mass Steel Treating
Mercury wire
National Standards
Standard Foundry
Thompson Steel
Worcester Pressed Aluminum
G.P. Wright Co.
flyman and Gordon
Dacor Corp.
Hold«n Plastics
Produx Co.
Worcester Moulded Plastics
L. Parber
E.H. Parks
O.K. Wool Co.
Robinson Thread
Eli Sandman
Laipson's Dairy
Millbrook Co.
Pepsi-Cola
Polar Corp.
Table Talk Pies
133
-------
Category 1: Those industries or firms that will potentially bear the
greatest costs
Category 2: Those industries or firms that are recognized as being the
least able to pass along increased pollution abatement
costs
Category 3: Those firms that fall into both category 1 and 2.
Category 1 firms may include firms with high strength wastes, such as
wastes with high Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD); firms with special or
exotic wastes requiring sophisticated treatment technology; firms that are
large water users. Category 2 firms can be identified locally through the
Chamber of Commerce or Economic Development Agencies. Vulnerability factors
cited in Section 8.1 will be useful in making these determinations. The
National Commission on Water Quality (NCWQ) has also idenfified seven (7)
industries as being particularly susceptible to pollution abatement costs:
chemical, electric utilities, iron and steel, paper, mining, petroleum, and
machinery and mechanical products (including metal finishing and
fabrication). Finally, the regional EPA office may be source of information
on vulnerable firms. EPA has set up in conjunction with the Department of
Labor an economic dislocation early warning system which monitors plant
closings where federal, state, or local pollution control regulations were a
substantial factor in the closings.
The extent to which the water quality planning agency will want to
proceed with more detailed analysis will depend in large part on available
staff resources and desires of the agency's advisory committee. For
example, certain communities may be targeted for special attention or firms
over a certain employment size.
Agricultural Producers—
The screening step for agriculture should attempt to provide
information similar to that for industrial and commercial firms, namely:
• determine and categorize water quality strategies proposed for
farms;
• determine approximate number and type of farms affected;
• determine type of information sources available about farms and
their types of water quality issues.
The ability to match information for the first and second activities
will depend on how site-specific the water quality planning agency was in
looking at non-point source agricultural problems prior to recommending best
management practices. Based on data generated during the water quality
planning process, the screening analysis will hopefully be able to identify
problem watershed areas with specific types of non-point source problems.
134
-------
If site-specific infonr.ati.on about farms was not generated during the water
quality planning process, the planner should use the problem watershed
information and determine from the local Cooperative Extension Service or
the County Soil Conservation Service the type of agricultural operations in
each of these watersheds. The planner should also consult with the State
water pollution control agency to determine those farms affected by NPDES
permits. These permits may apply to irrigation return flow situations and
to farms with livestock waste.
Similar to the industrial screening process, the planner has several
options at this point as to how to proceed. Specific agricultural
operations, categorized by crop type or those with large scale livestock
waste disposal problems for example, may be singled out for further analysis.
8.4 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Industrial and Commercial Firms
Capital Costs—
Some firms discharging directly to streams as well as those connected
to POTWs will face some type of capital investment in response to NPDES
requirements and pretreatment requirements. Those firms connected to POTWs
that desire to reduce the cost burden of sewer user charges and surcharges
may also respond with some type of capital investment.
As indicated in the screening analysis, obtaining capital cost
information may be difficult. Unless it has been generated in the areawide
quality study, the planner will then have only two options for estimating
capital cost information. First, if there are not a great number of firms
for which this information is needed, it may be possible to obtain this
information directly from the firm. They may have had an engineering firm
develop order of magnitude cost estimates. The second option is to develop
these costs in a crude fashion using information about the firm's wastes and
estimating costs from engineering cost curves developed by EPA for selected
industries. See the Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.
reference, for example. It should be noted of course, that this technique
will only produce crude estimates.
If capital cost information has been developed, then it may be used to
develop the indicators shown in Examples 8-3 and 8-4. For Example 8-4, the
capital cost component of wastewater treatment facilities will most likely
be financed over a moderate term — 3 to 5 years. It should be clear,
however, that since the useful life of the pollution abatement equipment
purchased by each firm is generally greater than 5 years, total annual costs
will decrease after completion of the 3 to 5 years payback period to an
amount equal to O&M costs alone.
If gross sales and assessed valuation of capital stock information for
a firm is available, then ratios may be developed to show compliance
T.35
-------
Example 8-3
TREATMENT COST ESTIMATES
Preferred Altirni
local
flow Capital
yi^s ( cpD) ^**9 c
Advanced Plating
Anderaon Corp
Andecaon Tool 4 Stamping
Aatra rtisraereiirli il
John Baea Co.
A.JU Brawl
Cincinnati Ittlanrnn
COM Sntfe
Croapeon t Knovlaa
Oaear Mfg.
Eagle Electroplating
i. rsraer Co.
Ct* Sezav Macalae
Edv. ». Campy
Banry L. Baaaoa
Bard nirrvjs Oivuiaa
Booba Mfg.
Balden Plaaeiea
Independent Sleeenplaciog
j4iBe)eBMvy Corp*
Lalpaon's Dairy
Uadbarg Carp.
bundqnist Tool e Mfg.
Haaa. Steel treating
Harenry win
lieral Tore
NiUaraok, Inc.
Hargaa Conatroction
National Standard*
Bev Metaod Plating
aoreao Co.
O.r. Haala
Paricar Mfg.
•arkar Metal Gooda
B.H. Pu«a
?«p«i-C>la
Polar Carp
Produx Co.
Qualatron Electroplating
Deed t Trine* tf?.
Raliaola Plating
Sooinaon T^r**d
Eli Sandnaa Co.
•aoaaa S*usa Co.
Spragn Electric
Standard foundry
Taola Talk
aompaoii Wir*
Hamer t s»a»«y
Nbreeaur "loalded PlMtiea
'••oreaatar Pr*aaed Aluaiuita
C.?. Vrignt
ifrigae Lin*
Wrun Sorion
(,000
4,000
MO
•(,000
(•mail
(.000
238,000
3.000
(.(00
2.000
30,000
21.000
2.000
10,000
1.000
29,000
l.SOO.
7,000
50,000
73,000
15.000
(00
uo-
26,000
3.000
T.OOO
103,000
11.000
30,000
13,000
1.050.000
10,000
37,000
30.000
300
10,000
100.000
17,000
72.000
106,000
6.300
1,000
10,000
10.000
90,000
9,000
9,000
53.000
nee
available
13.000
1,000
105.000
not
available
10.000
J42.200
(.000
3.000
7.200
3.000
23.500
20. (00
9,5(0
Mr?*"
3,000
S(,000
23.300
3.000
73 , 300
3.000
73.500
3.000
C.300
93,000
71.700
—
3,000
3,000
31.600
—
3,990
2.100
17,300
U, (00
(4,300
204.100
23.700
51.500
•0,100
—
22.300
JJ.800
13,000
18,300
38.JOO
40,000
23.300
10.000
16,300
102.300
(4.000
(.000
102, (00
(.(00
26.800
3,000
_
33.000
9.300
ftim^i
CM
**Mat
I 5,390
3,490
2,090
3,600
2.000
4.900
13,700
3.330
3,990
1.230
11.430
5. (00
2.290
7,»00
2.150
11.730
2.200
2,700
1(.(90
20,990
2.200
2,150
2.000-
14,730
£•000.
2, MO
15.990
3,390
9. (30
10,300
207,430
2.530
17,430
18,390
—
1.430
25.300
4.600
12.330
23.650
1.230
9,800
1.990
3.000
27.500
6,330
3.100
23,030
3.230
5.700
2.130
15.350
7,630
S7.000
•aaitary utter
aanieary eavar
•anieary eawar
•aaitary ••«•£
•aaitary aaver
unitary aewar
•aaitary uvar
aanieary sever
•anltary saver
aanieary sever
•aaitary sever
•aaitary sever
•unitary sever
•aaieary uver
•aaieary sever
•aaieary sever
•aaieary saner
storm drain
unitary uver
unitary uver
•aaitary- sever
unitary uvec
•aaieary sever
•aaieary uvec
•aaieary- uvec
•anieary- sever
•aaitary sever
•aaieary uver
•aaieary uver
•aaieary sever
. •aaieary sever
•aaitary uver
•aaieary uver
•anltary sever
•aaieary sever
unitary uve
unitary save
•trees)
•aaieary seve
sanitary seve
sanieary seve
sanitary seve
sanieary seve
•anieary save
•aaieary save
•aaieary uve
stresa
•aaieary sever
•trea*
sanitary sever
•aaieary sever
•aaitary sever
•aaieary uver
unieanr sever
1. no* nciawta* «xlud« cooling waear cacyeluig in aaae eana.
2. Oiac&arg* ea unitary i»»«r» indieacaa at«eri«ea»nt option.
1. Diac&arg* to «tem aratn« or itr»ao tadicau* Mlf-truea^nt option.
136
-------
Example 8-4
ANNUAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT COSTS
Firs
Advanced Plating
Anderson Corp.
Anderson Tool t Sculping
Astra Pharnaceutical
John Bath Co.
A.A. Brunei
Cincinnati Nilacron
CM* Knife
Crospton 4 Knovles
Dacor ttfg.
Eagle Electroplating
L. Fmrber Co.
CUt Screw Machine
Edw. p. Carrepy
Bevy L. Hanson
Bard drone Division
Boobs Mfg.
Holden Plastics
Independent Electroplating
Janeabury Corp.
Lalpson's Dairy
Lindberg Corp.
hindquist Tool t M£g,
Mass Steel Treating
Mercury Wire
Metal-Cote
MUlarook, Inc.
Morgan Construction
National Standards
Mew Method Plating
Norton Co.
O.K. Wools
Parker Mfg.
Parker Metal Goods
2.V. Parka
Pepsi-Cola
Polar Carp.
Produx Co.
Qualatron Electroplating
Seed t Prince Mfg.
iteliaole Plating
Sobinson TSread
ffl i ft^tij*
-------
burden. City property assessments may be used to estimate capital stock
in-place, but their assessments often exclude leased capital stock and may
exclude other types of capital equipment. As seen in Examples 8-5 and 8-6,
the effects appear to be greatest on electroplaters and plastic products
manufacturers.
User Charges and Surcharges—
If flow information is available for a firm then the amount of sewer
and water user charges can be directly estimated. Those costs are included
in the annual O&M costs of Example 8-4. If the user charge system and the
surcharge system also charge for waste strength, then the waste
characteristics will also be necessary to know the "charge formula" to
estimate these costs. See Example 8-7.
Property Taxes—
To the extent that the planner has been able to estimate other water
quality costs for a community that will be reflected in property taxes, then
these taxes represent a water quality-related cost burden for firms and can
be calculated on a case-by-case basis.
Agricultural Producers
If there is not specific information available on capital costs of
proposed water quality controls for farmers, then the planner will have to
rely on the Soil Conservation Service or the Cooperative Extension Service
to develop average acre costs. These can be then applied to specific farms
or to the entire agricultural acreage affected in a watershed to develop
amount of compliance costs. The ability to express this data as a
percentage of production costs or income will probably be limited by the
lack of specific information on farms. The 1979 U.S. Census of agriculture
does provide acreage, production costs, and income figures, however, at the
County level. Per acre production costs and income figures can be derived
for specific types of farms and this information used with per acreage water
quality costs to reflect compliance burden. See Example 8-8. The
Cooperative Extension Service or the State Agriculture Department may also
be able to provide current income and production costs for various types of
agricultural operations.
8.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS
Data requirements and sources for this impact category are presented in
Exhibits 8-4 and 8-5.
138
-------
Example 8-5
POLLUTION ABATEMENT INVESTMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF CAPITAL STOCK
IndMtrv IVDB
Electroplating
lUecellaneous Macbiae
tool* and Parta.
aetal Puts
Other Metal Product*
*
Plastica
Leetaer
Textile*
Food
Mlacellaneona
Tlra Stan
Advanced Plaung
AJU Brunei
fagl* Electroplating
BAv. ». Gamp?
Bud Came OtTUtan
Independent Electroplating
total-toe*
BOM Netted Platlag
Qualatroa Electroplating
Bailable Plating
Andaraoa Corp.
Anderson Tool i Stuping
John lath Co.
Cincinnati HUaeran
CM* lolte
Croapton 4 Ironies
CUt Screw Macaine
Baary L. BBIMOH
Jaaaabury Corp.
tundqnlst tt»l MI?
Narqan Caoaeruetien Co.
Varkar Hfg.
tarter Haeal Cooda
Baad I Irinea
•rnoau aattb Co.
•acnar and Snaaay
Liadbarg Co.
Mu Staal Traaelng
Nareorr wire
•aelonal Standard*
Standard roundry
9MMD0QB StSCl
•breaatar Praaaad Xluainua
S.f. Hclgbt Co.
•Snaan Gordon
Daeor Carp.
%drtin Plaatiea
Prediu Co.
ttoreaaear Moulded PUatlea
L. TttOmc
E.u. Parka
O.K. wool Co.
Robiaaon Thread
Ell Saadoan Co.
Lalpaon'a Dairy
HlUrooK Co.
Papal Cola
Polar Carp.
tabla Talk Plea
Aatra Pnanaeutical
Bobba Hf«.
Horeon Co.
sprague Electric
•riant Line
KBDIAN VftUIB
Capital
Aeeeaaad
Value
BJk.
17,000
•JL.
ss.ooo
•^k.
B.A.
Ul.OOO
70.700
B.A.
10.700
140.100
B.A.
91,400
1.071,(00
163.000
298.000
B.A.
I4S.OOO
a. A.
l.lfl.200
271.900
B.A.
S9S,<00
143.200
1,120.000
138.200
110.300
B.A.
494.800
416.400
277,000
206,700
370,700
1,869,300
11.000
18,400
H.A.
19S.800
167,000
N.A.
H.A.
83,000
102,300
16,100
801,000
H.A.
152.400
601.200
1.479,300
a. A.
12,137.100
320.000
837,000
• Ceojuired Hater
Pollution Abateewtt
StoeH Inreaceent aa a 1
Fair fair Market Value
Market of Bxiacina
value " Caoital Stock
^
45.900
—
140.600
_
^
321.600
191.100
—
63.000
648,900
—
283.900
2.896.200
443,900
803.400
••
1.471.000
1.300.000'
—
4,493.100
734.900
••
1,609.700
187.000
4.178,400
in. 500
839.200
—
1,137,100
1.123.400
748,600
338.600
1,001.900
3.052.200
81.800
49,700
_
329,200
451,400
—
_
224,100
277,000
43.500
2.164,900
—
952,400
1.624.900
1.998,600
_
32,801,300
1.403,400
2.116.200
^>—
31.20
—
30.67
_
—
0.58
44.22
—
48.19
1.23
—
1.13
0.72
2.13
1.40
w
0.20
2.05
—
0.18
7.01
^
2.27
4.26
0.20
0.80
6.15
—
3.65
3.69
13.73
0.54
0.00
0.18
5.97
12.68
—
5.06
S.60
—
__
11.28
1.61
0.00
0.10
—
3.54
0.55
0.18
_
0.62
7.29
1.42
2.13
139
-------
Example 8-6
ANNUAL COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS ANNUAL SALES
FOR FIRMS By INDUSTRY TYPE
Annual Coau.
Parean: oi Sroa* Salai*
Znduatrv ^rpa
Blaetraplating
... Ti—r-rr latrfr
tool* 4 tarta.
natal Parta
Othar Natal Prodaei
Flaaeiea
Laaebar
Taxtila*
Food
Niacallanaoaa
Fira Naaa
Ailiauuad Plating
Bagla Elaetroplatlng
Bdv. P. earrapy
Bard Chrea* Diviaian
Tmtapanrtint ZOaetroplating
Ban Natbod Placing
Qoalatron Zlactroplatlag
BaliabU Plating
jn andaraon Carp.
andaraon Tool 4 Staaplng
Men Bats OB.
Cincinnati HUaeraa
COM Calx*
Croapcon 4 Cnovlai
6aB Sera* Machina
Banty L. luuen
Jaaaabury Carp.
bndqnist Tool itfg.
Naraaa CoaitruetiaB Co.
Parkar Mtg.
Parkar Haul Good*
Baad and trinea
Tnoaaa Baith Co.
•arnar 4 Svaaay
es Uadbarg Co.
Maaa ataal Traaciag
Narearr «i<*
Standard foundrr
•oreaatar traaaad Aloninan
C.F. vtigat Co.
MTBBB Oordon
Daoer Corp.
BoUaa Planiea
Pradm Co.
•oreaatar Mouldad Plaatiea
L. Farbar Co.
B.H. Packi
O.x. wool Co.
Babinaon ttraad
BU sandBu Co.
laipaon'a Dairy
RUlbrook OB.
Papai-Col*
Polar Carp.
Tanla Xalk Piaa
Aatra PBanaeaotieal
nonba Nrg.
BuiUu CB.
Spragaa Slactrie
•right Lin*
mum v&fiK
3-y«»r S-r*ar
Capital Capital
Finaneim Finineina
—
7.12
••
7.02
^
7.2f
C.59
10.11
_
—
O.lf
^
_
—
—
0.02
0.01
O.lf
^
0.43
~»
0.11
0.39
0.04
__
0.34
—
—
o.n
_
,0.02
_
o.<«
1.01
O.Sf
—
0.00
0.43
0.34
0.23
0.05
^
—
0.47
•—
_
—
^™
0.54
0.10
~0.34
—
9.51
— •
5.32
—
S.M
S.7«
7.tt
_
—
0.14
••
_
—
—
0.01
0.07
0.14
••
0.35
••
0.13
0.32
0.03
__
0.2*
—
—
0.10
_
0.02
_
0.33
O.B7
0.43
_
0.00
0.32
0.21
0,18
0.05
^
—
0.40
—
»
—
i
0.08
0.28
During finance period only. This percentage would decrease
after the end of a 3 or 5 year period.
140
-------
Example 8-7
TYPICAL SEWER SURCHARGE FORMULA
$/ocf = V + A (C - C ) TSS A (B - B ) BOD
o o
where: V = volume related charge ($/ocf)
TSS"= Total Suspended Solids related
charge ($/pound)
BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand related
charge ($/pound)
C = actual TSS concentration (mg/1)
C = "normal" TSS concentration (mg/1)**
B = actual BOD concentration (mg/1)
B = "normal" BOD concentration (mg/1)**
A = conversion factor from mg/1 to
Ib/ccf = .008238
In Atlanta, the formula is:
$/ccf = $.88 + $.105 X .006238 X (C - 250) + (B - 250)
141
-------
Example 8-8
AGRICULTURAL COST BURDEN, EXETEP COUNTY
1974 Total Farm Income for Corn
in Exeter County =
Converted to 1973 prices =
1974 Acres in Corn =
Average 1979 Income/Acre =
$75,000,000
$123,000,000
IS,000 acres
$8200
Average erosion control costs/acre for South River
Watershed in Exeter County = $175
Average erosion control costs/acre for Lost River
Watershed in Exeter County = $400
South River Watershed costs/
income
Lost River Watershed costs/
income
.02
.05
142
-------
Exhibit 8-4
INDUSTRIAL 8 COMMERCIAL FIRM COSTS DATA SOURCES
Data Item
Data Source
Use
—EPA pretreatment re-
quirements;
—NPDES requirements
—Local pretreatment
requirements
—Affected firms
—Water quality compli-
ance costs
o Capital
o User charges and
surcharges
-Waste volume and
characteristics
--Gross annual sales
—Capital stock value
—Tax increases associated
with other water quality
costs
—Tax structure
EPA
• State Water Pollution
Control Agency
• local POTW
Local POTW
Industrial directories
NPDES
• Affected firm
• EPA development
documents
• Local POTW
• Affected firm
• Local POTW (Indus-
trial Waste Survey)
• Affected firm
• Affected firm
Chapter 7
Local tax assessor
Screening analyis
Screening Analysis
Screening Analysis
Screening & Measure-
ment Analyses
Measurement Analysis
Measurement Analysis
Measurement Analysis
Measurement Analysis
Measurement Analysis
143
-------
Exhibit 8-5
AGRICULTURAL FIRM COSTS DATA SOURCES
Data Item
Data Source
Use
—NPDES requirements
--Water quality compliance
costs
—Affected farms
—Income and Production
—Acreage
• EPA
• State Water Pollu-
tion Control Agency
• 208 Study
• SCS/Cooperative Ex-
tension Service
• NPDES
• 206 Study
• SCS/Cooperative
Extension Service
• SCS/Cooperative Ex-
• tension Service
• 1979 U.S. Census of
Agriculture
• Same as above
Screening Analysis
Screening and
Measurement Analyses
Screening
Measurement Analysis
Measurement Analysis
144
-------
8.6 REFERENCES
Industrial Firms—
Chase Econometric Associates, Inc. The Macroeconomic Impacts of Federal
Pollution Control Programs. Prepared for the Council on Environmental
Quality, January 1975.
Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality; The Second Annual
Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, 1971.
Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality; The Seventh Annual
Report on the Council on Environmental Quality, 1976.
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc. Economic Impact of water
Pollution Control on Selected Food Industries. Volume IV: Fruits and
Vegetables Processing Industry. Draft report prepared for National
Commission on Water Quality, June 1975.
The Economic Impact of Pollution Control. Prepared for CEQ, DOE, and EPA,
March 1972.
Environmental Research and Technology. Pretreatroent Guidance Manual for
State and Areawide (208) Water Quality Management Planning Agencies.
Volume I, 1976.
Hill, M. Anne and Blanchard, Jr., Edward V., The Economic Impact of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 on the Textile
Industry. Prepared for the National Bureau of Economic Research, July 15,
1975.
National Commission on Water Quality. Staff Draft Report, November 1975.
Pogue, Dr. Gerald A. The Estimation of the Cost of Capital for Major United
States Industries with Application to Pollution Control Investments.
National Technical Information Service, November 1975.
U.S. Bureau of National Affairs. Environmental Reporter, various issues.
U.S. Bureau of National Affairs. Environmental Reporter Monographs, No. 13
and No. 16.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Survey of Current Businesses, Volume 55, No. 7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Development Document for
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards of Performance for the
Machinery and Mechanical Products Manufacturing Point Source Category, June
1975.
145
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines for the Leather Tanning and Finishing Point Source
Category, Maren 1974.
U.S. Qivironmental Protection Agency. Development Document for Effluent
Limitation Guidelines for the Cooper, Nickel, Chromium and Zinc Segment of
the Electroplating Point Source Category, March 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Waste and Pretreatment in
the Buffalo Municipal System, January 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Economics of Clean Water — 1973,
December 1973.
Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc. The Impact of Pretreatanent
Standards on Worcester Industries. Prepared for the Central Massachusetts
Regional Planning Commission, April 1977.
Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc. "Resources to Local Sewer
Charges and Surcharges." Prepared for Council on Environmental Quality,
October 1979.
See also U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Development Documents
for other industries. Regional EPA offices will have current listings of
all such documents.
Agricultural Firms—-
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Control of
Water Pollution from Cropland, Volume I; A Manual for Guideline
Development. EPA-600/2-75-026a, November 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V. Best Management Practices
for Non-Point Source Pollution Control. EPA-905/9-76-005, 1976.
University of Illinois. Alternative Policies for Controlling Non-Point
Agricultural Sources. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
April 1978.
146
-------
CHAPTER 9
Employment and
Economic Growth
9.1 IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
One of the key impact concerns of water quality strategies, particularly
industrial effluent restrictions and sewer use charges, is the effect on
local and regional businesses. The number of firms and employment are basic
indicators of business activity. Employment is defined as the number of
people working—both full-time and part-time—in an area.
The focus of this impact category is at the regional and sub-regional
level. Hater quality controls will often have effects in a particular
industry throughout the country because of uniform effluent limitations.
This impact category is limited to those localized effects that are
calculable by the local planning agency.
Impact Issues
A water pollution control strategy can influence business activity in an
area by increasing or decreasing the levels of employment, value added
and/or income. There are three types of business activity changes
associated with water pollution control strategies:
• Direct impacts
• Indirect impacts
• Accelerator impacts
147
-------
Direct Impacts—
Water pollution control strategies may affect economic growth directly
through the purchases of land, labor and materials for the construction of
facilities. Some or all of the money for the resulting materials, labor and
land purchases may be injected into the economy, although the impact
assessment should be careful to note the temporary nature of
construction-related employment. locally-raised funds merely reallocate
indigenous resources and, thus, do not usually have as significant per
dollar economic impacts as exogenous funds, which represent additional
inputs into the local economy.
The implementation of a water quality strategy directly affects
permanent employment. There will be an increase in personnel to operate and
maintain facilities and to administer and manage various institutional
arrangements associated with water quality strategies.
Indirect Impacts—
The demand for labor, land, or materials related to a strategy will
create new demand for other goods as well. For example, the construction
workers will demand goods and services with their pay from the project. In
turn, the firms that receive the construction workers' pay will respend this
money, resulting in more demand. This indirect increase in demand is called
the multiplier effect. Thus, a dollar spent on a water pollution control
strategy may add, for example, two dollars to the total real local product
before that money passes out of the local economic system.
The impact of the multiplier effect varies with local circumstances.
During the construction phase, it is particularly sensitive to the
purchasing patterns of workers. The size of the multiplier differs between
construction workers and those that operate and maintain the facility.
Construction workers are hired for relatively short periods of time and are
sometimes not local. Thus, a portion of their income goes home with them.
If construction and maintenance materials are bought from local suppliers,
then the multiplier is further increased. The process of spending and
respending continues until the money leaves the local economy through
"leakages" to other regions or areas (or products or services not purchased
locally).
Through the multiplier discussed above, implementation of a strategy may
also indirectly increase employment. As a project demands more materials
for construction, for example, the firm supplying those materials must hire
more employees to manufacture and distribute its product. This, in turn,
may generate more employment in the retail and service sectors in order to
fulfill the retail and service needs of this personnel. Also, increased
construction employment may generate increased service and retail employment
directly. The amount of indirect employment generated varies with the
multiplier. That is, it is subject to the same factors and influences
described above.
148
-------
The multipler effect can also be calculated on employment resulting from
accelerator effects (discussed below) and employment needed to operate
facilities. The multiplier effects associated with these employment changes
are more permanent than the effects associated with construction of
wastewater facilties. Thus, if you calculate multiplier effects, you should
probably concentrate on the permanent multiplier effects.
Accelerator Effects—
Accelerator growth is defined as the economic growth which occurs in an
area as a result of the movement of firms into, or our of the area in
response to a change in the relative attributes of the area. These
attributes may be cost-related (i.e., increasing or decreasing the relative
cost of production associated with an area) or non-cost related (e.g.,
altering the perceived relative amenity qualities of an area). Accelerator
growth may be either positive or negative.
The implementation of a water quality management program may encourage a
firm to move to or out of a new region in six ways:
• by changing total amount of wastewater treatment capacity available
locally;
• by changing the availability of special waste handling facilities;
• by changing the local geographic availability of centralized
wastewater treatment services;
• by changing the local per unit wastewater treatment costs;
• by changing the aesthetic attractiveness of an area (i.e., changes
in amenity qualities); and
• by sewering a previously undeveloped piece of land.
Any of these factors may affect an area's attractiveness to industry in
a positive or negative manner. For example, firms might be attracted to an
area where particularly low treatment costs prevail. Alternatively, the
imposition of stringent pretreatment requirements might be a factor for
certain industries to go out of business; to cut back production; to move to
a location that had a centralized system more compatible with their
wastewater characteristics or to a location where specialized wastewater
treatment facilities exist. Finally, the availability of sewers in a
suburban location, where land costs were relatively low, might induce
central city firms to relocate. Thus, the precise form of a wastewater
program may induce inter- and intra-regional firm movement and may have
positive or negative regional and/or local employment impacts. However, the
influence of wastewater treatment availability and costs and amenity factors
are very seldom an overriding factor in the locational decisions of any
firms. Rather they must be considered as one of many elements in any firm's
149
-------
locational decision, with such factors as transportation costs and labor
availability assuming greater importance. Exhibit 9-1 summarizes these
impact relationships.
9.2 IMPACT INDICATORS
The types of impact indicators of most interest and capable of being
estimated within the limits of an areawide water quality for facility
planning impact assessment are the following:
• changes in employment, e.g.,
—public service employment
—cons tr uc t ion employmen t
—manufacturing employment
—services employment
—etc.
• changes in total employment, unemployment rate
• changes in number of firms, e.g.
—new firms by type
—loss of firms by type
Changes in employment associated with the implementation of water
quality strategies is the most appropriate indicator in this impact
category. Of particular interest are the following types of employment
changes:
• construction employment associated with the development of a
structural water quality control;
• public service employment associated with operating, regulating,
and administering water quality controls;
• public service employment associated with changes in public service
demand effects of water quality controls;
• construction employment associated with indirect development
effects of water quality controls.
Because of all the influences on local employment, it will probably be
impractical for the water quality planner to determine the impact of
employment effects associated with water quality strategies on the
unemployment rate. Changes in the number of firms, particularly industrial
ones is important for determing manufacturing employment changes and related
tax base changes for the Public Fiscal Impact category.
It is particularly important in estimating employment impacts to provide
a time dimension where possible. For instance, it may sound significant
that a sewer will stimulate 1000 new manufacturing jobs. But if these are
150
-------
Exhibit 9-1
mPLOYMEHT IMPACTS ASSOCIATED
WITH WATER QUALITY STRATEGIES
Stimulants
Direct
Impacts
Accelerator
Impacts
Indirect
Impacts
Construction of
waaiewater Facilities
• Sewage treatment plants
e Contained sewer overflow
plants
• Interceptors
• Stormwater detention
lakes,
• Sludge Incinerators
• Etc.
Chanoes in Wastewater
Managame.it or Locational
Attributes
• Capacity available to
industry
• Cost increase or decrease
• Vacant sewered lands
• Etc.
Employment
Increases (new
firm*; existing
firms)
1 Employment
Decreases
Multiplier
Bnolovraene
151
-------
spread out over 15-20 years, the impact is not quite as dramatic.
An additional feature in expressing employment changes is to show
changes as a percentage of existing employment sectors: for example,
"construction employment associated with the construction of the new
sewerage project represents 20% of total construction employment in the
region."
9.3 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
The most important preliminary consideration in this impact category is
close coordination with other impact categories. The Employment and
Economic Growth impact category will provide inputs to the Public Fiscal
category to determine tax base changes) will provide inputs to the Public
Services category for demand changes; will receive inputs from the Public
Services category for indirect employment changes; will receive inputs from
the land use category relating to land development capability changes and
proposed development; and will receive inputs from the Private Firm Costs
category on vulnerability of firms to water quality control costs.
The second issue to be addressed in the screening concerns the selection
of employment impacts to measure. This decision will largely be governed by
the results of the other impact categories. If for example, it is clear
from the Private Firm Costs category, that a number of firms or that firms
with significant employment appear to be vulnerable to pollution abatement
costs, then this issue should receive major priority. The land use analysis
may indicate substantial potential for industrial and commercial
development, for example, because of additional sewer capacity. This may
also deserve considerable attention because of its attendant public service
and tax base effects. In general, these two issues, plus direct employment
increases associated with water quality controls should receive the most
attention in areawide quality impact analysis.
9.4 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Direct Effects
There are two principal types of direct employment changes in the
areawide water planning area associated with water quality strategies:
public service jobs involving the operation, regulation, and administration
of water quality control strategies; and construction jobs associated with
the construction of water quality control facilities.
Public Service Jobs—
This issue may be of particular importance in an area where the strategy
involves the public sector assuming a traditional private sector role (e.g.,
septage hauling) or conversely the private sector assuming a traditional
public sector role (e.g., operation of a publicly-owned treatment works).
These estimates should be readily obtainable since cost figures for the
152
-------
strategies have presumably taken new staffing responsibilities into
account. If these figures have not been developed in the 201 plan, then
existing local agencies or nearby communities will have to be consulted to
develop estimates.
Construction Jobs—
Some water quality strategies, particularly sewage treatment facilities,
sewer line expansion, incinerators, and stormwater facilities, will require
substantial construction and thus provide additional short-term construction
jobs for the area. Example 9-1 is an example of how to derive construction
employment impacts for a water quality control project.
Indirect Effects
Increasing or decreasing employment in one sector of the economy will
produce additional effects in other sectors of the economy. These effects
are called higher-order effects. Of all the employment changes discussed in
this impact categoy, these are the most speculative to determine
particularly when using indirect impacts as the base for determining
additional higher-order effects. Consequently, while areawide water quality
agencies should be cognizant of these impacts, multiplier employment impact
effects should only be calculated on very likely employment base changes.
Calculating employment changes using a multiplier is quite
straightforward as shown in Example 9-2. The use of a multiplier, however,
at the local level should be done cautiously because of employment leakage
to the surrounding region. To obtain or estimate employment multipliers for
your area for a particular industry, consult your state Department of
Economic Development or the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic
Analysis.
Accelerator Effects
Forecasting accelerator effects is difficult. Many methods, such as
regression and least-cost analysis techniques, are complex for socioeconomic
assessment analysis. Simple estimation techniques are suggested.
Water Quality Cost Burden Impacts—
Tne analysis in the Private Firm Costs impact category will have
identified vulnerable firms, i.e., those firms that may respond to increased
pollution abatement costs by decreasing production and employees or closing
the firm's operation. In this impact category, the planner should determine
how much employment loss is associated with these vulnerable firms.
Existing employment levels for these firms can be obtained via state
industrial directories. Chamber of Commerce directories, or directly from
the firms. In Example 8-2 all of the firms required to institute
pretreatment requirements have been initially identified as firms where
employment losses could occur. TWO methods may be used to determine plant
153
-------
Example 9-1
CONSTROCTION VORKER EMPLOJMEOT IMPACT OF HEW SEWAGE TREATUENT FACILE
Facility Cost • $77.9 million
Assumptions:
• skilled labor accounts for 25* of total coat
• unskilled labor accounts for 40% of total coat
• skilled labor - SIS/hour
• unskilled labor " $10/hour
Person-year • 2000 person-hours
Dollar value of skilled labor - $77,900,000 r .25 - $19. SU
Dollar value of unskilled labor » 77,900,000 = .40 - $31.1M
Level of effort of skilled labor - $18,500,000 * $15/1-1 + 2000 hours -
050 person-years
Level of effort of unskilled labor • $31,100,000 t S10/H * 2000 hours
1SSS person-years
Total Labor ° 2205 person-years
Assumptions:
• construction period =10 years
• aonatruation season is S months (. S year) long
Therefore: 2205 person-years # 10(.S) actual construction time -
440 people employed during the construction period for
ten years
154
-------
Example 9-2
USING AN EMPLOYMENT MULTIPLIER TO
FORECAST EMPLOYMENT
Actual 1980 Employment:
Basic Employment = 85,600
Service Employment = 143,100
Multiplier = 1.67
Projected 1995 Basic Employment = 125,400
1995 Service Employment = 125,400 X 1.67
209,635
155
-------
closures or employment losses;
• Simple Survey - The most straightforward assessment method is to
aggregate the cost and/or expenditure direct impact information
from all impact categories into a comprehensive framework and
survey the affected firms as to their response. However, it must
be recognized that many firms may be reluctant to discuss impacts
under any circumstances and other may do so only if confidentiality
of the information is assured. Still others may be willing to
release only very general information.
In any case, the success of any survey effort can be significantly
enhanced if it is conducted with the cooperation and support of
industrial development organizations or private sector associations
such as the Chamber of Commerce or relevant industrial development
commissions. If the survey is conceived as as tool for involving
the private sector in the design and implementation of a water
quality management strategy, it can serve simultaneously as an
informational tool, impact assessment technique, and a public
participation technique.
• Interpretation of Cost Burden Information - Using the cost burden
ratios developed in Example 8-2 in the Private Firm Costs impact
category, the planner may make a judgment as to most significantly
affected firms. Although there are no absolute values for any of
these ratios which are acceptable or unacceptable across all firms,
often it is possible to identify those firms which may find it
difficult or impossible to bear projected costs. The shutdown of
some or all of the "significantly" impacted firms may then be
assumed for impact assessment purposes. These assumptions, in
turn, may be used to forecast employment losses. Example 9-3
indicates the likely losses based on an analysis of the ratios and
discussions with the firm's management. This one impact indicator,
incidentally, lends itself, because of numerous assumptions used in
the calculation, to being expressed as a range. For example, in
Example 9-3 the employment loss could have been expressed as
250-300 jobs.
Changes in location Attributes—
• Extrapolation of Case Studies of Similar Situations - When similar
effects on area attributes have occurred elsewhere, the results may
be used to indicate the type and magnitude of changes that may
occur in the region of interest. However, extreme care must be
taken in the extrapolation of experiences from another area, to
discern the effect of inter-area differences on net employment
impact.
• Surveys of Existing Area Firms - Existing area firms (and other
firms which have previously expressed an interest in locating in
156
-------
Example 9-3
onion crry PIPMS LDCELI TO SOFTER EMPLOIMEUT LOSSES
Major Product Category Ib. *» ^lyment ^i^ent S-^^W
Electoolatina Advanced Plating
A.A. Brunei
Eagle Electroplating
Edaard P. Garrepy
Bard Chrome Division
Independent Electroplate
Metal-Kote
Sea Met nod Plating
Qualatron Electroplating
Reliable Plating
Plastics Dacor Corp.
Bolden Plastics
Produx Co.
Worcester Moulded Plastics
197E - 1980 Employment Loss - 255
f of terms closed - 5
9
18
14
20
1?
40
7S
30
8
8
80
SO
4S
160
574
9
8
0
20
IS
0
65
0
0
0
SO
0
4S
100
309
10
14
-
5
40
10
30
8
8
30
SO
-
60
255
157
-------
the region) can be contacted to determine an estimate of their
response to the change in area attributes caused by implementation
of water quality strategy. Some area firms may indicate whether
changes in expansion or operation plans will occur, or whether they
may be induced to move either within or outside the region of
interest. However, one must be sensitive to the fact that many
firms are unwilling or reluctant to discuss such plans without
assurances that their replies will be kept confidential. Selected
firms located outside the region which have shown interest in
locating in the region should also be asked whether and how the
change in area attributes will affect their plans. The change in
response which is attributed to the water quality management plan
by company officials may be construed as the accelerator/
decelerator impact of the plan. This method can be relied upon
only for very rough approximations of impact.
• Simple Extrapolation of Trends - Where staff skills and financial
resources are limited, simple extrapolation may be used to
formulate rough approximation of accelerator growth caused by the
new facility or other changes in area attributes. Using existing
data, recent past trends (prior to the change in area attributes)
can be extrapolated to formulate an economic growth forecast for
the area. Deviations from this trend observed after area change(s)
have occurred, may then be attributed to the change(s). These
deviations should be calculated for the local region as a whole and
its component jurisdictions. Trends may be based on gross SIC
groupings (e.g., construction trade, manufacturing, etc.) or a more
detailed basis. Annual employment statistics are available from
state sources.
The technique is limited. It may be more appropriate to use it in
combination with simple survey techniques applied to new firms,
existing firms which expand, and existing firms which move within
the region. The survey may then be used to identify those firms
whose plans were influenced by the change(s) that occurred.
A direct method for determining accelerated employment resulting from
land development capability changes is to derive a land or floor space to
employee ratio. If the land use impact analysis determines that the lack of
developable land has constrained industrial and commercial employment, and
sewering that land will remove this constraint, these land use impacts may
stimulate development that can be attributed to the sewering project. The
planner will require some type of existing employment projections for the
community or region in question and some knowledge of how land use
constraints have been used to develop those projections. The key issue is,
however, demand. Many communities envision sewers as opening up their
community for commercial development. While the sewers may remove
development constraints, there still has to be a demand for development to
take place.
158
-------
If the demand is shown to exist, then the planner can relate the land
opened up for development to projected employment gains, The best data on
employment/industrial or commercial space ratios come from surveys of
existing development. These ratios will vary considerably for urban and
suburban areas and for different types of firms. It is therefore desirable
to use a range of ratios to determine employment gains. This range of land
uses will be determined by the allowable uses for the land as prescribed in
the appropriate zoning by-laws. Using ratios of either existing
land/employee or floor space/employee in the area, approximate projected
employment gains can be made.
9.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS
Exhibit 9-2 indicates the basic data that is required in this impact
category.
9.6 REFERENCES
Abt Associates, Inc. Preventative Approaches to Stormwater Management.
Prepared for U.S. EPA, 1976.
Bascorn, S.E., et al. Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Wastewater
Investments; Review and Bibliography. EPA, January 1975.
Bardwell, George E. and Merry, P.R., "Measuring the Economic Impact of a
Limited Access Highway on Communities, Land Use and Land Value." Highway
Research Board, Bulletin 268, pp. 37-73, 1960.
Boehem, W.T. and Pond, M.T. "Job Location, Retail Purchasing Patterns, and
Local Economic Development', Growth and Change, Vol. 7, January 1976.
Bone, A.J. and Wohl, Martin. "Massachusetts Route 128 Impact Study,"
Highway Research Board, Bulletin 227, Washington, 1959.
Carter, Anne P. "Application of 1-0 Analysis to Energy Problems." Science
184, April 1974, pp. 325-329.
CEQ, Department of Commerce, EPA. The Economic Impact of Pollution Control,
A Summary of Recent Studies, March 1972.
Committee of Scientists of Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Stewart,
B.S., Coordinator. Control of Water Pollution from Cropland, Volume 1; A
Manual for Guideline Development. USDA and EPA, November 1975.
Crane, D.A. and Partners. The No-Build Alternative; Social, Economic and
Environmental Consequences of Not Constructing Transportation Facilities.
Prepared for the Transportation Research Board, December 1975.
Donnelly, William A., et al. Estimating a Comprehensive County-level
Forecasting Model of the United States — READ. FEA, August 1977.
159
-------
Exhibit 9-2
EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH DATA SOURCES
Data Item
-Existing employment
by 2 digit SIC
-Finn response to water
quality controls
-Existing employment for
vulnerable firms
-Direct dollar costs for
structural controls
-Employment multipliers
-Past and existing em-
ployment/land area ratios
Data Source
• Private firm costs
impact category
• Discussion with firms
• State employment agency
• Industrial directories
• Survey of firms
• Facilities planning on
areawide water quality
study
• U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis
• Survey of existing
development
Use
Accelerator employ-
ment losses
All of the analyses
Accelerator employ-
ment losses
Direct construction
and public service
employment gains
Multiplier effects
Accelerator effects
160
-------
Freeman, A. Myrick III. Evaluation of Adjustment Assistance Programs with
Application for Pollution Control, Bowdoin College for EPA, September 1974.
Gelb, B.A. The Cost of Complying with Federal Water Pollution Law.
Conference Board Energy Information Research.
Harbridge House, Inc. Socioeconomic impact Assessment of Proposed Air
Quality Attainment and Maintenance Strategies. EPA (Region 1), June 1976.
Harrison, J.W. "Methods Used to Study Effects of Lexington City, Virginia
Bypass on Business Volumes and Composition." Highway Research Board,
Bulletin 189, pp. 96-110, 1958.
Isard, Walter, et. al. Regional Economic Impacts of Nuclear Power Plants.
Prepared for ERDA, August 1976.
and Kuenne, Robert E. "The impact of Steel upon the
Greater New York-Philadelphia Industrial Region." Review of Economics and
Statistics, XXXV, November 1953, pp. 289-301.
Jones, Clifford D. Input-Output Analysis Applied to Rural Resource
Development Planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics,
Statistics, and Cooperative Services, ESCS-14, March 1978.
Kim, Ungsoo. An Application of the Interregional I/O Model for the Study of
the Impact of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas Muiltiple Purpose Project.
Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, IWR Contract
Report 77-2, March 1977.
Leistritz, F. Larry and Murdock, Steven H. Economic, Demographic, and
Social Factors Affecting Energy-Impacted Communities; An Assessment Model
and Implications for Nuclear Energy Centers. North Dakota State University,
April 1977.
McKain, W.C. The Connecticut Turnpike - A Ribbon of Hope. University of
Connecticut, 1965.
Milgram, Grace. The City Expands. Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of Pennsylvania. Prepared for U.S. HUD, March 1967.
Park, Se-Hark. A Methodology for Estimating the Direct, Indirect, and
Induced Components for the Regional Impact Multiplier. FEA, September 1976.
, and Sandoval, A. David. Unconstrained and
Constrained Dynamic Input-Output Models for Regional Energy Impact
Analysis. FEA, May 1977.
Pennsylvania State University. Blairsville; A Bypass Study - The Economic
and Social Impact of a Highway. University Park, Pennsylvania, 1962.
161
-------
Shurcliff, Alice W. "The local Economic Impact of Nuclear Power." MIT
Technology Review. January 1977.
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Notebook 3; Economic Impacts, part of the
Environmental Notebook Series. Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Transportation: U.S.G.P.O., 1975.
, Notebook 2; Environmental Assessment Technique,
part of the Guidance Notebooks for the Environmental Assessment of Airport
Development Projects. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation,
U.S.G.P.O., 1978.
Stansbury, Jeffrey. "Suburban Growth — A Case Study." Population
Bulletin, Population Reference Bureau, April 1972.
Stenejhem, E.J. Regional Studies Program. Forecasting the Local Economic
Impacts of Energy Resource Development; A Methodological Approach. Argonne
National Lab, December 1975.
and Metzger, James E. A Framework for Projecting
Employment and Population Changes Accompanying Energy Development; Phase 1.
Prepared for ERDA by Argonne National Lab, August 1976.
Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc. Secondary Impact Assessment
Manua1. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1981.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Industry-Specific
Gross Output Multipliers for BEA Economic Areas, January 1977.
162
-------
CHAPTER 10
Private Individual Costs and Benefits
10.1 IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
This impact category is concerned with the direct and indirect impact of
water quality control strategies on individuals—users of wastewater control
programs, non-users, households, other property owners. This impact
category can be considered an "end impact" category in that a variety of
pollution abatement costs are distributed through other impact categories,
notably public fiscal and private firm costs. The costs of water pollution
control, in the final analysis, fall on individuals in their capacity as
taxpayers and consumers. Local governments finance their share of pollution
control costs through taxes; industries raise the prices of their products
to cover their costs.
Of particular interest in this impact category will be individual cost
impacts stemming from public fiscal decisions. Changes in land values are
also considered. While industries also will generally pass water pollution
control costs on to consumers, these types of macroeconomic impacts are not
of concern here because of the focus of this guidebook on locally generated
and received impacts. One type of consumer issue that may be impacted and
felt locally by water quality control strategies, housing costs, is
discussed in this impact category.
Impact Issues
Because of the importance of the public fiscal impact category to the
magnitude and distribution of private individual costs, it is useful to
briefly review the impact relationship. Public expenditures for pollution
control occur directly through compliance costs associated with public
163
-------
pollution control strategies, such as the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities or a stormwater detention pond; and through regulatory
costs for such programs as erosion control and pretreatment monitoring.
Indirect costs that result from water quality control stimulated public
service demands may also increase public expenditures. Tax base changes
associated with water quality control strategies will also affect the public
fiscal revenue pattern.
User Services and Public Costs—
Revenues to pay these water quality costs may take a variety of forms.
As shown in Exhibit 2-4 in Chapter 2, there are numerous public financing
mechanisms available to a community that will determine how these water
quality associated public costs will be distributed to users, non-users; to
households; to firms. See Examples 10-1 and 10-2 for an illustration of how
different methods of financing will affect sewer costs to users and
non-users. Because of the close relationship between public fiscal impacts
and private individual costs, it is recommended that both of the impact
categories be considered together—particularly during the consideration of
public financing options.
Land Value Changes—
The implementation of water pollution control strategies may also
financially benefit individuals. Since any successful control strategy will
enhance water quality, obvious benefits will result. Those who own houses
near areas of enhanced water quality are likely to experience increased real
estate values.
As stated in Chapter 1, a basic assumption that is used in this
guidebook is that equal water quality improvements will result from each
alternative under consideration. It is assumed that strategies that do not
meet water quality standards will not be considered in the final evaluation
process. One of the implications of this assumption, therefore, is that
land value changes directly associated with water quality improvements are
not considered in this guidebook. The water quality planner may wish to
consider them, however, and several references are presented in Section 10.6
that are useful in measuring land value impacts.
Indirect land value changes resulting from other socioeconomic impacts
are, however, of interest in this guidebook. For example, changes in land
development capability associated with public sewers or with growth
management controls is an important issues. Sensory impacts, such as noise,
odors, and aesthetic concerns, associated with specific water quality
strategies may also stimulate changes in land value.
Housing Cost Effects—
Housing costs, a major consumer item, may be affected by water quality
strategies in a number of ways. This issue should be of particular interest
164
-------
Example io~l
AVERAGE ANNUAL USER COSTS FOR PROPOSED SMITHVILLE
SEWER PROJECT — USER 'BEARS TOTAL COST
0 Annual debt service for capital costs of
interceptors, pumping stations, treat-
ment plant = $300,000
9 Annual debt service for capital costs
of lateral sewers = $250,000
0 Annual average operation and maintenance
cost = $ 95,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $645,000
0 Average number of equivalent users,
1980 - 2000 = 6,210
0 Average annual costs/user = $103.86
0 Average 1978 Smithville Household
Median Income = $9,300
0 Average Annual User Cost/Household
Median Income = 1.12%
165
-------
Exanple 10-3
AVERAGE ANNUAL USEK COSTS FOR PROPOSED
SKIT3VILLE SEWER PBOJECT — USERS ASP ALL HOUSEBOLDS SBARE TBE COST
User/All Households Share
• Annual debt service for capital costs of
interceptors, pumping stations, treat-
ment plant "'$300,000 $210,0001.70} / $80,000(.30)
• Annual debt service for capital coats
of lateral seuers - $250.000 $225,0001.30) / $125,0001.10)
• Annual average operational and main-
tenance costs - '$3S,000 $ 7B,000(.80) / 819,0001.20)
$511,000 / $134,000 [
I
Average number of households, 1880 - 2000 - 10,000
Property tas levy to all households - $134,000 + 10,000 « $13.40/yr.
I
Average number of eauivalent users,
1380 - 2000 - 6,210
Average annual costs/year:
User charge - $82.28
Ta= levy - $13.40
TOTAL USER COST = $3S.S8
166
-------
in impact assessment because housing is generally a costly purchase for
individuals. The cost of housing is the summation of a number of costs
incurred by the land developer and home builder. These costs can be broken
into several components, such as those shown in Exhibit 10-1.
Land costs are affected by environmental regulations which effectively
reduce the supply of available land. However, these costs are fixed prior
to the development process. The cost of unimproved land is affected by a
variety of factors, including:
• accessibility of the land to employment centers and amenities;
• its physical developability in terms of natural features and
constraints;
• land use regulation; and
• demands for land for various activities through population and
economic growth.
The most significant of these factors affecting the price of land—demand
(as represented by population and economic growth)—is tempered by the other
variables listed above. The other factors constrain or enhance the
desirability of the land for development. For example, the availability of
public sewers or public water increases the developability of land.
Similarly, land that is characterized by severe slopes, wetlands, or other
natural features may be expensive or physically difficult to develop, and
thus more costly.
Land use regulations may affect the cost of land by limiting its
supply. There are several ways in which land use regulations affect the
supply of land:
• Amount of Land; Land use regulations affect the amount of land
"available" for development by the limitations placed on
development. For example, large lot zoning may take affected land
out of the market for most types of development. Similarly, zoning
land for agricultural uses may remove land from development.
• Type of Land; Regulations, particularly those with environmental
considerations, affect which type of land is in the land
development market.
• Location of Land; Regulations, particularly those geared to yearly
quotas of availability of public services, may affect land
available for development.
• Timing; Land use regulations may be used to limit the supply of
land available for development at any one time. Communities
consciously pursuing a "staged development" approach will use
167
-------
investments in public facilities to supplement land use controls.
Land development costs, as shown in Exhibit 10-1, consist of both
administrative costs, such as permit fees and engineering studies, and costs
associated with compliance with regulations. A developer will typically
face two types of financing costs in the development process—land
development financing and construction financing. These costs are subject
to the base amount borrowed (the cost of the land and of the construction
materials and labor) and prevailing market interest rates. These financing
costs are typically referred to as the "carrying costs" of development.
Carrying costs are, of course, affected by the length of the development
process. Consequently, water quality regulations, such as erosion control
review time, that affect the length of the development process will tend to
increase a developer's carrying costs.
Finally, construction costs comprise the last component of the
developer's housing costs. House construction costs consist of the
materials and labor required to build a house. Construction costs are the
largest component of the cost of a house. These costs typically run to
60-75% of the total cost of a house.
Water Quality Strategies can directly affect these components of housing
costs in three days. First, regulations can require the developer to study
the proposed site, to identify impacts, and to develop mitigation measures
for environmental problems. These costs are incurred while the project is
reviewed by permitting agencies, and costs can increase when changes to
project plans are required. This first type of cost is administrative in
nature, and affects the planning expenditures which are part of the land
development cost component shown in Exhibit 10-1.
The second area of impact concerns carrying costs. These are related to
administrative costs, and are incurred as environmental regulations increase
the time required for the developer to obtain the necessary approvals.
Delays in the development process primarily affect costs incurred in
financing land development, directly through property taxes and insurance
paid during the period in which environmental problems are settled. If the
delay period is sufficiently long, then the developer can also incur
inflation costs as the prices of building materials and labor rise. The
costs of construction financing may also be affected if water quality
requirements top or slow a project for which ground has been broken.
The third area of impact lies in the costs associated with compliance
with mitigation requirements of water quality regulations. This type of
cost includes, for example, the construction of additional sewerage capacity
or the cost of a stormwater detention pond. In the case of development
which must be reduced in scale because of water quality problems, these
costs represent the loss to the development of the portion of the plan that
could not be built. In terms of the cost typology presented in Exhibit
10-1, these compliance costs affect land development activities (e.g.,
construction of roads and other site improvements) as well as changes in the
168
-------
Exhibit 10-1
HOUSING COST COMPONENTS
Land; the purchase price of "unimproved" land prior to removal of
cover, grading or the provision of services;
Land Development; cost of planning, permitting land clearance,
installation of utilities and roads, and measures employed
to mitigate the environmental impacts of site preparation
activities;
Land Development Financing; interest costs on funds borrowed for
land purchase and development;
Construction; costs of materials and labor inputs in the
construction of dwelling units;
Construction Financing; interest as funds borrowed for construction
activities.
169
-------
amount of building materials and labor required for the construction of the
houses themselves.
Environmental regulations also have an indirect impact upon the costs of
housing, through pollution control requirements imposed upon manufacturers
of materials used in construction. These indirect or input costs represent
a fourth category of impact, but are not considered since our focus is on
local costs resulting from local water quality strategies.
10.2 IMPACT INDICATORS
The impact indicators in this impact category are straightforward. It
is useful to structure the indicators along the impact issues discussed
above. The types of indicators that can be used include:
For direct water quality-related user services;
• changes in household connection fees;
• changes in household user charges;
• water quality-related costs as a percentage of annual household
income.
for other water quality-related public costs and for indirect public
service costs;
• changes in per capita and household tax burden;
For indirect land use and nuisance effects;
• changes in real estate values.
For water quality cost impacts on housing;
• changes in per unit housing costs.
The first category of impact indicators primarily involve domestic
wastewater service and are of particular interest since these can be the
most burdensome to individual households. As discussed in Secton 10.3, EPA
now requires that annual wastewater treatment user costs also be expressed
in terms of median household income to reflect actual cost burden.
10.3 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
EPA's Program Guidance Memorandum 79-8 mandates that annual wastewater
treatment user costs be expressed as a percentage of median household
income. This is considered by EPA to be an essential component of a
financial capability analysis for wastewater facilities. Estimated user
costs are calculated after determining the local share of funding discussed
170
-------
in the Public Fiscal impact category in Chapter 7. When total annual user
costs for wastewater facilities (including debt service, connection costs,
operation and maintenance) exceed the following percentages of annual
household median income, EPA considers the project "expensive":
• 1.0% when annual median income is under $10,000
• 1.5% when annual median income is between $10,000 and $17,000;
• 1.75% when annual median income is over $17,000.
If you have identified a project as expensive under these guidelines, you
should be prepared to undergo intensive EPA review. You may wish to
recalculate your costs and financing methods to check their accuracy or
alter the project.
Another issue to consider in this impact category is the amount of time
to spend on calculating housing cost impacts. Before embarking upon this
analysis which can be very time-consuming, you should carefully consider the
links between the proposed water quality strategy and housing costs. A
recent study (USR&E, 1981) of the effect of Federal environmental regulatory
costs (includes the Clean water Act, the Clean Air Act, and six other
environmental laws) indicated that Federally-mandated environmental costs
accounted for only 2.3% of the cost of the selling price of a housing unit
in 9 case study areas. About 70% of this 2.3% was attributable to pollution
control costs in building materials used in the construction of a house.
Thus, less than 1% of the housing cost was attributable to local
implementation of Federal environmental regulations. Because of the amount
of resources it takes to estimate housing cost effects, we do not recommend
that you proceed with these impact issues without carefully considering the
importance of housing cost issues to the overall socioeconomic assessment.
As a means for screening the impact of water quality strategy on housing
costs, consider Exhibit 10-2 which outlines a fairly typical breakdown of
housing cost components. This breakdown of costs is typical even though the
actual housing price may vary in your area. As seen in this exhibit, the
largest cost category typically present in total housing costs is the
materials and labor category under house construction. This is generally
the one area not affected by local water quality strategies. Water quality
strategies tend to affect land costs, land development costs, and carrying
costs as seen in Exhibit 10-3. Thus, if you start examining the incremental
effects of water quality strategies on these cost categories, you will find
that the overall housing cost increases attributable to water quality
strategies will generally be relatively incidental.
10.4 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Direct Water Quality-Related User Services
The first requirement for measurement is that total costs—both capital
171
-------
Exhibit 10-2
TYPICAL HOUSING COST COMPONENTS
Component
• Land
• Land Development
— Bond & Permit Fees
— Improvements
• Carrying Costs
— Land financing
— Construction financing
• House Construction
— Materials & Labor
— Miscellaneous other costs
TOTAL
Cost
$4,000
2,200
7,000
2,000
4,000
47,000
3,000
$69,200
.
5.7%
3.1
10.0
2.9
5.8
68.1
4.3
100.0%
SOURCE: Seidel, Stephen. R. Housing Costs and Government Regulation;
Confronting the Regulatory Maze. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers
University, 1978.
172
-------
Exhibit 10-3
WATER QUALITY STRATEGY IMPACTS
ON HOUSING COSTS (examples)
Hater Quality Control Strategy
Affected Housing Component
On-site wastewaster management
Growth management controls
Centralized sewerage systems
Land Costs
Erosion control compliance
improvements
Stormwater management compliance
improvements
Land Development Costs
Regulatory review requirements
associated with stormwater control,
erosion control, sewers, on-site
wastewater management
Carrying Costs
173
-------
and operational—be available. The capital costs roust be converted into
annual debt service costs such that a total annual cost of a project can be
established. User costs can then be determined as shown in Example 10-1.
It should be noted in Example 10-1 that the average number of equivalent
users is a critical number. Built into that number are assumptions
regarding the expansion of the sewer system to add new users. In reality,
there will be fewer than 6210 users at the early stages of the project and
thus there will be higher user costs during that time.
More than likely one of the key issues to be addressed in this type of
water quality strategy is the distribution of costs to users and non-users.
For example, traditional sewer financing assumes that some non-users benefit
from sewers and thus should pay a portion of the costs. The type of
benefits that accrue to non-users include for example, community-wide
benefits associated with sewering public buildings. Example 10-2
illustrates the distribution of costs when a portion of the costs are
financed through ad valorem property taxes.
Water Quality-Related Public Costs
As seen in the above example, there may be a change in tax burdens for
non-users of a public sewerage system. Additional tax burdens will largely
stem from public service demands and from the public costs associated with
regulating and administering a variety of water quality control strategies.
It is possible to aggregate all of these separate water quality-related
costs in evaluating alternatives. See Example 10-3.
Changes in Real Estate Values
The two principal impact issues of interest here are water quality
strategy nuisance-related effects of property values and increases in
property values associated with sewer-related changes in land development
capability.
Several types of nuisance effects are discussed in Chapter 15. They
include noise, visual, and odor impacts from water quality control
structures, such as sewage treatment facilities, incinerators, and
stormwater detention facilities.
Sewers may affect land development capability by increasing the
wastewater carrying capacity of the land, transferring the capacity
constraint off-site, to another area. Wastewater carrying capacity is,
however, just one of many other natural and physical constraints that affect
the ability of land to support development. In addition, regulatory
constraints, such as zoning controls, and other infrastructure controls,
such as water supply availability, may also affect land development
capability.
The ability to measure the impacts of water quality control strategies
on property values is hampered by the complexity of components that shape a
174
-------
Example 10-3
BOUSEBOLD TAX BURDEN IB SMITHVIZ& ASSOCIATED
UITB ALTERNATIVE
Hater Quality Issue
• Public Sewerage
• Erosion Control
t Industrial Uasteuater
• Stonruater Management
• On-Site Uasteaater
t Indirect Public Service
Demands
VATSR QUALITY
Alt. A
BzEa
.90
r-*n
2.20 •
2. SO
da
STRATEGIES
Alt. B
$5.00
1.20
.SO
[77001
|T901
4.00
Alt. C
SO. 00
ETooi
.20
4.50
2.50
.90
I I - Alternatives chosen by Smithville
Total Tax Burden Associated uith Water Quality Management - SS0.9S
Water Quality Tax Burden Costs/Total Tas Burden *
20.35 „-
,,..„ ,, « .07
175
-------
property's value. These include accessibility, site characteristics, nearby
development, street patterns, and general demand for property in the area.
Despite the use of regression approaches and ot-her modeling techniques,
the available literature has not derived reliable techniques for predicting
property value impacts resulting from water quality controls. The water
quality planner can use two approximate methods to derive crude estimates.
One approach, the similar site method, attempts to compare two sites with
comparable characteristics. Only the presence of the water quality strategy
in one of the areas distinguishes the two sites. Differences in property
values are then attributed to the water quality control strategy. This
method is not entirely reliable because of the great difficulty in finding
similar sites. It is also time-consuming for areawide planning efforts. A
second approach, the key informant or expert opinion method, relies on the
opinion of an expert familiar with property values in the area. Two types
of experts are suggested: real estate agents and local tax assessors. Real
estate agents are more likely to be willing to estimate, at least in ordinal
terms, property value effects associated with specific water quality
strategies.
Water Quality Cost Effects on New Housing Costs
Step It Determine Existing New Housing Cost Components
In order to determine the incremental effects of water quality
strategies on housing costs, you should first determine the typical housing
cost components of new housing in your area. You should end up with a table
similar to that in Exhibit 10-2. To develop this table, you should talk
with the local or regional association of builders, local realtors, and
local developers. This step should also establish the existing nominal
development process in the area: the role of regulatory agencies and the
time period for the development process (planning and construction).
It will probably take 1-2 person days to establish a fairly reliable
cost breakdown and development process if they have not been already
established.
Step 2; Determine Water Quality Strategy Link to New Housing Costs
The basic activity in this step is to examine what aspects of the water
quality strategy will likely affect housing cost components. The best
approach for doing this is to consider the strategy in terms of the
following cost issues:
Administrative costs; will the strategy entail additional planning and
engineering requirements?
Carrying costs; will the strategy result in increased development time
because of additional reviews?
176
-------
Compliance costs; will the strategy.require actual improvements or
changes in the way land is developed?
Land costs; will the strategy affect the supply of land by limiting the
amount, type, and location of land that can be developed; or by
affecting the timing of land development?
Step 3; Estimate Water Quality Cost Impacts
After establishing which housing cost categories will likely be
affected, you should determine the water quality cost-related impacts for
each housing cost category. These costs should be estimated in per unit
figures. Administrative costs should be relatively easy to estimate if the
water quality strategy is reasonably well-defined.
Carrying costs are more problematic. Carrying costs should include
property taxes, insurances and financing costs; and inflation costs. You
will first need to establish the nominal development period from Step 1 and
calculate monthly typical property tax, insurance, and financing costs for
constructing new houses. Current monthly inflation estimates applicable to
housing can be obtained from the construction cost indices published by the
Engineering News Record (ENR). Take the last 6 months of the ENR and
estimate the average monthly inflation for housing construction costs.
At this point to determine the impact of a water quality control
strategy on carrying costs, your should multiply the increase in the
development period (in months) associated with the water quality strategy
times the sum of the above monthly carrying costs for typical new house
construction in the area.
Compliance costs for such items as erosion controls, stormwater
detention ponds, or new on-site wastewater management requirments should be
developed from other field experience on from state or EPA data. Costs may
only be available for erosion and stormwater control on a per acre basis and
will thus have to be converted (using existing land use requirements) to per
unit housing costs.
You should consult with local realtors to estimate the effect of the
water quality strategy on per acre land costs. These are the most difficult
and speculative costs to estimate. These costs will also have to be
converted into per unit housing costs.
Step 4; Summarize Costs and Compare to Existing Costs
This step simply requires you to aggregate the individual costs, such as
those shown below, and express this total cost impact as a percentage of
existing housing costs. For example, a proposed on-site wastewater
management program for Smithville will result in the following incremental
177
-------
housing costs:
Administrative: $75/unit
Carrying Costs: $360/unit
Compliance Costs: $250/unit
Land Costs: $500/unit
Total Costs $1185/unit
Existing new housing in Sraithville costs $77,600; thus the impact of the
proposed water quality strategy is approximately 1.5%.
10.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS
Data sources for this impact category are listed in Exhibit 10-4.
10.6 REFERENCES
Netzer, Dick, "The Incidence of the Property Tax Revisited," National Tax
Journal, 25 (December 1973), pp. 515-536.
Gates, Wallace E., "The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending
on Property Values: An Bnpirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the
Tieabout Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, 77 (November-December
1969), pp. 957-971.
Dye, John (ed.) State and Local Sales Taxation, Public Administration
Service, 1971.
Tax Foundation, City Income Taxes, Tax Foundation, 1967.
Musgrave, Richard A. The Theory of Public Finance, McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Musgrave, Richard A.and Musgrave, Peggy B. Public Finance in Theory and
Practice, McGraw-Hill, 1973.
Groves, Harold M. and Bish, Robert L. Financing Government (New York: Holt,
1973), Ch. 17 and 18.
Meinster, David R. "Property Tax Shifting Assumptions and Effects on
Incidence Profiles," Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 10 (1970),
pp. 65-83.
Mitchell, William E. and Ingo, Walter (eds.) State and Local Finance (New
York: Ronald, 1970).
178
-------
Exhibit 10-4
Data Item
- Hater quality control
costs
- Latest annual household
median income by County
- Households/housing
units
- Existing tax rate
- Existing and projected
real estate values in
selected areas
- Average new housing
component cost
- Construction cost indices
Data Source
• 208 Study
• U.S. Census
• Annual Survey of
Buying Power,
Sales and Marketing
Magazine, August Issue
• U.S. Census; and
building inspector
• Tax assessor
• Tax assessor
• Real estate agents
• Builders, developers
• Real estate agents
• Engineering News
Record
Use
Direct user costs
User cost burden
analysis
Tax burden
analysis
Tax burden
analysis
Property value
analysis
Housing cost
analysis
Housing cost
analysis
179
-------
Mushkin, Selma (ed.) Public Prices for Public Products (Washington, D.C.:
The Urban Institute, 1972).
Herriot, Roger A. and Miller, Herman P. "Tax Changes Among Income Groups:
1962-1968," Business Horizons, February 1972.
Musgrave, Richard A., Case, Karl E., and Leonard, Herman. "The Distribution
of Fiscal Burdens and Benefits," Public Finance Quarterly, July 1974.
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. The Distribution of Water
Quality Control Costs. Prepared for the National Commission of Water
Quality, March 1976.
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. The Economic Impact of
Environmental Regulations on Housing. Prepared for EPA, July 1981.
Gruen and Gruen Associates, "Effects of Regulation on Housing Costs: Two
Case Studies, ULI Research Report 127," Urban Land Institute, 1977.
Muller, Thomas. Economic Impacts of Land Development; Employment, Housing
and Property Values. Urban Institute, 1976.
Bergman, Edward, et al. External Validity of Policy Related Research on
Development Controls and Housing Costs. Center for Urban and Regional
Studies, University of North Carolina, August 1974.
Seidel, Stephen R. Housing Costs and Government Regulation; Confronting the
Regulatory Maze. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1978.
180
-------
CHAPTER 11
Land Use, Housing, and Population
11.1 IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
Over the past 5-10 years, no environmental assessment issue for
wastewater treatment facilities has provoked as much discussion as the issue
of growth impacts. This chapter focuses on several growth impacts that are
associated with water quality strategies. Included in the discussion are the
impact issues of housing and population effects.
Land use, housing, and population impacts, as used in this guidebook,
include changes in the: amount of growth, location of growth, type and
density of growth, and the timing and rate of growth.
Impact Issues
While growth effects dominate the discussion in this chapter, there are a
number of impact issues that fall within this impact category.
Land Pre-emption—
Many water quality projects are land intensive or compete for land with
other land uses. In short, conflicts can develop between the land needs of
water quality strategies and the land needs of competing uses. An additional
issue that often is lurking behind the land pre-emption issue is the one of
tax base loss. In most cases, new water quality control facilities will
involve the removal of private tax-paying land from the tax rolls. Hater
quality strategies that are land intensive include: land application systems,
other large municipal and regional wastewater facilities, large stormwater
181
-------
detention ponds and lakes, and large combined sewer overflow (CSO)
facilities.
In examining this issue, however, the water quality planner should not
limit the analysis to only land intensive facilities. Smaller facilities
will also stimulate this issue when the competition for land in an area is
strong. For example, land zoned for industrial uses is a prime area for
wastewater facilities. The notion behind this siting concept is to avoid
sensory conflicts with residential and other uses. Using industrially-
zoned land for water pollution control facilities, however, pre-empts
future industrial land use. The extent to which this conflict and other
conflicts involving competing uses, such as potential recreation areas near
water side areas, is an issue in an area will depend on the type of
facility and the level of competition for certain land uses.
Land Reclamation—
This beneficial impact applies primarily to one type of water quality
strategy, namely land applicaton of wastewater effluent or sludge. In the
case of effluent, it can be used to irrigate or fertilize arid land. By
stimulating vegetation growth, new uses may be possible for the land -
including hunting (actually the case in Muskegon, Michigan), farming, or
park land. Similarly, wastewater sludge can be used to fertilize land,
and, in the case of barren land such as abandoned strip mining areas,
actually reclaim the land for productive uses. A recent study (see OSR&E,
December 1980) has compiled a number of cases where sludge has been
successfully utilized to reclaim land.
Changes in Land Developability—
One of the most important issues in this impact category is the effect
of wastewater control strategies on land developability. The ability to
develop land is generally governed by two factors: 1) natural development
constraints; and 2) land use regulations which control the type, density,
and timing of development. One of the natural development constraints
facing land development is the ability of the land to accept wastewater
from on-site wastewater systems. There is a natural development density
for land based on its wastewater management carrying capacity. Centralized
sewers act to remove the wastewater development constraint and shift it to
the location of the centralized wastewater treatment facility. In essence,
the wastewater carrying capacity of the land is now off-site: 1) the
treatment capacity at the disposal point (either land or water) for the
centralized wastewater facility; and 2) the sewer lines that transport
wastewater from the developed land. Because of their dramatic effect on
land carrying capacity, wastewater facilities may also indirectly affect
regulatory constraints on land development. The increased carrying
capacity is a very strong factor in getting land re-zoned to more intense
uses (residential to commercial) or to higher density uses (single-family
to multi-family).
182
-------
The financing method for wastewater systems is also an important
determinant in shaping growth impacts. For example, one means of financing
the local share of capital costs is the use of betterment assessments on
all property abutted by sewer lines. This betterment assessment when
applied to vacant sewered land provides further stimulus for development.
Generally, a community will employ three types of revenues to fund
different portions of a sewerage system: user (or service) charges,
connection fees, and property taxes. User charges, in the form of lot size
and frontage assessments, are frequently used to fund collection sewers.
This type of charge increases the carrying cost of vacant sewered land or
its rent and may stimulate land conversion or development at a higher
density than without sewers. Where user charges are used to fund a large
amount of excess capacity, existing users may have a a particularly high
financial burden. In these cases, there may be a tendency on the part of
the community to alter land use regulations to encourage growth and pay off
the local share of the treatment plant and interceptors.
For new development, communities will generally require developers to
pay for collection sewers. If these costs are substantially greater than
on-site wastewater costs, developers may shift demand to non-sewered
areas. For sewer costs to be less, the density is a key factor since
collection costs are highly correlated to front-footage. The land use
implication is that density changes may have to occur in land use
regulations in order for development to take place.
Different types of wastewater investments will have different effects
on land developability:
• In unsewered areas undergoing sewering, both treatment plant
capacity and service area location will affect land developability.
• In sewered areas where treatment plant capacity is being
increased, there will be increased pressure to develop sewered
vacant land.
• Sewer line extensions, i.e., service area changes, will primarily
affect previously unsewered vacant land areas.
• The type of staging policy used, i.e., the design period and the
reserve capacity, for both the treatment plant and interceptors
may significantly affect the timing of land development. Excess
capacity tends to reinforce land development in areas where there
is demand for development. In the service area provided with
excess capacity, land development may be accelerated. On a
regional basis, development demand may shift to service areas with
excess capacity. The lack of capacity in sewered vacant areas may
force new development to outlying vacant land areas where on-site
systems are possible.
183
-------
In addition to affecting land developability directly through
structural wastewater investments, vater quality strategies may involve
regulatory mechanisms that also affect the developability of land.
Examples include: growth management controls, such as large lot zoning,
cluster zoning, sensitive area zoning, and wastewater moratoria. In
unsewered areas, on-site wastewater management regulations will affect lot
sizes and thus land developability.
Growth Pattern Changes—
Changes in land developability, in concert with other factors, may
trigger changes in an area's growth pattern. As seen in Exhibit 11-1,
however, there are a number of factors that influence growth patterns.
Public facility investments in the form of centralized wastewater
facilities will influence land developability (which is considered a
natural constraint in the exhibit). But there are other "supply" and
"demand" factors that also influence growth patterns. As mentioned above,
local and state land use policies and regulations are significant forces
affecting the supply of land for development. On the demand side, regional
growth forces, such as population migration, the location of employment
centers, the location and type of transportation networks, and the
attractiveness of neighboring communities -- all will affect the demand or
pressure for development in a community.
Several determinants interact, as seen in Exhibit 11-1, to shape
growth patterns. Consequently, the impact of wastewater facility
investments, discussed above, on land developability may not automatically
translate into growth pattern changes. Wastewater facility investments are
likely to alter the balance between supply and demand factors that affect
local growth patterns. The extent to which this shifting of supply and
demand will result in growth pattern changes is the key issue. Section
11.4 below discusses the type of situations where wastewater facility
investments will have a high potential for changing growth patterns.
Exhibit 11-1 illustrates the generic growth impacts potentially
associated with wastewater facilities. More specifically, some of the
potential adverse impacts include:
• A significant increase in the development and population growth
rate of a community;
• A significant increase in multifamily development in a community
traditionally characterized by single-family development;
• Development of valued areas, such as open space, agricultural
land, waterside areas;
• Development in environmentally-sensitive areas, such as steep
slopes, flood-plain areas, and wetlands;
184
-------
Exhibit 11-1
Growth Pattern Determinants
Determinants
Infrastructure and Public
Services Investments
Natural Features-Related
Development Constraints
Land use Policies
and Plans
Land Use Regulations
Private Market Forces
(e.g., interest rates)
Regional Population and
Economic Growth
Growth Pattern
• Amount of Growth
Location of
Growth
Type and Density
of Growth
Timing/Rate of
Growth
185
-------
It should also be pointed out that wastewater investments may have
very positive growth impacts on a community. This statement points to the
importance of local attitudes towards growth and development in assessing
growth impacts. For example, in urbanized areas, the additional
development capacity brought by sewers may be viewed very positively
because of the impacts of new development on the tax base.
Housing and Population Impacts--
In addition to these direct growth effects, many communities may
suffer adverse indirect effects from growth, particularly in terms of
public service impacts. Important links between growth changes and public
service impacts are changes in housing and population. In both cases,
impacts of concern are largely related to the general growth issues
discussed above, namely, the amount, type, location, and rate of changes.
Public service impacts are sensitive to each of these types of changes in
both the housing and population impact categories. For example, if sewers
open up a large undeveloped area, the new development may have significant
impacts on schools, recreation facilities, and fire station locations. In
general, if development occurs outside of existing established service
areas, the marginal costs associated with serving the population will be
higher than if the new population is located within the existing service
areas.
Rapid population changes can also create havoc with public services.
A community's infrastructure in some cases cannot absorb the costs
associated with accomodating rapid population changes. Legal limitations
on local indebtedness generally constrain communities in the rate at which
they can expand public services to meet population growth.
Growth Pattern Impacts Summary—
1. Wastewater investment impacts on developable land are only one
determinant of growth patterns. Others that also effect population and
employment migration to an area include:
• regional population and economic growth;
• private market forces within and outside the area;
• land use regulations and policies;
• other natural features-related development constraints;
• other infrastructure and public services.
2. Wastewater investments can impact development patterns in an area
by affecting the:
• amount of growth;
186
-------
• location of growth;
• type and density of growth;
• timing and rate of growth.
3. Specific characteristics of wastewater investments will affect the
type of development impacts including:
• System size
-treatment facility
-interceptors
-collection system;
• Type of available treatment;
• Service area;
• System expansion and staging;
• System financing.
11.2 IMPACT INDICATORS
Impact indicators, while potentially numerous, are fairly straight-
forward. For land pre-emption issues, the indicators should convey the
amount and type of land pre-empted, and in some cases, the location.
Typical indicators, then, might be:
• Number of acres of town forest lost;
• Number of acres of prime industrial land pre-empted; or percentage
of industrial land in community pre-empted;
• Number of river-miles of shoreland pre-empted.
Similarly, land reclamation indicators can be expressed as follows:
• Number of acres of barren scrub land reclaimed;
• Number of acres of abandoned coal strip-mined areas reclaimed;
• Number of abandoned granite quarries reclaimed.
Land developability indicators can be expressed also in terms of
amount, type and location of land of affected. For example:
• number of acres of vacant residentially-zoned land proposed for
sewering;
187
-------
• increase in acres of developable multi-family-zoned land;
• increase in acres of developable industrial land in a community.
Growth pattern changes represent the end impacts of land
developability changes. Impact indicators should focus on changes in land
use acreage.
The types and level of detail of land use categories will vary, of
course, by the type of development in a community, existing land use data,
and the type of development concerns in the impact area. Suggested minimum
land use categories are shown below:
Land Use Indicator Categories
RESIDENTIAL
• Low density ( 1.0 dwelling UNITS/acre) These may be
altered to
• Medium density (1-4 dwelling UNITS/acre) densities more ap-
propriate to the
• High density ( 4 dwelling UNITS/acre) impact area.
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
• Warehousing
• Manufacturing
• Extractive
PUBLICLY-OWNED LANDS
• Developed (recreation, municipal buildings, schools, etc.)
• Open space recreation/conservation
SEMI-PUBLIC
• Developed (churches, commercial recreation, hospitals, etc.)
• Open-space recreation (golf courses)
188
-------
Land Use Indicator Categories (continued)
SEMI-PUBLIC (continued)
• Utility easement
AGRICULTURE
• crop
• dairy
• timber
VACANT
• Developable
• Undevelopable
-Wetlands
-Floodplains
-Other constraints
More specialized land use categories can be used depending on the
area. For example, you may want to disaggregate recreation or agriculture
areas (particularly prime agricultural land) into finer categories.
Typical impact indicators for this impact issue would include:
• Amount in acres of increase in single-family residential land;
• Percentage increase in single-family residential land;
• Amount of vacant land converted to multi-family development;
• Amount of prime agricultural land adjacent to proposed sewer
service areas.
Housing and population indicators are also pretty straightforward.
The one's most suitable for areawide water quality and facilities planning
are:
• Increase in number of new housing units by type - single-family,
multi-family, seasonal, mobile homes, etc.;
• Percentage changes in local housing stock composition by above
types;
189
-------
o Increases or percentage changes in total population for the
planning areas;
o Increases or percentage changes in the number of households.
While it might be interesting to measure changes in the age-sex
cohorts of the planning area population, this information is difficult to
estimate.
11.3 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Because of the interest in this impact category at the local level and
the potential time-consuming nature of the issues, it is paramount that the
water quality planner screen for important issues in this impact category.
This screening process should include:
• Discussions with local and area planners to determine the
important growth issues in the planning area; to determine likely
without project trends; and to determine availability of land use
data.
• Discussion with land use regulatory bodies and other local
officials to determine land use and development goals for the
planning area; existing policies, plans and regulations; and
sensitive growth issues.
Where appropriate, special attention should also be given to screen
the importance of agricultural land conversion issues. In accordance with
EPA's Policy to Protect Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands,
impact assessments are required to address impacts on significant
agricultural land. Specifically, the potential for wastewater management
investments to trigger the conversion of land to development use needs to
be assessed. In general, environmentally significant agricultural lands
identified by EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) include:
• prime farmland
• unique farmland
• additional farmland of statewide importance
• additional farmland-of local importance
• farmlands in or contiguous to environmentally sensitive areas
• farmlands of waste utilization importance
• farmlands with significant capital investment in erosion and
nonpoint pollution control plans
190
-------
The screening process should also involve a discussion with EPA
regional staff on the current status and interpretation of EPA policy on
land use and population issues. Of particular importance is any
supplemental regional policies interpreting EPA's cost effectiveness
guidelines contained in 40CFR 35 Appendix A. Key issues to discuss with
EPA include the following items related to flow forecasts:
• Approvable or accepted population projection for the planning area;
• Domestic wastewater flow estimation method;
• Industrial flow estimates, particularly future flows;
• Staging policies for both treatment facilities and interceptors;
• Amount of allowable reserve capacity.
11.4 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Land Pre-Bnption
Step 1; Determine land requirements for proposed water quality
strategy
For specific proposals where plans have been developed, this task will
be straightforward. For less developed strategies, it may be necessary to
develop approximate land requirements using data from EPA publications and
manuals, such as the Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual.
Step 2; Evaluate proposed facility sites
For specific proposals and strategies, this step should determine any
conflicts between the proposed control strategy use and other planned
uses. To determine conflicts, local land use plans should be examined and
local officials should be consulted. Specific conflicts to be screened
include: land zoned or proposed for industrial uses; desirable recreation
sites; land critical to other public uses, such as elderly housing,
municipal landfill, open space, etc. The planner should determine whether
the proposed facility would involve a temporary or permanent use of the
land and whether the facility would be likely to expand requiring more
land. For general strategies where no specific site is recommended, such
as recommendations for stormwater detention ponds, the site requirements
will vary depending on the type of development. In this case, proto-type
examples, using EPA manuals, should be developed to determine the potential
magnitude and significance of land pre-emption.
Land Reclamation
For this issue, you will need to have two basic pieces of informa-
tion: 1) the amount of effluent or sludge proposed for land application;
191
-------
and 2) the site proposed foe land application. This information should be
available from the description of the proposed land application strategy.
In reviewing the proposed land application strategy, you may want to
check the assumptions used to estimate the land area proposed for
reclamation. In particular, review the loading rates and estimated period
for revegetation of the proposed site. Basically, you will want to
determine when the proposed site will be reclaimed — 5 years, 10 years, or
15 years from the start of application. The actual time when the site is
ready for re-use will be important in evaluating the value of the
reclamation impact.
Land Developability/Growth Pattern Changes
The measurement of growth impacts from wastewater investments cannot
be done in a scientific manner. Determining induced growth impacts is not
a science — the process requires considerable planning judgement. There
are several land use forecasting methodologies that have been developed and
used in a variety of planning situations. For instance, there are gravity
models or residential location models that attempt to factor in various
residential location attributes such as accessibility to employment
centers, housing costs, and housing and land availability. The Dynamic
Land Use Allocation Model III (DYLAN III) is capable of incorporating sewer
service areas as an input in simulating land use pattern impacts (EPA,
Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual, 1977). Sewer investments and land
use impacts have been modeled in several case studies using a land use
simulation model developed for an EPA research project (Bascom, et al.,
1975). While these models provide planners with relatively sophisticated
approaches to impact assessment, they require extensive data collection,
calibration, and skills to properly use.
Outlined below are two approaches that can be used in many areawide
water quality and facility planning efforts. The first approach, the
GEMLOP Model, uses a series of predictive equations to estimate land use
impacts. The GEMLUP Model also has an air quality emissions component
which uses the land use impacts to estimate air quality changes resulting
from induced development. The GEMLUP approach is summarized below. The
predictive equation worksheets are not reproduced in this document because
of their length.
The other approach presented is called the REGION I approach since it
is derived from a procedure developed for EPA Region I. This approach is
basically a series of analytical steps that allow the user to estimate land
use impacts resulting from wastewater facilities.
Other procedures similar to the REGION I approach have been developed
but they are not significantly different in approach. The user should
consult a recent publication by Urban Systems Research and Engineering,
Inc., Air Quality Reviews for Wastewater Treatment Facilities; A Guidebook
192
-------
on Procedures and Methods (full reference in Section 11.6) for a summary
and explanation of the other land use impact techniques.
GEMLUP Model—
The GEMLUP Model, shown in schematic form in Exhibit 11-2, evaluates
changes in air quality resulting from induced development through the use
of predictive land use equations. The procedure estimates total land use
from all development in a community 10 years after construction of a
wastewater treatment project. This impact assessment procedure has been
formalized into a set of worksheets which allow the user to assess the
land use impacts associated with new or expanded wastewater facilities.
The worksheets are available in the following publication: Guldberg, P.
and D'Agostino, R., Growth Effets of Major Land Use Projects (Wastewater
Facilities); Volume II; Summary Predictive Equations and worksheets,
EPA-450/3-78-0146, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1978.
GEMLUP is not a general land use model; it is only applicable to an
area of analysis where a major wastewater project of a certain size range
will be (or already as been) built. Use of the model worksheets should be •
limited to situations in which the project and areas of analysis are in the
size and time ranges specified below:
• A major project is defined as the construction or extension
of interceptor or collector sewer lines in a community that leads
to an increase in absolute system collection capacity of between
1.0 and 100.0 million gallons per day.
• The area of analysis is defined as the legal service area of the
project in the base year, and it must contain a significant amount
of vacant, developable land. It should be between 5,000 and
75,000 acres in area (8 to 115 square miles or 200-300 square
kilometers).
• The year t, or year of initiation, corresponds to the year the
major project's new or expanded collection system first carried
wastewater flows. If completion of the project was (or is to be)
phased, it should be completed before the year t + 5.
Projections of land use in the area of analysis are for ten years after the
initiation of the project. A copy of two of the completed worksheets are
shown in Exhibit 11-3.
The data requirements for the CORE land uses of the GEMLUP model are
summarized in Exhibit 11-4. The variable names used are defined in English
units; data sources are also listed. Some data will be easy to obtain
because they are available from the wastewater treatment facility owner or
operator; this is particularly true of "major project" variables, such as
collection system capacity and peak flow. Other data may be difficult to
193
-------
Exhibit 11-2
OVERVIEW OF THE GEMLUP LAND USE AND AIR QUALITY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
Major Project
Characteristics
Base Year
Condition
Projected
Regional Growth
Predictive
Equations
PROJECTED
FUTURE LAND USE
LAND USE BASED
EMISSION
FACTORS
TRAFFIC
MODEL
STATIONARY
SOURCE
EMISSIONS
MOBILE
SOURCE
EMISSIONS
TOTAL AIR
POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS
194
-------
Exhibit 11-3
Example GEMLUP Worksheets
vo
Ul
Variable Name Value/Computation
Office Zoning - Zoned Office » Area or Analysis
House Density • 100* Dwelling Units * Tract Area
Zoned Industrial
Industrial Zoning - Zoned Industrial t Area of Analysis
Population Growth
Office Vacancy
Airport Distance
Office Workers
Office Employees - Office Workers t Tract Area
Future Population
Employee Ratio • Future Employment t Future Population
Unemployment
Future Income
Government
Collection Reserve • Collection Capacity - Peak Flow
Interceptors
Interceptor Density • 640* Interceptors * Area of Analysis
Poverty
Ons Ite Restrictions
County Growth
Project Cost
Federal Funds
Index One
Index Two
Population Served
Inputs to Worksheets Units
•1 1 .
* 1 1 Dwelling Units Per Square Mile
Acres
•1 1 •
-1 1 •
•1 1 *
- 1 1 Miles
Employees
• 1 j Employees Per Square Mile
People
•1 1 •
.1 1 "
1 1 t
1 I Millions of t
- 1 1 Million Gallons Per Day
Miles
• 1 I Miles of Interceptor Pipe Per Square
Mile Land Area
•1 1 •
•1 1 •
•1 1 •
Thousand $
Thousand $
•
»
People
Unities?
-------
Exhibit 11-3 (continued!.
Residential
Commercial
Office-
Professional
Manufacturing
Wholesale
Highways
Education
Recreation
Other
•= (-8692 *
- (18804 •
- (4302 *
- (17.04 •
• (719.5 *
- (1791 *
• (2591 *
4 (234.7 •
- (166.5 *
4 (6949 *
• (35. 2Z *
4 (25.94 •
• (-3.186 •
- 405.2 •
• (270.4 •
- (3226 •
• (1134 •
- (245.4 *
Vacant
Land )
No mobility)
Sewer
Service)
Employment
Growth )
Railroads)
Industrial
Zoning )
Railroads)
Office
Vacancy)
Driver
Density)
Unemployment)
Railroads)
Interceptor
Density )
Poverty)
County
Growth)
Railroads)
Vacant
Houses)
Railroads)
Interchange
Density )
4 (5347 *
4 (487.2 •
- (4515 *
- (2.626 *
4 (33478 •
4 (572.0 *
- (3890 *
4 (22.7 *
4 (86.28 *
- (0.1065 •
4 (22.98 •
4 11.35-1
4 (723.0 •
- (1.415 •
4 (2.631 *
- (557.8 •
- (0.3020 •
4 (403.8 *
Land
Cost)
Driver
Density)
Vacant
Land )
(Collection
Reserve )
Office
Zoning)
Population
Growth )
Vacant
Land )
Airport
Distance)
Office
Vacancy)
Future
Income)
Land
Cost)
Mill— 1
10.000
Sewer
Service)
Costs)
Treatment
Capacity )
Industrial
Zoning )
Future
Income)
Residential
Zoning I
4 (16.42 •
4 134F6 • |
- (28.84 *
4 5376 • I
4 (36.70 *
- 459.9 • I
4 (2.978 *
4 611.2 • I
4 (3.340 •
- 1911 • I
- (0.1167
'er
Acres
4 (437.5 •
4 428.9 • I
4(322.1 *
4 59.52 • 1
- (12175 •
4 3087 • |
X Collection
Reserve ) 4 (11.24 •
10.000 Acres*
Kid
Density) « (6249 *
Per 10.000 Acres
Peak Flow) 4 (0.3324 *
Per 10.000 Acres
Manufacturing
Density ) 4 (85923 •
Per 10.000 Acres
Office
Employees) 4 (6043 •
Per 10.000 Acres
Government) 4 (0.5379 •
Land
Cost) 4 (95.17 *
. 1 MM tnium Foot
Per 10.000 Acres
County
Growth) 4 (0.9742 *
• „__
10.000 Acres
Vacant
Houses) 4 (649.0 *
Per 10,000 Acres
Manufacturing
Density )
Interchanges)
House
Density)
Office
Zoning)
Employee
Ratio )
Collection
Reserve )
On-Slte
Restrictions)
Office
Employees)
County
Growth)
-------
Exhibit 11-4
LIST OF INPUT VARIABLES NEEDED TO PREDICT CORE LAND USES
IN THE GEMLUP MODEL
Variable
Eguation(s)
County Area
Vacant Developable
Vacant Undevelopable
Zoned Office .
Zoned Industrial
Limited Acess
Population Growth
Office Vacancy
Median Price
Future Employment
Airport Distance
Track
Area of Analysis
Sewered Land
Interceptors
Collection Capacity
Peak Flow
SMSA Area
Tract Area
Dwelling Units
School Kids
Nonmobility
Median Income
Government
Current Employment
Manufacturing Workers
Drivers
Residential
Residential, Manufacturing, Commercial
Residential, Manufacturing, Commercial
Manufacturing, Office-Professional
Office-Professional
Commercial
Office-Professional
Manufacturing
Residential, Highways
Commercial
Manufacturing
Manufacturing, Office, Highways
All Core Equations
Commercial
Highways
Residential, Commercial, Highways
Residential, Commercial, Office-
Professional, Highways
Commercial
Residential, Manufacturing, Commercial
Commercial, Office-Professional
Commercial
Residential
Residential, Highways
Highways
Commercial
Residential, Manufacturing
Residential
197
-------
estimate, especially projected socioeconomic data. Thus, a simplifying
procedure is provided here to reduce user effort to a minimum. This
procedure, however-, correspondingly reduces the amount of confidence that
can be placed in GEMLUP predictions. Using the entire model allows the
user to say that there is a 90 percent probability that the predicted land
uses will be within _+ x percent of their true value. If any shortcut
procedure is used, on the other hand, nothing can be said about the
confidence level of a prediction. The tradeoff in using a simplified
procedure is between time and rigor. Only a user can decide which is more
important.
Because many input variables are used in more than one predictive
equation, the number of input variables required varies with the
combination of equations used. The simplest method uses the following
order:
1. residential 6. education
2. manufacturing 7. wholesale
3. commercial 8. other
4. office-professional 9. recreation
5. highways
The first five land uses listed above are considered to be "core" uses that
should be predicted for each application. The remaining land uses are
considered to be of secondary importance both from an emissions and a
theoretical point of view.
Given the extensive data requirements of the non-core land use
equations and the relative lack of interest in this impact category in
them, it probably is not worth the effort to obtain data needed to use the
equations. A user can save a lot of time by just predicting core land uses
and "scaling" secondary land uses from them by simple ratios. The ratios
are found in the EPA publication referenced above and were developed from
raw data obtained during GEMLUP case studies. They are based on mean
values for the various land uses.
The quantities of land use predicted by the GEMLUP model to occur
within ten years of increases sewage capacity apply to the area of analysis
as a whole; there is no spatial resolution in the model's predictions, nor
was any ever intended. Spatial impacts are more confidently predicted
through first-hand knowledge of a local project's area. Local and regional
planners know where things are, and what kind of development if about to go
in next. They also know local zoning and where streets and highways will
be constructed or improved. This local knowledge is more accurate in
internally allocating development than using a numerical technique based on
198
-------
case study information. Reviewers should seek the aid of local or regional
planners in allocating and distributing land use quantity impacts.
REGION I Approach—
A six step procedure for this approach, as outlined in Exhibit 11-5,
is required.
Step 1; Describe wastewater facility alternatives
In this step you should map on an overlay for the planning area, the
proposed facility components noting existing facilities (where appropriate)
and proposed new ones. You should also summarize in written form the
proposed facilities. At a minimum, the mapping and description should
include the following elements (where appropriate) of the strategy:
• Treatment Facility; location, capacity added, treatment changes,
year on-line or staging plan;
• Interceptor(s); location(s), size, year on-line or staging plan;
• Collection Sewers; locations, type (conventional, pressure,
vacuum), staging;
• Sewer Service Areas; location, size (in acres);
• On-site System Service Area; location, number of systems.
In addition, you should develop the following information:
• Proposed method of financing
• Components of existing and proposed wastewater flows
-residential
-commercial/industrial
-other
-infiltration/inflow
• Assumptions used in estimating existing and projected flows
-population projections
-industrial/employment projections
-water use/wastewater generated
i-infiltration/inflow
-flow reduction
• Regulatory provisions
-pre-treatment ordinance
-flow reduction requirements
-on-site system design and siting requirements
199
-------
Exhibit 11-5
REGION I APPROACH FOR
ESTIMATING LAND USE IMPACTS OF WASTEWATER INVESTMENTS*
STEP 1 Describe wastewater facility alternatives
STEP 2 Develop growth potential indicators
STEP 3 Map potential growth and constrained areas
STEP 4 Determine current carrying capacity of developable
areas
STEP 5 Determine growth without proposed wastewater
facilities
STEP 6 Determine growth with the proposed wastewater
facilities
*As modified by USR6E
200
-------
Step 2; Develop growth potential indicators
The purpose of this step is to assess the growth potential of the
planning area relative to neighboring areas. For the purposes of this
step, only existing wastewater facilities should be assumed.
The suggested list of growth potential indicators (GPIs) is shown in
Exhibit 11-6. This list is suggestive and you may want to modify this list
for your own analysis. The purpose of the GPI analysis is to provide
information on which determinants — both supply and demand — are
affecting growth in the planning area.
Most of the information to complete the GPI profile is available from
secondary sources from local and regional planning agencies or from
interviews with local officials involved in regulating growth.
Step 3; Map potential growth and constrained areas
Based on the descriptive analysis above, this step, again assuming
only current wastewater facilities, involves mapping potential areas for
growth and areas with potential growth constraints.
Potential growth areas should be delineated as residential,
commercial, and industrial and should include land with the following
characteristics:
— Slopes ranging from 0 to 10 percent;
— Soil conditions suitable for development as determined by the Soil
Conservation Service or similar studies;
— Private ownership;
— Absence of water related constraints such as wetlands, flood
plains or a high ground water level;
— Absence, particularly in the case of housing, of nearby adverse
influences such as an airport, dump site or heavy industry;
— Reasonable access to existing road system and community facilities.
Areas with potential growth constraints are a subset of the areas
mapped above. Included in this category are areas where growth should be
constrained, but is not presently constrained by existing land use
regulations. Examples include:
— Prime agricultural land.
201
-------
Exhibit 11-6
GROWTH POTENTIAL INDICATORS
• Housing indicators: Building permit trends: household size;
demolitions, rehabilitations, vacancy rates, housing mix.
• Unbuilt lots: How many? Likelihood of Development?
• Recent planning area and regional population trends for last 5-10
years.
• Existing and planned employment centers in the area and region.
• Attitudes of key officials/boards toward growth: Who? What?
Factions? Knowledgeable towards means of controlling growth?
Congruence of views with citizens.
• Attitudes of citizens toward growth: Issues? Is community
divided on growth?
• Zoning and other local land use ordinances: Intended to continue
present pattern or to alter it? Enforcement? Major recent
changes.
• Regional Transportation Access: Orientation of community;
adequacy of major transportation modes.
• Undeveloped land which is both accessible and environ-
mentally suitable: How much is developable? How severe are
constraints on marginal land?
• Infrastructure: Existing sewerage, water, street network
• Position in long-term areawide growth pattern: recent trends;
growth spurts.
202
-------
— Flood plains where development may be allowed if certain building
requirements' are met.
— Sites proposed for public facilities by local, regional or state
agencies but not as yet acquired.
— Land adjacent to important wetlands.
— Aquifer recharge areas.
— Endangered species habitats.
— Valuable archaeological resource sites.
In addition to the map, this step should develop summary statistics
similar to those shown in Example 11-1. Category A includes all of the
land left over after the growth potential areas are mapped. It does not,
however, include land that is undevelopable because of on-site wastewater
constraints. As shown in the example, this definition of developable land
includes 5649 acres. This developable land is then classified into 2
categories: 1) land capable of using conventional on-site wastewater
(requiring some type of on-site leaching field); 2) land that requires some
type of off-site wastewater disposal. Four categories of land emerge from
this analysisi
Category B Land; Land that is developable except for on-site
wastewater constraints and therefore requires sewering for
development to occur.
Category C Land; Category B type land that has already been
sewered.
Category D Land; Land that is developable with on-site wastewater
systems but only to a certain density limit dictated by the
on-site wastewater constraints.
Category E Land; Land that is developable with on-site systems
but has already been sewered.
Step 4; Determine current carrying capacity of developable areas
The current carrying capacity represents the amount of growth that can
occur under present land use regulations. It should be expressed as shown
below (in acres or units).
203
-------
Example 11-1
SUMMARy OF SMITHVILLE DEVELOPABLE LAND
No
11307
oaves
No
Developable
No
Sewered
yes
5649 acres
Capable of
using on-site
si/stems
yes
Jfes
No
Sewered
Yes
Ld CZD
1348
acres
750
acres
2664
acres
887
acres
204
-------
Category
Use B C I
• Residential
-single-family
-multi-family
• Commercial
• Industrial
Step 5; Determine growth without proposed wastewater facilities
This step calls for a land use projection under the present growth
potential impact indicator assumptions from Step 2. The first task in
this step is to determine the appropriate'population forecast to use for
the planning area for the next 20 years. As outlined in Appendix A of 40
Part 35, you will be required to use the state certified disaggregated
population forecasts. If these have not been disaggregated you will need
to do this in this step using the growth potential indicator information
and the Step 2 analysis as a means for doing this. Population figures may
also be available from the areawide water quality or facilities planning
effort. In any case, they should be verified by EPA and local planning
officials.
You will also have to develop an appropriate employment forecast to
use in this Step. Information from the GPI's and Chapter 9 data sources
will be useful here — otherwise you may have to rely on extrapolation of
past trends.
At this point you have both supply information (land characteristics
and attributes) and demand information (population and employment
forecasts). There are several sub-steps necessary to convert the projected
population and employment increases into likely growth patterns.
Step 5.1; Allocate population increases into housing categories.
In this Step population increases are allocated into housing
categories appropriate to the planning area. Potential categories include
single-family, multi-family, and mobile home categories. After examining
existing housing category percentages and growth potential indicators, and
interviewing local developers, percentage estimates for 10 and 20 year
planning periods should be made.
The population increase can then be allocated to the new housing units
by use of the following formula:
205
-------
PI = (x) (a) + (y) (b)
where:
x = Estimated % of single-family units
y = Estimated % of multi-family units
a = Household size for single-family units
b = Household size for multi-family units
Existing household size figures for the planning area can be obtained
in the U.S. census which has data at the level. Given recent trends since
1970 in household size which show a decrease in household size across the
country, you should consider using smaller household sizes for the planning
period. See Example 11-2 for sample calculations.
Step 5.2; -Distribute projected growth
Using information from Step 3 and 4, estimate where the new
development is likely to go in the planning area. You should divide the
growth areas into basic analysis zones and rate them according to their
attractiveness for development. Housing units and employment forecasts
should then be allocated to the basic analysis zones. Clearly, you will
want to perform this analysis with considerable input from the local
planning agencies.
Step 5.3; Convert allocations into acreage
This step requires three calculations: 1) Housing units can be
converted to acreages using lot size requirements from zoning; 2)
employment forecasts can be converted to acreage using employee/acreage
ratios of recent industrial and commercial development; 3) roads and other
public land associated with the development can be estimated using ratios
from existing recent development or from the Posts of Sprawl reference.
Step 6; Determine growth with the proposed wastewater facilities
In the final step, the analysis should be geared towards the following
key question. Will the proposed wastewater strategy, as outlined in
Step 1, alter the growth projections from Step 5 in terms of:
o the amount of growth?
o the type and density of growth?
o the location of growth?
206
-------
Example 11-2
PROJECTED SMITHVILLE HOUSING UNIT INCREASE
Projected population increase for 1980-1990 period = 6, 200 people
Estimated percentage of housing unit development is expected to
be the same as existing breakdown, namely
single-family - 85%
multi-family -15%
Average household size = 3.92 for single-family
= 2.48 for multi-family
...
_y_ .15 •
x = 5.66y
6200 = (x) (2.92) + y (2.48) (2)
= (5.66y) (3.92) + y (2.48)
= 24.67y
y = 251
Substituting y = 251 into equation 1, x = 5.66y
x = 1421
Thus, 1421 single-family and 251 multi-family units are
expected to be built.
207
-------
• the timing and rate of growth?
Hard and fast regressions are not proposed here to answer these questions.
Rather, common sense, coordination with local planning officials, and
careful analysis of the previous five steps are suggested. Exhibit 11-7
illustrates a decision analysis approach for addressing the growth
questions. To help answer the questions in Boxes A, D, G, and J, Exhibit
11-8 provides an initial framework for considering facility invest-
ment/growth impact issues.
The estimates in Boxes C, F, I, and L should be made in ranges if
necessary or qualified, given the level of discretionary judgement that is
required to make the estimates. The estimated impacts should be summarized
as suggested in Box M and then compared with the growth projections without
the wastewater strategy.
11.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS
Data requirements for using the GEMLUP model have previously been
shown in Exhibit 11-4. Data requirements for using the REGION I approach
are shown in Exhibit 11-9.
One of the most important data items is, of course, good existing land
use information. If an up-to-date land use map doesn't exist for the
planning area, you may have to up-date an older map. Methods for up-dating
land use information are shown in Exhibit 11-10.
208
-------
Exhibit 11-7
Decision Path for Step 6 Analysis
B
No
Proceed to
Box D
Is there likely Lo Ixi
an Increase in the
amount of growth ?
"1
Ic
Entlnate
amount
Is type of growth
likely to change?
to
O
vo
G
Are the locations of
new growth likely to
be different
Hap
locations
K
to
Proceed to
Box H
Is the timing and
rate of growth
HKely to change?
1
Calculate
changes
N
Summarize Boxes
C.F.I.L
Compare to
Step 5
results
-------
Exhibit 11-8
WASTEWATER INVESTMENT
IMPACTS ON GROWTH
Facility
Investment
1.0 Treatment Improvements
2.0 Capacity Changes
2.1 - S.T.P.
2.2- Interceptor
2.3 - Collection System
2.4 - Combinations of
2.1, 2.2, 2.3
3.0 Service Area Extensions
4.0 Staging of 1, 2 and 3.
5.0 Financing
POTENTIAL GROWTH IMPACT ISSUES1
Amount Type Location Timing
X2 X3
X X
X X
X X
XX X
X4 X4 X4
X5
x* x«
Notes
1. Theoretically, each of the impact issues could be related to each
type of facility investment listed, depending on the local
circumstances. This table reflects the strongest and most obvious
correlations.
2. This issue may be relevant in cases where a sewer moratorium has
been in effect because of inadequate treatment.
3. Treatment plant improvements, particularly in combination with
pre-treatment regulations, may enable certain industrial
development to take place.
4. These impacts are most paramount in category B land, unsewered
land (see Example 11-1) where wastewater carrying capacity has
been a constraint.
5. In service areas provided with excess capacity, land development
will likely be accelerated.
6. See discussion in Section 11.1.
210
-------
Data Item
Exhibit 11-9
LAND USE DATA SOURCES
Data-Source
Use
-Existing Land Use
—Housing Indicators
—Unbuilt lots
—Population Trends
—Employment Centers
-Local Attitudes
Towards Growth
-Land Use Regulations
-Regional Transporta-
tion Access
—Undeveloped Land
—Infrastructure
-Areawide growth
patterns
-Population
-projections
-Proposed Hastewater
Facilities Characterl-
istics
• Local or regional
planning agency
• U.S. Census
• Building Inspector
• Building Inspector
• U.S. Census; Office of
State Planning
• State Department of
Employment Security;
State Department of
Economic Development
• Local planning
officials
• Local planning
officials
• Regional planning
agency; Office of
State Planning
• Land use map; Soil
Conservation
Service maps
• Local public works
officials
• Regional planning
officials
• Office of State
Planning; Regional
Planning Agency
• Areawide water
quality or
facilities planning
Baseline Analysis
GPIs
GPIs
GPIs
GPIs
GPIs
GPIs
GPIs
GPIs
GPIs
GPIs
Growth Impact
Analysis
Growth Impact
Analysis
211
-------
Exhibit 11-10
METHODS TOR UPDATING LAND USE INFORMATION
• Interview the local building inspector to determine location and
type of new development
Technique; Request building inspector to draw boundaries of new
development, noting type of new development (residential,
commercial, industrial, etc.) density and changes in use.
Level of Detail; Variable, depending on map scale, accuracy of
additions.
Cost; Minimal; basically includes staff time for interviews,
redraw of added developed areas.
• Windshield survey conducted by consultant/planning office staff
Technique; On-site, field inspection of newly-developed areas.
Requires back-up information on recent development in the form of
building permits. Can be used to locate newly-developed parcels
or to identify new uses. The field sheet used to record this
information can be tax assessor maps which will enable acreage to
be determined.
Level of Detail; Good
Cost; Moderate, basically includes staff time for survey, map
corrections at office.
• Recent aerial photos to identify extent of recently developed areas
Techniques; Purchase of aerial photos from public agency or
private mapping company. Developed areas and densities can be
delineated from aerials; uses must be checked through other
sources (either of the above).
Level of Detail; Depends on source of aerials. Enlargements can
be made if negatives are available.
Cost; Approximately $5/sheet, plus cost of mapping new areas.
212
-------
11.6 REFERENCES
New Castle County Areawide Waste Treatment Management Program.
Applications of Land Use Data in Wastewater Managtnent Plans; Working Paper
Number II. 1975.
Real Estate Research Corporation. The Costs of Sprawl. Prepared for CEQ,
HUD, and EPA. 1974.
Muller, Thomas. Economic Impacts of Land Development; Employment,
Housing, and Property Values. The Urban Institute. 1976.
Abt Associates. Manual for Evaluating Secondary Impacts of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities (Draft). Cambridge, MA. 1976.
Bascom, S.E., Cooper, K.G., Bowel1, M.D., Makerides, A.C., and Rabe, F.T.
Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Wastewater Investments; Research
Results (EPA-600/5-75-013) and Review and Bibliography (EPA-600/5-75-002).
Washington, D.C., 1975.
Benesh F., Guldberg, P., and D'Agostino, R. Growth Effects of Major Land
Use Projects; Volume I; Specification and Causal Analysis of Model. EPA
Publication NO. EPA-450/3-76-012a. May, 1976.
Guldberg, P. and D'Agostino, R. Growth Effects of-Major Land Use Projects
(Wastewater Facilities); Volume lit Summary of Predictive Equations and
Worksheets. EPA-450/3-78-014b, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1978.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory. Areawide Assessment
Procedures Manual. 1976.
Kenney, Kenneth B., Downing, Donald A., and Hayes, Gary G., Urban Water
Policy as an Input in Urban Growth Policy, Water Resources Research Center,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 1972.
Milgram, G. The City Expands - A Study of the Conversion of Land from
Rural to Urban Use in Philadelphia, 1945-62. University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA. March , 1967.
Pepper, James E. and Jorgensen, Robert E. Influences of Wastewater
Management on Land Use; Tahoe Basin. Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974 (EPA-600/5-74-019; NTIS fPB-240-247/7ST).
Fensterstock, J.C. and Speaker, D.M. Use of Environmental Analyses on
Wastewater Facilities by local Government. Washington, D.C., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. (EPA-600/5-74-015).
213
-------
Stansbury, J. "Suburban Growth - A Case Study," Population Bulletin,
28_:5. February, 1972.
Tabors, R., Shapiro, M., and Rogers, P. Land Use and the Pipe; Planning
for Sewerage. Heath. Lexington, MA. 1976.
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. Interceptor Sewers and
Suburban Sprawl; The Impact and Construction Grants on Residential Land
Use, Volume I; Analysis, and Volume II; Case Studies. Prepared for the
Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. September, 1974.
Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc. The•Growth Shapers—The Land
Use Impacts of Infrastructure Investments. .Prepared for the Council on
Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C. Nay 1976.
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. Air Quality Reviews for
Wastewater Treatment Facilities; A Guidebook on Procedures and Methods
(Draft). Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency (Contract No.
68-01-4790). September, 1981.
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. Institutional Constraints
and Public Participation Barriers to Utilization of Municipal Wastewater
and Sludge for Land Reclamation and Biomass Production. Prepared for the
Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C. December 1980.
214
-------
CHAPTER 12
Other Public Services
12.1 IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
Included in this impact category are public facilities and services —
other than wastewater and recreation facilities — that may be affected by
water quality control strategies. The following impact categories are the
types of impact issues that fall within the public services impact area:
• fire protection
• police protection
• solid waste
• water supply
• education
• highways
• storm drainage
It is quite possible that one or more of the above impact categories
may not be a relevant impact category for a particular water quality stra-
tegy. The above list should only be considered as a potential list of pub-
lic facility/service impacts. Because of the potential scope represented by
this impact category, a screening step is suggested in Section 12.3 below.
215
-------
Impact Issues
A water quality strategy may impact local public services in many
direct ways as well as indirectly through population and economic base
changes. The most important impact issues and their relationship to water
quality strategies are discussed below.
Direct Impacts —
• Issue PS-1; Public Sewerage Systems/Groundwater Recharge
In developed areas that rely on septic systems and also obtain their
water supply from shallow aquifers beneath the developed areas, the
septic systems serve to recharge household water back to the aquifer.
The removal of this recharged water by public sewerage may have signi-
ficant effects on the groundwater levels. Portions of Nassau County,
long Island, for example, that rely on groundwater for public water
supply have experienced a drop in the water table due to sewering.1
A key consideration in this type of effect is the amount of groundwater
recharge from the domestic wastewater compared to the amount of
groundwater reaching the aquifer from precipitation and surface water
sources.
• Issue PS-2; Public Sewerage Systems/Water Consumption Demand
The issue revolves around whether residents will increase per capita
water consumption when changing from on-site disposal systems to sewer
systems. While largely a matter of unsubstantiated research, a common
engineering practice is to assume that residents with on-site systems
tend to restrain water consumption to minimize problems with the
on-site systems. When sewers are installed and the on-site restraints
are removed, latent demand is supposedly altered and increased con-
sumption pattern is assumed. 2
Because little data to date has been collected to accurately verify
this phenomena, there is no way of reliably estimating to what extent
it occurs and what the range of increase might be. It is reasonable to
assume some increases in demand, however, in those areas where on-site
systems have frequent problems and where domestic per capita water con-
sumption patterns appear to be lower than other areas with similar
homes and income levels.
• Issue PS-3; Land Application, Wastewater Systems; Urban Stormwater
Storage Areas/Groundwater Augmentation
Many areas in the West, particularly California, have successfully
demonstrated the case of treated sanitary wastewater or urban storm-
water as a means for augmenting municipal ground water supplies. In
some cases, this recharge of wastewater or Stormwater is used to pre-
216
-------
vent saltwater intrusion into aquifers near coastal areas.
Issue PS-4; Industrial Wastewater Controls/Water Consumption Demand
A number of industrial wastewater effluent requirements and user charge
systems may stimulate industrial water consumption and help to decrease
water demand in a community.
Issue PS-5; Water Conservation Techniques/Water Consumption Demand
The benefits of water conservation to the local water supply system are
dependent, of course, on the existing demands on the system as well as
the effectiveness of the conservation strategies. Theoretically, in
systems where existing consumption demands are straining capacity,
reductions in demands may postpone system investments. There may be
little impact, however, in systems with substantial capacity. In fact,
water utility managers may view water conservation measures as harmful
to water revenues. The effectiveness of water conservative strategies
is dependent on the amount of water demand desired to be affected.
Strategies designed to affect primarily new housing development in
relatively stable population areas will affect only a small portion of
overall demand.
Issue PS-6; Public Sewerage System/Disruption of Groundwater
Supplies
Sewer pipes in many instances must be laid in stream bed areas. These
areas often coincide with ground water aquifers used for public water
supply. The trench that these pipes are constructed in, particularly
for large interveptors, can under certain groundwater conditions
"siphon off" or divert groundwater down the length of the sewer pipe.
This may affect the safe yield of public wells located in the aquifer.
Areas using pressure sewers or vacuum sewers will be less susceptible
to this problem because of the small trench depths.3 Trenchless
sewer construction techniques may also be possible for collector sewers
to minimize groundwater disruption.4
Issue PS-7; Urban Stormwater Source Controls/Solid Waste
Litter control and street sweeping controls may coincide with existing
sanitation goals. They may require, however, increased level of effort
or equipment acquisition.
Issue PS-8: Residuals Management/Solid Waste
Residuals management strategies may have both adverse and positive
effects on local solid waste disposal practices. If, for example, a
local landfill is used for sludge disposal, its capacity and operating
practices could be affected. On the other hand, the need to manage
sewerage-generated sludge may spur new and innovative resource recovery
217
-------
solutions that will obviate the need for local landfills.
• Issue PS-9; Urban Stormwater Flow Attenuation Controls/Storm
Drainage
Stormwater detention ponds and site design requirements limiting imper-
vious surfaces will reduce overall community storm drainage require-
ments. This can result in substantial savings in capital costs.
Detention ponds, however, when they become part of the public infra-
structure will require maintenance.
• Issue P5-10; Storm or Sanitary Sewers/Traffic Disruption
The construction of sewer lines on existing public streets may be dis-
ruptive in heavily travelled areas. This impact may mean increased
traffic congestion.
• Issue PS-11; Highway Deicing Controls/Street Maintenance
There are positive impacts associated with the control of deicing com-
pounds. Because sodium chloride — the deicing agent most often used
by communities in snow removal — can cause severe corrosion damage to
metal, its discontinuance can reduce bridge and guardrail replacement
and maintenance costs.5 On the negative side, a reduction or dis-
continuance in salt use may increase the demand for snow plowing. Also
on the negative side and discussed in Chapter 16, Public Health and
Safety, is the impact on traffic accidents.
Indirect Impacts —
• Issue PS-12; Growth Management Controls} Public Sewerage/Public
Services Demand
Growth management controls and public sewerage potentially may have
significant impacts on land use which in turn will stimulate a variety
of public services impacts. This impact chain was briefly discussed in
Chapter 2 and 11 and is illustrated again below.
Public
Sewerage
Growth
Management
Controls
4
Effect on
Developable Land
H Housing
, Employmen
t]
Population 1— ,
Employment _
i i
Public
•> Services
1 1
As seen in this illustration, the impact chain has several key
variables before public services are impacted. Thus, the areawide
218
-------
water quality planner should approach these types of public services
impacts carefully. The intervening impact issues are discussed in
other sections in this volume.
The most influential factor affecting the nature and magnitude of
indirect public services impacts is the existing public services infra-
structure itself. The capacity of existing public facilities and ser-
vices to absorb new demands is a critical factor in determining the
nature of infrastructure impacts. For some services, the population
changes may be of such an amount and duration that demand may be
absorbed with little or no effect in the delivery of services. Other
services and facilities may be near their threshold in terms of capa-
city. The incremental population attributable to water quality con-
trols may be sufficient in some cases to trigger a major change in per-
sonnel or capital investment. Water supply is particularly susceptible
to small changes in demand triggering major capital investments.
The extreme case concerning the capacity issue is the situation where a
particular service or facility does not exist at all. For example, the
population increment associated with the water quality strategy may
precipitate the need for a new water supply source. The costs asso-
ciated with starting new facilities and services will generally be
higher than in situations where facilities or services are simply being
expanded.
In addition to the existing physical characteristics of infrastructure,
such as capacity and service area, the existing institutional arrange-
ments will obviously affect the nature and magnitude of infrastructure
impacts. Two issues are important: the division of responsibilities
between the private and public sector and the division of responsi-
bilities between local governments and other units of government.
Where the private sector is providing a particular service, such as
solid waste collection, the demands of new population may be absorbed
by the private sector without impacting the public sector. The impact
on the public sector, however, is also dependent on the contractual
relationship between the public and private sector. If, for example,
the costs of a private refuse hauler are defrayed by user costs, then
new residents will directly bear the additional costs of solid waste
collection. On the other hand, if the refuse hauler contracts with a
local community for providing services, additional costs may be shared
by all residents via the tax mechanism.
The extent to which local services are provided by other-than-local
units of government will also affect the distribution of infrastructure
impacts. For example, in many areas social services will be provided
on a regional basis; some local facilities, such as fire protection or
water supply, may be provided at a sub-local basis by a special
district.
219
-------
12.2 IMPACT INDICATORS
Listed in Exhibit 12-1 are potential indicators for one public service
issue — water supply. These indicators should obviously not be considered
a universal set appropriate for any impact area. The indicators shown have
been structured to cover the following types of measures:
• Demand changes; changes in the number of people using, belonging,
or patronizing facilities and services;
• Capacity changes; adjustments or alterations in the supply of
facilities and services;
• Performance; measures which indicate adequacy, efficiency, or cost
effectiveness of services and facilities relative to demand;
• Distribution; the locations and service area of facilities and
services relative to demand.
Based on Exhibit 12-1 similar indicator lists can be developed by the
water quality planner for other public service categories.
12.3 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
The issue of growth and development impacts associated with water
quality strategies, particularly sewer-related projects, is generally one of
the most controversial at the local level. This impact category may present
something of a resource dilemma, however, for the water quality planner in
the impact assessment process. Despite the growing interest in this impact
category, there are numerous potential indirect impacts spread across
several public service categories. All of these impacts cannot be addressed
within the impact assessment process of areawide water quality planning.
Because most of the resources for this impact category may be potentially
spent on indirect impacts, the screening process should be devoted to popu-
lation and employment induced public service impacts.
The screening process should explicitly look at both supply and demand
issues. The first step involves a determination of the principal factors
affecting public service demands attributable to the water quality stra-
tegy. These factors are the population estimates and employment estimates
from Chapters 11 and 9 respectively. If these population and employment
impacts do not occur with a particular strategy, then the impact chain dis-
cussed in Section 12.1 is disrupted and public service impacts are not rele-
vant. It is particularly important to express these projected population
and employment changes geographically, since many public service impacts are
location-sensitive.
In the second 'step, the water quality planner should look at the supply
side of public services in those locations that have been projected in the
220
-------
Exhibit 12-1
WATER SUPPLY INDICATORS
Indicator
Impact Issue
Appropriateness
ws-1 • service area (size, location
number of public system users,
population served)
WS-2 • Average daily total daily con-
sumption (million gallons/day)
WS-3 o Consumption pattern by user
type (residential, commercial,
institutional, industrial)
WS-4 • Maximum day demand;
maximum week demand
WS-5 • Location and capacity of
water supply source
WS-6 • Location and capacity of
storage facilities
HS-7 • Number of employees
WS-8 • Annual operating costs
WS-9 • Annual capital costs
Impact issue PS-12
impact Issues PS-2,
PS-4, PS-5, PS-12.
Impact Issues PS-2,
PS-4, PS-5, PS-12.
Impact Issues PS-2,
PS-4, PS-S, PS-12.
Impact Issues PS-1,
PS-6, PS-12.
Impact Issue PS-12.
Impact Issue PS-12.
Impact Issue PS-12
Impact Issue PS-12
221
-------
first step as experiencing population and employment impacts. Because this
is a screening type of analysis, this step should rely as much as possible
on readily available secondary data. The type of information that is
desirable in this screening step is listed below.
• Location; Determine the location of principal facilities and
structural components — for example, fire stations, landfills,
municipal wells, schools, etc.
• Service Area; On the same map as above, indicate the existing area
serviced by the facilities or agencies. This may not be coincident
with political jurisdictions.
• Design Capacity; Determine the design capacity for facilities
services. The objective is to determine the extent of slack or
available capacity. For some issues, such as water supply and
schools, this will be relatively straightforward. For other
issues, such as landfill capacity, the judgement of the adminis-
trative agency or the owner of the facility will be required. For
issues dependent to some or all extent on people resources, ratios
of population served to personnel should be used. For example,
policeman/population ratios are indications of capacity.
• Present Level of Ose; Determine the number of people served by
each facility or service or the number of users. Depending on the
infrastructure category, there will be a distinction between popu-
lation served and users. For example, users of a public water
supply system are hooked up to a system; users of a solid waste
management system are also fairly well defined. For fire or police
departments on the other hand, the ratio of personnel to population
served is only a crude estimate of measuring demand placed on their
services.
The final screening step involves a comparison between the projected
demands, i.e., the expected population and employment changes, and the
existing and planned capacity of public services. Since this is only a
screening step, it is not necessary to convert the expected population and
employment changes into actual service demands. Rather, a qualitative
judgement should be made of the supply-demand relationship. Of most concern
are clear cases of facilities and services at or near capacity. A desirable
approach at this point is consulting the appropriate program managers of
public services being considered for analysis. This type of coordination —
particularly if potential public service impacts are limited to a few areas
— should not be too burdensome if done by phone. It is useful after the
screening step to summarize expected indirect public service impacts by
community.
222
-------
12.4 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Issue PS-1; Public Sewerage Systems/Groundwater Recharge
The water quality planning agency will require the services of a
groundwater hydrologist to accurately determine the effect of removing sep-
tic system flows on aquifer yields. It is possible, however, in a crude
fashion, as shown below, to show the potential groundwater/water supply
impact of sewering previously unsewered areas. This issue, it should be
noted, is most important when the proposed sewer outfall will remove the
sewered flows downstream of the water supply aquifer.
Using U.S.G.S. Hydrologic Atlases, and U.S.G.S. Geological
Quadrangle Maps (Surficial Geology), map the aquifer under
consideration. Overlay on this map the projected sewer
service areas under consideration.
Measure the areal extent (acres) of the aquifer.
Determine annual rainfall that serves as recharge to the
aquifer (average annual rainfall minus runoff and evapo-
transperation).
Determine annual recharge to aquifer: area (acres) x
43560 ft.2/acre x .75 ft. x 7.5 gal./ft.3 - t of
gallons/year.
Determine annual flows removed by sewer system — septic
system flows plus infiltration. This should be available
from the water quality strategy or can be calculated using
average flows for effected buildings plus standard
gallons/linear feet of sewer estimates for infiltration.
Total flows removed (gallons/year) = Mgd x 365 days/year.
Compare Step 5 results to Step 4. For example, "therefore
the water lost to the sewer outfall is an amount equal to
approximately 25% of the annual rainfall recharge."
Issue PS-2: Public Sewerage Systems/Water Consumption Demand
As discussed in Section 12.1, this issue is highly speculative. It is
only worth pursuing in communities that have water supplies at capacity and
that do not have readily available alternatives. A second condition must
also be present, namely, existing water consumption in areas with septic
systems must be lower than other areas or communities. If these conditions
exist, two approaches may be used to estimate water consumption increases
attributable to sewering. For the first approach, simply use an assumed per
capita demand increase for each household to be sewered. A study in the
Brockton, Massachusetts, 208 area (see Reference 12) revealed per capita
223
-------
consumption increases of 5-10 gallons the first year after sewering. The
impact attributable to sewering is then calculated by multiplying population
sewered for the first time by the per capita increase.
A second approach requires the water quality planner to calculate the
per capita increase directly using before and after water consumption data
from comparable newly sewered areas. A small sample, say of 30-50 houses,
can be used. While water consumption figures are likely to be available by
address in most communities, there are three methodological problems to be
faced. First, meters may be read on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. At
least a year's worth of data should be obtained. Secondly, in order to com-
pute per capita figures, household size will be required. This may be
available in a street directory published by a community but it is unlikely
that one exists in most communities. The water quality planner will pro-
bably be required to use average household size figures from the community.
Finally, water consumption varies by income level. In selecting a control
neighborhood to determine before and after sewering water consumption
figures, the planner should find one that is comparable in type and value of
housing to the impact area under consideration for sewering.
Impact Issue PS-3; Groundwater Augmentation
The amount of water supply (in millions of gallons/day) that will be
added to the community's supply by land application, urban stormwater, and
other techniques can be determined directly from engineering estimates
developed for the particular water quality strategy.
Issue PS-4; Industrial Wastewater Controls/Water Consumption Demand
One of the responses for water-using industries to wastewater effluent
requirements and to local sewer charges will be a reduction in water use.
The type of practices that an industry can take to reduce water include
internal recirculation of cooling water to simply installing automatic shut-
off s in hoses. In a study of 101 firms in five cities that introduced sewer
surcharges it was found that decreased water use was a response in over 55%
of the firms. 6 In areawide water quality planning areas with large con-
centrations of water-using industry, there may be significant water reduc-
tions accruing to the area as a result of wastewater control strategies.
The measurement of this impact should be done in conjunction with the
analysis of private firm costs. (Chapter 8) A suggested approach is the
following:
Step 1; Determine industries in the area that will potentially
reduce water consumption in response to wastewater con-
trols. The focus should be in water-using industries,
i.e., those that require water as part of their industrial
process. The water quality planner can set a lower water
use boundary to define water-using industries depending on
the number of industries in the area. For example,
100,000 gallons/day (.1 mgd) may be used as a lower limit
224
-------
in defining the sample of industries to examine.
If an industrial wastewater survey has been done in the
area, water consumption figures are probably available from
this source. If one isn't available, the planner should
obtain water consumption figures directly from the water
department. Industries should be classified by similar
type — laundries, electroplating, jewelry, etc. — since
water using habits are often similar within types of
industries.
Determine amount of likely water consumption reduction for
each firm. If the issue has not been dealt with in an
available industrial wastewater survey, there are four
approaches for developing an estimate.
• Talk to Firms — This approach will yield the best
results but is the most time consuming if there are a
number of plants. It may be necessary to talk to only
a few firms within an industry type.
• Examine comparable situations — A neighboring
community may be consulted to determine impacts. It is
important, however, to make comparisons only on an
industry-by-industry type of basis. Even with this
safeguard, local plant characteristics and small dif-
ferences in controls and charges may make comparison
somewhat difficult and unreliable.
• Consult State Water Pollution Control Agency — State
officials may be able to provide estimation based on
comparable situations in other communities.
• Consult National Industry Associations — The major
industry groups have national associations that can be
consulted for average estimates of water conservation
in their industry.
Aggregate water consumption reductions by water supply
system — This will yield the total reduction on savings.
See Example 12-1.
Issue PS-5: Water Conservation Technique/Water Consumption Demand
In this issue, the planner is concerned with the impact of domestic
water conservation techniques on overall water supply demand. The potential
savings will depend on how extensive the water conservation program is
applied in a community and what type of conservation techniques are
applied. (See Appendix A-7.)
225
-------
Example 12-1
I'/iO/MTOJ HAVER COtKiUHFVlOH INDUCTIONS UY SMITIIV1LI.E INDUSTRIES' IN
1)
2)
3)
4)
j)
6)
to
NJ
°» 7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
FIRM
Agony Inc.
B 'water Foundry Inc.
B 'water Independent
B 'water Shoe Corp.
B 'water Tool Co., Inc.
Cannon's Eng. Corp
Carlson Machine Co.
ConAgg. Industries
Dorr's Print Shop
Independent Nail, Ino.
George 0. Jenkins
George E. Keith Co.
Mo tn tire 'a Dairy, Ino.
Henry Perkins Co.
Stiles » Hart Brick
Co., Ino.
Super Tire Co.
Union Graphite
R?
AHDRKSS
78 Plymouth Street
off High Street
17 Central Square
42 Spring Street
30 Sanger Street
Elm Street
2/5 Elm Street
4A Central Square
106 Hale Street
120 High Street
31 Perkins
792 Plymouth Street
164 Broad Street
Cook Street
67 Central Square
•13/ Pine Street
'Simw 7l>
SIC
CODE
2040
3321
2711
3141
3541
4950
3599
27 SI
3315
3131
3141
2026
3321
3251
3011
3295
UASTEUATEH COIftROlS
PRODUCTS EX1.1TJNG
HATKR USE
(mgd)
Animal Feed
Iron Castings
Newspaper
Men's shoes
Machine Shop
Petro-Chemical
Disposal by
Incineration
Machine Shop
Commercial
Printing
Hails
Paper Boards
Men's Shoes
Bottling Milk
Gray Iron Castings
Clay Bricks
Tire S Inner Tubes
Graphite Products
.055
.210
.021
.005
.210
.325
.015
.005
.050
.090
.005
.450
.250
.005
.005
.025
[•KOJKCTED
1985 WATER
USE (mgd)
.040
.185
.020
.004
.ISO
.250
.010
.004
.040
.070
.001
.330
.200
.001
.004
.010
SAVINGS
(mgd)
.015
.025
.001
.001
.oca
.075
.005
.001
.010
020
.004
.ISO
.050
.004
.001
.015
Specialty Co.
SAVINGS = .397 mgd
-------
Issue PS-6 - Issue PS-11;
In each of these issues, estimation of public service impacts are best
obtained frorc key informants, such as the consulting engineers for a water
quality strategy or local officials for the effected service or facility.
Impact Issue PS-12; Population-Induced Public Services Demand
The approach used to actually measure public service impacts resembles
that described in the screening analysis, namely;
• Determine demand inputs from population and employment impacts
• Compare demands with existing capacity
Determine Public Service Demands — Using the population
and employment impacts from Chapter 11 and 9, the planner
should convert these into actual public service demands.
Rather than go through each public service impact category,
some general techniques are discussed in this step.
Considerable material has been published on public service
impacts associated with development and the reader is
referred to the Real Estate Research Corporation, the
Burchell, and Sternlieb references for specific public
service impact estimation techniques.
• Historic Indicator Technique — This technique relies
on past experience to determine conversion factors for
translating population and employment figures into spe-
cific public service demands. The advantage of this
approach is that it uses local experience to derive the
conversion factors. Public service impacts can be
expressed for both residential and non-residential
demands. Or a community-wide average can be deter-
mined. The approach is illustrated below:
PROJECTING POLICE MANPOWER USING HISTORIC INDICATOR
Present
Population 100,000
Police Manpower 150
Police Factor/I,000 Population 1.5
Projected
Population 150,000
Police Manpower 225
Police Factor 1.5
227
-------
• Service Standard Techniques — In this approach, man-
power ratios are used from references to estimate
public service demands. See Exhibit 12-2. It is pos-
sible to obtain "ideal service levels" from many
sources. In general, you are advised to avoid these
often conflicting sources and rely on actual experi-
ences by using the U.S. Census of Governments. This
publication contains average ratios for several common
municipal functions for municipalities of varying size
and geographic location. See Exhibit 12-3 for an
example.
In attempting to measure a number of impact indicators for a particular
public service impact category, it may be necessary to use both of these
conversion techniques. See Example 12-2 which illustrates a variety of
solid waste impact indicators.
Compare Demand Requirements with Capacity — For some
public service impact categories, the water quality planner
will be able to make quantitative estimates of impacts on
capacity using available published material on services and
facilities. See Example 12-4 for examples. In most cases,
it will be necessary to discuss the impact of demands on
capacity with actual program managers for affected ser-
vices. These interviews will reveal existing and planned
service capacities. From the comparisons of demands with
capacities, the planner will be able to estimate incre-
mental public service requirements in an approximate manner.
Convert Public Service Requirements to Costs — The final
step is to estimate the costs associated with incremental
public service requirements. There are several techniques
that can be used:
• Existing Average Costs — In this technique it is
assumed that future costs are equivalent to current per
capita costs. This method is used by many communities
and is generally a legitimate approach in moderate size
communities (between 10,000 and 50,000 people) with
moderate population growth. The technique does not
consider existing excess or deficient capacity — thus
new population measurements that might require new
capital expenditures are not adequately reflected.
(See Example 12-3)
• Case Study Method — This technique requires interviews
with public service department heads to obtain costing
information. It is an appropriate technique in com-
228
-------
Exhibit 12-2
SOLID HASTE SERVICE STANDARDS
Suburb or Fringe NA
to
(O
to
Indepedent Out-
lying Gomunity
Dependent Out-
lying Oomunlty
Non-urban
NA
NA
NA
Moderate Urban
(30.000 to 100.000)
1 collection vehicle serves
about 3,200 dwelling unltsi
1.000 units - 31% of 1 truck;
1.9)8 nan-hours per year per
1,000 dwelling units
NA
NA
NA
Snail Urban
tip.OOP to 10.000)
1 collection vehicle serves
about 3.100 dwelling unitsi
1,000 units - 321 of 1 truck)
2,018 nan-hours per year per
1,000 dwelling units
1 collection vehicle serves
about 3.050 dwelling unitsi
1,000 units - 331 of 1 truck)
2,040 nan-hours per year per
1,000 dwelling units
1 collection vehicle serves
about 3,050 dwelling unitsi
1.000 units - 331 of 1 truck)
2,040 aan-hours per year per
1,000 dwelling units
NA
Rural Balance
(less than 10.000)
1 collection vehicle serves
about 3,050 dwelling unltst
1,000 units - 33* of 1 truck
2,040 nan-hours per year per
1,000 dwelling units
1 collection vehicle serves
about 2.900 dwelling unitsi
1,000 units > 33% of 1 truck
2,040 nan-hours per year per
1,000 dwelling units
1 collection vehicle serves
about 2,900 dwelling unitsi
1,000 units • 351 of 1 truck
2,148 nan-hours per year per
1.000 dwelling units
1 collection vehicle serves
about 1,800 dwelling unttsi
1,000 units - SSt of 1 truck
3,475 nan-hours per year per
1,000 dwelling units
NA- Nat applicable.
Sourcet Real Estate Research Corporation as cited in Argonne National Laboratory, A Franework tor Projecting
Baploynent and Population Changes Accompanying Bierqy Development, Phase II, August 1976, prepared for the
U.S. Bncrgy Research Development Administration, p. 53.
-------
Exhibit 12-3
FULL-TIME PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PER 1.000 POPULATION AND PUPILS FOR MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL DISTRICT SERVICES.
BY MUNICIPAL/SCHOOL DISTRICT SIZE AND REGION OF THE UNITED STATES1 (NORTU CENTRAL REGION1)
Ul
O
Municipal
Population (Use for
Siae ( Kwnber Municipal'
of Residents) Flotations)
MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Finance Administration
General Control
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police
Fire
PUBLIC WORKS
Highways
Sewerage
Sanitation
Hater Supply
RECREATION AND CULTURE
Parka and Recreation
Libraries
SCHOOL DISTRICT FUSCTIOH
Primary and Secondary Schoola
Sahool Matriot
Enrollment fftmkor (Use for
of Studente) Education)*
Lest
Than
2,500
0.22
0.83
1.16
0.89
1.06
0.01
0 01
0.01
0.01
—
2, £00
to
4.999
0.35
0.74
1.83
0.49
1.07
0.45
0.33
0.62
0.22
0.14
4,000
to
9.998
0.34
0.74
1.88
0.61
0.98
0.39
0.38
0.63
0.31
0.17
81
Leaa than
1,200
10,000
to
24,990
0.30
0.57
1.72
0.93
0.81
0.40
0.42
O.S6
0.31
0.1S
K.OOO
to
49,999
0.29
0.49
—
1.26
0.74
0.36
0.55
0.&8
0.44
0.26
50,000
to
99,999
0.29
0.48
1.72
1.32
0.74
0.31
0.47
0.50
0.59
0.22
74
1.200 -
2.999
100,000
to
199,999
0.34
O.S4
1.95
1.S6
0.70
0.43
0.44
0.59
0.74
0.23
£00,000 300.000 500,000
to to to 1,000,000
199,999 199,999 999,999 And Over
0.38
0.72
2.03
1.S1
0.94
O.S7
0.82
1.08
0.82
0.18
0.34
0.68
2. 35
1.62
1.25
0.60
0.70
0.77
1.05
0.34
75
3,000 an
over
0.42
0.70
3.24
1.58
0.85
0.41
0.89
0.83
0.85
0.28
d
0.34
0.48
4.27
1.37
0.82
0.20
1.11
0.89
0.48
0.42
Note*: 'Theae figures are read as follows' In a municipality whoaa population falls between 2,500 and 4,999, there are, on the average, 1.83
lull-time employees In the police department per 1,OOO population. In a school district whose enrollment (pupils) falls between 1,200
and 2,999, there are, on the average, 74 full-time employee* In primary, secondary, and apeclal education services per 1,000 pupils.
'includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio. South Dakota, Wisconsin.
'Use the multipliers above the dotted line for municipal functions.
"Use the multipliers below the dotted line for school district functions.
Source: U S. Census of Governments, 1972.
-------
Example 12-2
SOLID VASTS IMPACTS
?-A Amual Per Capita Solid Waste - Present Annual Haste Unknown
Total Annual Solid Haste Processed 38,500,000 Ibs.
Population 20,000
Annual Waste per Capita 1,825 Ibe.
7-B Annual Pur Capita Solid Haste - Present Annual Waste Unknoan
S Ibs./capita/day x 385 days/year - 2,025 IbB./capita/year
7-C Estimating Solid Waste
Annual Waste per capita
Projected Population
Estimated Waste
7-D Calculating
T-JOS of Haste
Residential
Commercial
City Street
Seaage Residues
Industrial Residues
Solid Haste Produced
number
of Units
2,000
100, 000
2,000
2,000
2,000
1,826 Us.
30,000
54,750,000 Ibe. or
about SS million Ibs.
Factor
2.4 Ibs./aapita/day
0.1 Ib./sq. ft. /day
80.0 Ibs./oapita/yr.
100.0 Ibs./aapita/yr.
100.0 Ibs./oapita/yr.
or
1,752,000 Ibs.
3,850,000 Ibs.
120,000 Ibs.
200,000 Ibs.
300,000 Ibs.
6,022,000 Us.
about 3,000 tons.
?-L Remaining Life of a landfill in a Stable Corrmunity
D«U»*«•*». r.'A. _ Renmnino ctz
Remaining Life - Tgtal amual
32,000 tons
" 2,650 tons/yr.
m about 12 years.
7-F Remaining Life of a Landfill Site in a Grouting Community
Assunina:
Capacity at present use - 32,000 tons f 2,550 tons/year - 12 years
and a in amual increase, then
Remaining life » betueen 9 and 10 years.
231
-------
Example 12-3
CONVERTING PERSONNEL DEMANDS INTO COSTS: TWO APPROACHES
Operating Costs Per Employee Approach'
Projected Police Force ISO
Personnel
Direct (Salaries @ $15,000) $2,250,000
Indirect
(Benefits @ 30% salaries) $ 750,OOP
Subtotal $3,000,000
Nonpersonnel
Maintenance and Supplies
@10% of Personnel Subtotal $ 300,OOP
Total $3,300,000
Per Employee Cost: $3,300,000/150=$22,000
Operating Costs Per Capita Approach
Present
Population 100,000
Police Budget $2,000,OOP
Police Budget per Capita $ 20
Projected
Population 150,000
Police Budget $3,300,000
Police Budget per Capita $ 20
232
-------
munities with significant excess or deficient service
capacity.
• Comparable City Method — In this method, you consult
cities of comparable size to obtain costing infor-
mation. This allows you to observe economies of scale
that exist for certain public services.
7.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS
Data sources are shown in Exhibit 12-4.
7.6 REFERENCES
Citations
1. Kimmel, G.E. and A.W. Barbough, "Analogy-Model Analysis of Hydrologic
Effects of Sewerage in Southeast Nassau and Southeast Counties," U.S.
Geological Survey, Mineola, New York. Open File Report 75-535, October,
1975.
2. Goldrosen, John, "Water Supply impact of Sewers" in Alternatives to
Sewers Conference Proceedings. Old Colony Planning Council, Brockton, MA,
December, 1976.
3. Kriessel, J. F. "Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment
Systems." U.S. EPA, Technology Transfer, EPA-625/4-77-011, October, 1977.
4. Beetschen, L. J. "Evaluation of Trenchless Sewer Construction at South
Bethany, Delaware." U.S. EPA, EPA-600/2-78-022, March, 1978.
5. Abt Associates, Inc. An Economic Analysis of the Environmental Impact
of Highway Deicing. Prepared for U.S. EPA, EPA-600/2-76-105, May 1976.
6. Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. "Responses to local Sewer
Charges and Surcharges" Prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality,
October, 1979.
Other References:
Schaenman, Philip. Using An Impact Measurement System to Evaluate Land
Development. The Urban Institute, 1976.
American Public Works Association. Practices in Detention of Urban Storm-
water Runoff. Special Report 143, 1974.
Abt Associates, Inc. An Economic Analysis of the Environmental Impact of
Highway Decisions, Prepared for EPA, 1976.
Real Estate Corporation. The Cost of Sprawl', Prepared for CEQ, HUD, EPA,
1974.
233
-------
Exhibit 12-4
PUBLIC SERVICES DATA SOURCES
Data Item
Employment and population
impacts
Existing supply for selected
public services, location,
service area, design capaci-
ty, level of use
Groundwater maps and data
Rainfall data
Septic system and sewer
flows
Domestic water consumption
Flow augmentation estimates
Existing industrial
water consumption
Projected industrial
water consumption
Existing public service
multipliers and costs
Data Source
• Employment impact category;
population impact category
• Local public service agen-
cies and department
• U.S.G.S.
• U.S. Weather Bureau
• 208 study
• 208 study
• Water department
• 208 study
• Consulting engineers
• Water department
• Industrial wastewater survey
• Industries
• National industry
associations
•. Local public service agen-
cies and departments; other
communities; U.S. Census of
Governments
Use
Issue PS -12
Issue PS-12
Issue PS-1
Issue PS-1
Issue PS-1
Issues PS-2
and PS- 5
Issue PS-3
Issue PS-4
Issue PS-4
Issue PS-12
234
-------
Sternlieb, George. Housing Development and Municipal Costs. Rutgers
University, Center for Urban Policy Research, 1973.
Howard County, Maryland. Howard County Plan, 1967.
Burchell, Robert W. and Listokin, David. The Fiscal Impact Guidebook.
Prepared for HUD, March, 1979.
235
-------
CHAPTER 13
Recreational Opportunities
13.1 IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
Recreational activities are traditionally considered as a socioeconomic
issue under the Public Services impact category. They are considered
separately here because of the unique impacts that water quality strategies
may have on recreational opportunities. Of principal interest in this
impact category are the impacts on recreational opportunities that directly
occur from the construction of water quality control measures. Of less
concern here because of their speculative nature, are the indirect impacts,
i.e., increased user demand on recreational facilities, that occur with
increased population growth.
Impact Issues
Water quality strategies can impact recreational activities in three
ways:
1) Directly, by changing water quality of water-based activities;
2) Directly, by physically altering non-water quality aspects of
recreational resources;
3) Indirectly, by stimulating population growth that affects user demand
for recreational facilities.
Water Quality Effects—
Typically, recreational activities can be divided into two groups:
236
-------
water-based and water-enhanced. Examples of the former include swimming or
boatingi where the water is an integral part of the activity. The latter
category comprises hiking, picnicking, etc. where the presence of water may
serve to improve the quality of the recreational experience. Water quality
improvements are most likely to have the greatest impact on water-based
activities, and usually this impact is "stepped." For example, most states
have public health codes regulating the maximum turbidity and coliform
concentrations permitted in water used for swimming. As long as these
standards are met, additional water quality improvement will have only a
small impact on recreational opportunity. Conversely, where ambient water
quality is improved to the point where swimming can be permitted at a site
where it was formerly prohibited, then a large impact on recreational
opportunity can be expected. Impacts on fishing opportunities operate the
same way. Very polluted waters may harbor no fish, slightly less polluted
ones may hold carp, still better water can sustain warm water fish such as
bass, and still better water might be suitable for the salmonides such as
trout. At each step of change in water quality, the recreational
opportunities change, but until another step is reached, water quality
improvem&nts are likely to provide only minor additional recreational
opportunities.
Water-enhanced activities respond only to the elimination of gross water
quality problems, such as strong odors, unnatural colors, or floating wastes
although improvements in water clarity (reductions in turbidity) may have
some effect.
While these water quality-related effects may be important in your
overall socioeconomic assessment of a water quality management strategy,
they are not discussed in further detail here. As discussed in Chapter 1,
the focal point of this guidebook is on impacts that are likely to vary from
one water quality strategy to another. For the purpose of this guidebook,
it is assumed that only strategies that meet acceptable water quality goals
are considered for impact analysis. (For more analysis of recreation
benefits associated with water quality changes see USR&E, 1975.)
Other Direct Effects--
Whenever a water quality control strategy involves the construction of
some kind of structure, such as a centralized wastewater treatment facility,
the location of the facility relative to recreational activities must be
considered in order to avoid displacing or altering the recreational
resources. In general, recreational opportunities may be directly affected
by water quality strategies in the following ways:
• Physical alteration - by altering or destroying part or all of a
resource;
• Physical separation - by isolating or dividing a resource thereby
affecting accessibility to the resource;
237
-------
• Resource enhancement - by increasing the amount of recreational
opportunities or increasing the accessibility to resources.
Examples of the first impact issue include wastewater treatment facilities
that basically displace areas previously occupied by recreational
activities. For example, there is usually intense competition for shoreland
uses, particularly between public and private uses. A community seeking a
site for a wastewater treatment facility along a river or harbor may opt to
displace an existing publicly-owned recreation site rather than displace,
for example, tax-paying industrial land.
Physical separation impacts occur in cases where the water quality
strategies are land-intensive wastewater treatment facilities, may have this
type of impact. Careful siting of water quality control facilities is
generally flexible enough to avoid this problem.
While there are definitely many negative recreational impacts
potentially associated with water quality strategies, there are certainly
many ways in which water quality strategies can enhance recreational
opportunities. A concept linking water quality strategies and recreational
resource enhancement is multiple use. Essentially, this impact issue
reflects a concept that EPA advocates in its facility planning guidelines.
Potential recreational enhancement examples include:
• Multiple use of a wastewater treatment facility site as a canoe or
boat launching area;
• Multiple use of an interceptor sewer right-of-way for a bike path
or pedestrian walkway;
• Multiple use of a land application site for hunting;
• Use of renovated wastewater or sludge for irrigation or fertilizer
for golf courses and other recreation areas;
• Multiple use of a stormwater detention lake for water-based and
water-enhanced activities;
• Hydrographic modifications, such as water releases from dam
impoundments or other low flow augmentation options, may enhance
water-based recreation downstream of a dam;
• Multiple use of open space areas created by growth management
controls, such as cluster zoning.
It is important to realize that recreational site development might be
required to garner any of the recreational benefits discussed above. For
example, along a river where water quality is improved enough for swimming,
it is necessary to have public access to the river front, a safe swimming
beach and possible other facilities to actually permit any swimming at the
238
-------
site. As another example, to use interceptor rights of way for bicycle
paths, it will be necessary to pave them, and in some cases to secure the
surface rights as well as the underground rights. It is not appropriate to
attribute recreational benefit to the water quality management activity
unless these necessary ancillary investments will be made.
Indirect Effects—
A water quality strategy can indirectly impact recreational
opportunities in two ways: 1) by increasing user demand for a facility; and
2) by altering the ambient environment of a recreational facility. Each of
these are discussed below.
As discussed in Chapter 11, water quality strategies that enhance the
developability of land, such as wastewater treatment facilities and
interceptors, may stimulate population growth in an area. This population
increase may, in turn, lead to an increase in demand for recreational
services. Increased use may overburden existing capacity of recreational
resources thereby crowding problems and affecting the quality of the
recreational experience. These "demand-related" effects are comparable to
population growth impacts on other public services discussed in Chapter 12.
From the point of view of the water quality planner assessing the
socioeconomic impacts of a water quality strategy, these demand-related
impacts are somewhat speculative to measure. Population impacts, in the
first place, are likely to be expressed as a range, thus making correlations
between recreation impacts and population difficult. In addition,
recreation impacts are also highly dependent on population distribution and
population composition changes. It is unlikely that this level of impact
information is possible to develop within the socioeconomic assessment.
Given these hurdles, demand-related effects, unless population impacts are
well-defined, should receive less attention in this impact category than
"supply-related" effects.
A water quality strategy will generally alter the immediate sensory
environment through visual, noise, or odor impacts. These are discussed in
Chapter 15. Depending on the severity of these impacts, nearby uses, such
as recreational resources, may also be affected. Poor siting of a
wastewater treatment plant may have both visual and odor impacts that can
affect nearby land-based or water-based recreation activities. For example,
the location of an outfall near a recreation area may not have any actual
water quality impacts on the activity, but the mere perception of the
outfall's impact may effect the quality of the recreational experience.
This perception may substantially reduce use of the recreation area.
13.2 IMPACT INDICATORS
There are several possible supply-related indicators that may be used to
express water quality strategy impacts on recreational resources.
Initially, you should consider the amount of recreational resources
affected, the type of resources affected, and the type of effect. Impact
239
-------
indicators may be developed around these three variables. Examples include:
• number of canoe areas affected;
• number of acres of town park land displaced;
• number of river miles opened up to public access;
• number of days added to the canoe season along the Crooked River
(as a result of low flow augmentation);
• number of miles of bike path created.
As discussed above, water quality strategies, through induced population
growth or facility displacement, can also affect both the capacity and use
of recreational areas. Consequently, it is useful to highlight these issues
in an impact indicator.
Both recreation site capacity and use are commonly measured in "user
days." A user day is variously defined as use of a site by one person for a
period of 8, 12, or 24 hours or simply if he spends any part of a day there
so care must be taken to understand the definition employed by a particular
source. For "user oriented" sites—facilities like city parks which are
close to the visiting public—the eight hour user day is the most applicable
unit, but measuring use in terms of "user hours' may be more appropriate in
some cases.
The basic impact index is the change in the ratio of use to capacity due
to a specific water quality management activity. If D refers to use, C to
capacity, the subscript B for "before project" and the subscript A for
"after project," then the recreational opportunity index
reflects the impact of the activity. If the index is greater than unity,
and all else is equal, then the activity has a positive impact on
recreational opportunity. If the index is less than one, then the project
reduces the recreational opportunities available to the local population.
Tne difference between the index and one indicates the relative positive or
negative effect of the project, and therefore alternative projects can be
compared on the basis of their index values.
13.3 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
The recreational opportunity index should be constructed for each
activity which is affected by the water quality management alternatives. In
some cases careful judgments must be made to define a recreational
activity. For example, swimming at a pool is actually considered as a
different activity than swimming in a natural setting. Where there are wide
240
-------
differences in the quality.of the recreational experience—fishing for trout
versus fishing for carp, for example—the different recreational activities
should be distinguished in the analysis. This is particularly important
where water quality management affects a unique facility, site, or activity.
In addition, it will be instructive to analyze separately facilities or
activities where average annual use is near capacity. In these cases water
quality strategies may have the largest impact on local recreational
opportunities.
Also, it is important to differentiate high use activities or facilities
from low use ones. In general a project which has a significant impact on a
high use facility is more critical than one which has the same impact,
measured by the above index, on a low use facility. This effect can be
mechanically accounted for by multiplying the index by the current use, so
more popular activities will score higher index values than less popular
ones. Alternatively, the planner can simply bear in mind the greater
significance of changes in the capacity or use in the more popular
activities or facilities.
Finally, special attention should be paid to the provision of
recreational opportunities for special user groups whose needs are not met
by existing facilities. Examples include the elderly or the poor who are
unable to access existing sites for physical or economic reasons.
13.4 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Section 13.2 presents a number of supply-related impact indicators that
may be sufficient for your socioeconomic assessment. These indicators are
relatively easy to measure. They require:
1) An existing description and mapping of recreational resources in
the impact area;
2) A description of the changes in these resources brought about by
the water quality strategy, such as areas displaced, capacity
increase, changes in accessibility, and changes in the ambient
environment; and
3) A comparison between the "before" and "after" situations.
This approach is largely a mapping and desk-top type of analysis, but it
will also require key informant interviews with administrators of the
recreation areas to more precisely define the nature of the recreational
impact.
Recreation Opportunity Index
This index requires the capacity and use of the local recreation system
be known both before and after the water quality management activity. The
241
-------
remainder of this section describes methods for estimating these. First,
the question of capacity is considered and then estimating use.
Ideally local park or recreation planners will know the design capacity
of each of their facilities as well as that of similar private facilities.
In many cases, however, this information will not be available, so it will
be necessary to estimate capacity by some other method. For facilities
which are accessible primarily by car, the size of the parking lot may
provide a key to the capacity of the site. In general about 3 visitors can
be assumed to arrive in each car. However, the parking lot may exceed the
reasonable use capacity of the facility, or there may be substantial
informal parking available. Then it is necessary to compute capacity as a
function of the physical attributes of the facility. Total capacity in the
local area for a given activity equals the sum of the capacity of each of
the facilities for that activity.
The "after water quality management" local recreation capacity equals
the "before" capacity plus or minus the changes associated with the water
quality management activity. Once the planner has described exactly how the
water quality management activity alters the local recreation system, the
change in recreation capacity should be estimated. For example, suppose
that along some stretch of river a water quality control strategy reduces
turbidity and coliform counts to fall within the state's public health
standards for swimming water. Then the additional recreational capacity
equals the feet of river front which are accessible for public use and have
a suitable beach for swimming.
Total recreational use in the local area can be estimated in several
ways. Again ideally the local parks and recreation department will have
accurate and current data for the use of nearby public and private
facilities. Sometimes data such as these are collected by regional or state
authorities. Alternatively, it is possible to estimate the total use in the
area from the area's population. The population in the user area is
multiplied by a population use ratio developed from national surveys. The
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation periodically conducts these surveys (the last
one published covers 1975 data) and publishes the data for different regions
of the country. Typical ratios are shown in the following table:
242
-------
POPULATION-USE RATIOS FOR SELECTED ACTIVITIES:
NORTHEAST REGION
Activity User-day/person
over 14 years of age
Total Outdoor Recreation 69.0
Swimming 11.4
Boating 2.4
Fishing 2.3
Walking for pleasure/nature walks 14.9
Bicycling 7.9
Birdwatching/photography 3.6
Outdoor games or sports 14.2
Picnicking 3.5
Horseback riding .7
Camping 1.9
The most difficult part of the methodology is to estimate the after
water quality management recreational use. In general there are two
separate sources of changes in recreational use, and there are different
methods for estimating the magnitude of each effect. First, the population
increases associated with development induced by the water quality
management activities can be treated using the population ratio methods
discussed above. That is, additional use of the local recreational sites
equals the new population multiplied by the appropriate factor shown above.
Second, where water quality management changes the activities available
at a site, or permits the opening of a new recreational facility, then
recreational use can be expected to change. But estimating the magnitude of
this change is quite difficult. One approach is to argue that observed
recreational use is independent of the supply, so that opening a new site
will only lead to less congestion at the old site but no new use. Another
approach is to argue that recreational sites, like highways, will eventually
be used to capacity, so the additional use "caused" by the new site equals
the capacity. An intermediate approach is to argue that use at a new site
will be equal to the use at a similar site which is already in existence.
Care must be taken in comparing sites in using this approach. Site
characteristics which must be considered include: accessiblity, cost, and
quality. Differences in sites in these respects can be expected to lead to
differences in use.
Accessibility refers to the amount of time and discomfort involved in
reaching a site. In general, all else being equal, a less accessible site
will attract less use. A twofold difference in the time required to reach a
243
-------
site will imply a difference of from one-half to one-fifth in use.
Costs of using a site, in terms of travel cost, entrance fees and
parking charges, all tend to discourage use of a site, and differences in
the cost of use should be considered in the similar site comparison. The
empirical research on this question suggests that a 1% difference in cost
will lead to a 1% to 3% difference in use. This fact can be used to
establish entrance fees on popular sites to divert use from overused areas
to less well-known ones.
Quality factors are very difficult to compare, for example, some users
find crowds at a beach annoying, while others desire crowds as an integral
part of the recreation experience. The setting of the site, its maintenance
and facility design are all likely to affect use, but the magnitude of the
affect is unclear. Appropriate adjustments are best left to local
considerations supplied by local recreation and park administrators.
13.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS
Suggested data sources are listed in Exhibit 13-1.
13.6 REFERENCES
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc., The Recreation Benefits of
Water Quality Enhancement; Analysis of Day Trips in an Urban Setting,
Prepared for EPA, EPA—600/5-78-101, 1978.
Clawson, Marion and Knetsch, Jack C. Economics of Outdoor Recreation,
Published for Resources for the Future, Inc., by John Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, 1966.
Davidson, P., Adams, F.G., and Seneca, J.J., "The Social Value of Water
Recreational Facilities Resulting from an Improvement in Water Quality11 in
A.V. Knesse and S.C. Smith (ed.) Water Research, John Hopkins University
Press, 1966.
Fogg, George, Park Planning Guidelines, National Recreation and Park
Association, December, 1974.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1975 Summary
of Outdoor Recreation Activities, 1977.
244
-------
Exhibit 13-1
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES DATA SOURCES
Data Item
Data Source
Use
- Inventory of public and
private recreation sites
- Site's physical charac-
teristics, including
carrying capacity
- Recreational use
- Potential user
population
- Population-use ratios
• Local parks and
recreation departments
• State recreation department
• Commercial recreation
atlases
• Field survey
• Above sources
• Above sources
• 208 Study
• Regional planning agency
• BOR survey
Supply analysis
Supply analysis
Demand analysis
Demand analysis
Demand analysis
245
-------
CHAPTER 14
Historic Resources1
14.1 IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
Historic and cultural resources are limited and nonrenewable assets,
such as districts, buildings, sites, structures, and objects, having signi-
ficant associations with historic, architectural, archeological, or cultural
events, persons, groups, and social or artistic movements. If these
resources are particularly unique, they may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. This is a register of districts,
sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history,
architecture, archeology and culture. The National Register is maintained
by the Secretary of the Interior. In order to be eligible for inclusion in
the National Register, such resources must:
• be associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to broad patterns of our history; or
• be associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; or
• embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of
construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic
values; or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
individual components may lack distinction; or
•
• have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in
pre-history or history.
246
-------
In addition to the resources in or eligible for the National Register,
historic and cultural resources may include those resources listed in
Exhibit 14-1.
Justification for preservation of areas of historic, architectural,
archeological, or cultural values incorporates arguments based on histor-
ical, social, psychological, educational, and economic factors. Among these
factors, six rationale for preservation of manmade artifacts and districts
have been advanced in a recent EPA report:
"First, it is argued that an environment with cultural and historical
continuity is socially beneficial. A community ought to preserve some parts
of its past in order to recognize what it is, how it became what it is, and
how it differs from others.
Second, daily life is enriched through preservation of historic sites
and buildings, This assumes that temporal variety and architectural diver-
sity in the environment are more desirable than homogeneity and monotony and
that preservation of historic architecture enriches the environment.
Third, preserving the visual reminders of a community's past allows
people to relate to events, ideas, movements, and persons believed to be
important to understand and honor. Also, the presence of the physical past
helps to fulfill society's expectations for the environment and promotes
well-being.
Fourth, it is argued that notable architecture and landscapes should be
preserved on the basis of their intrinsic value as art.
Fifth, in some cases, preservation of historic areas stablizes or
increases the economic base of their locales. This is the prevailing justi-
fication for the approval of historic district ordinances by State Supreme
Courts.
Lastly, socially oriented preservation programs can be important for
maintaining socioeconomic characteristics of neighborhoods. In few cases
where preservation programs are so directed, they may complement traditional
urban renewal programs, with the advantage that displacement of residents is
not necessarily required."2
Impact Issues
Because there is a fixed supply of historic and cultural resources, any
loss or impairment will result in an irreversible loss for future genera-
tions. Wherever a water quality control strategy involves, in particular,
the construction of some kind of structure, such as a centralized wastewater
treatment facility, or excavation, say, for installation of sewer lines, the
location of those activities relative to historic and cultural resources
must be considered, in order to avoid displacing or altering those resources.
247
-------
Exhibit 14-1
BISTORTC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF INTEREST IN
SOCIOEOONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
HISTORIC RESOURCES
• Sites and structures connected with events significant In the cultural.
political, economic, military, or social history or the locality, the
state, or the nation;
• homes or places where significant activities took place or notable
personages of the locality, state, or nation;
• sites or groups of structures representative of a period In the historic
development of the locality, state, or nation, such as seaports, agricul-
tural settlements, major crossroads, rivers, and canals;
• Indian remains or burial grounds; and
• cemeteries, when used over a long period of time or for burial of Impor-
tant historic personages.
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
• Individual structures of all kinds and uses representative of the
architectural development of the United States, including structures
of national, state, and local significance;
• works of architects and/or builders who have made significant contribu-
tions to the history of American architecture, engineering, or building
technology, or Important works of locally important architects and builders;
• unique or indigenous building forms, such as wind or water powered grist
or saw mills, traditional rural building types such as bank barns, round
bams, log structures, and architectural curiouslties;
• military fortifications or other structures where visible remains exist;
• building groupings at street or block-front scale where the significance
and importance of individual structures is increased because of their re-
lationship to the grouping, or a row of other significant structures which
may or may not be of similar period or design style;
• districts or significant concentrations of quality buildings or sites, often
made up of individual landmark structures supported by a larger number of
structures having lesser importance,
• special character areas, differing from historic districts in that their
significance may be the result of a concentration of activities rather than
(or in addition to) the presence of historic buildings, structures, or
sites (e.g.. Bourbon Street, New Orleans; Fishermen's Wharf, San Francisco, etc.), and
• fixed works of art, commemorative sculpture, wall murals, graphics, funereal
sculpture, and Items of distinctive street furniture, such as clocks, lamp
posts, etc.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources Include libraries, schools, museums, art galleries, theaters, fra-
ternal organization meeting places, churches, and other places of worship.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Archeological resources provide valuable Information about the prehistoric past, in-
cluding Insight into human life and cultural activities. Such resources may include
prehistoric villages and dwellings, objects used in everyday life activities, and the
remains of plants and bones of animals.
248
-------
In general, historic and cultural resources may be affected by water quality
controls in the following ways:
• Physical alteration — alteration or destruction of part or all of
a resource;
• Physical separation — isolation or division of a resource;
• Neglect of a resource leading to deterioration of the property;
• Disruption of ambient environment — possibly leading to
accelerated deterioration of resources; and
• Increased usage due to induced development.
Physical alteration effects are perhaps the most common potential
impacts associated with water quality controls. Projects typically having
significant potential for physically altering historical resources include
any project involving construction. Sewage treatment plants, stormwater
controls, storm and sanitary sewer lines, and hydrographic modifications —
all are prime examples. The direct effects of these construction projects
may be experienced by historic resources even a distance away from the con-
struction. The excavation of sewer lines may not only affect subsurface
archeological resources, but may also cause damage to nearby historic struc-
tures because of subsidence. Land intensive projects, such as large sewage
treatment plants, or residuals management projects, are most likely to cause
physical separation effects. Neglect impacts are often experienced in
situations where it is necessary to incorporate historic resources into the
property for the water quality control.
Many historic and cultural resources will be indirectly affected by
water quality controls. The most common intermediary impact category is the
sensory one. Noise, visual, and odor effects related to a water quality
control can all be particularly disruptive to historic resources or their
settings. Finally, the other common impact on historic resources resulting
from water quality control is excessive use. This problem generally is an
indirect effect of direct land use/population impacts.
These impacts are summarized in Exhibit 14-2.
14.2 IMPACT INDICATORS
The selection of appropriate impact indicators to measure the historic
and cultural impacts discussed above is not entirely straightforward. The
historic and cultural resources impact category involves qualitative as well
as quantitative impact measurement. Clearly, in this impact category, it is
necessary to consider not only the amount of resources affected, but the
type and importance as well. This distinction is legally recognized by the
elaborate legislative and regulatory requirements for the consideration of
historic resources embodied, for example, in the National Historic Preser-
249
-------
Exhibit 14-2
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT ISSUES
DIRECT IMPACTS
IMPACT STIMULANT
• Physical alteration of resources
Construction-related controls, such
as sewage treatment plants, storm
water controls, storm and sanitary
sewer lines, and hydrographic modi-
fications.
• Physical separation of resources
Land-intensive projects, such as
sewage treatment plants and resi-
dual management controls.
• Neglect of resources
Projects incorporating resources on
control strategy property.
INDIRECT IMPACTS
IMPACT STIMULANT
• Disruption of ambient environment
Sensory-related effects
• Increased usage of resource
Land use and population effects
250
-------
vation Act of 1966 (PL 89-665) discussed in the next section. Thus, those
resources on or eligible for the National Register are required by law to
receive special emphasis in impact assessment.
Impact indicators for historic and cultural resources, then, may be
structured in various combinations around four variables:
• amount of resources affected;
• type of resources affected;
• importance of resources affected; and
• type of effect.
Example generic indicators include the following:
• number of National Register sites affected;
• number of Indian burial grounds that will be displaced;
• number of Colonial-period churches, late 19th century canals, etc.,
affected.
As seen from the above, the selection of indicators in this impact
category will depend on the presence of local and national historic and
cultural resources.
14.3 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Review of Pertinent Legislation and Regulations
Unlike many of the other impact categories discussed in the guidebook,
the historic and cultural resources impact category requires those agencies
involved in a federally-funded project to comply with a complicated set of
regulatory procedures. Because the level of detail in areawide planning may
preclude the necessity for doing an elaborate assessment of historic and
cultural resources, the process for complying with the Federal regulations
will occur during the design stage. In any case, the areawide water quality
planner should be aware of the National Register program discussed below.
A national policy of historic preservation was first authorized by the
Historic Sites Act of 1935. The Act called for a survey of potential sites
of exceptional historic value by the Department of Interior. The National
Historic Act of 1966 reaffirmed this mandate and set out in detail the basic
Federal policy for historic preservation. The Act set forth the following:
• Directed the National Register of Historic Places be expanded to
include the properties of state and local as well as national
significance;
251
-------
• Established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP);
• Required the Council to comment on any undertaking which involves
the Federal government and might affect a National Register
property.
Executive Order 111593 of 1971 enlarged the role of the council in
Federal actions by requiring it to review and comment on undertakings
affecting properties eligible for nomination to the National Register as
well as those already listed in the National Register.
Historic resources must also be considered in the assessment plans
required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In order
to meet the requirements of NEPA and the National Register regulations, the
ACHP issued "Procedures for Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties,"
36 CFR Part 800, also known as Part 800. These requirements are referenced
below in the scoping analysis. The implications of the National Register
regulations are that the obligations of a Federal agency to assure historic
resource impacts pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act and
Executive Order 11593 are independent from NEPA and must be complied with
even when an environmental impact statement is not required.
The National Historic Preservation Act is implemented in cooperation
with the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), who are responsible
for administering the National Register program within their jurisdiction.
Nominations for the National Register are reviewed by the SHPO and forwarded
to the Department of Interior.
The criteria outlined in Section 14.1 are used to determine if a
resource is eligible for the Register. Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces,
or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions
or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their
original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily
commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance
within the past 50 years will not be considered eligible for the National
Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts
of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following
categories:
• a religious property deriving primary significance from architec-
tural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or
• a building or structure removed from its original location but
which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is
the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic
person or event; or
252
-------
• a birthplace or grave of an historical figure of outstanding
importance if there is no other appropriate site or building
directly associated with his or her productive life: or
• a cemetary which derives its primary significance from graves =of
persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive
design features, or from association with historic events; or
• a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable
environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a res-
toration master plan, and when no other building or structure with
the same association has survived; or
• a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradi-
tion, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical
significance; or
• a property achieving significance within the past^50 years if it is
of exceptional importance.3
Scoping Analysis
The scoping analysis for this impact category may involve considerable
time to conduct because of the likely lack of information on historic
resources in the planning area. This problem is compounded in areawide
water quality planning by the fact that many water quality strategies will
be defined in general terms without any or very little site specific infor-
mation. It is very difficult to determine the likelihood of historic
impacts without some specific data on the water quality control strategy and
historic sites and areas.
There are basically four types of situations that may confront the
planner in an attempt to determine direct historic impacts in the scoping
analysis. These are shown below:
Historic Resources Data
Data available
No data available
Water Quality Strategy Type
Site Specific
Case A
Case C
Non-Site Specific
Case B
Case D
At first glance, it would seem appropriate that Case A situations should
receive the most attention in the scoping analysis and Case D situations the
least. The lack of existing information on historic resources in the plan-
253
-------
ning area is not acceptable, however, as a reason for discarding Case C and
Case D situations. Unlike other impact categories, the scoping analysis for
historic resources has to be closely linked with regulatory procedures — in
this case, the review procedures set forth under the 36 CFR Part 800 guide-
lines.
As described by Part 800, "At the earliest stage of planning, including
comprehensive or area-wide planning in which provision may be made for an
undertaking..., the Agency Official shall take the following steps to comply
with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and...of Executive Order 11593:"
• Identification of resources
• Determination of effect
• Effect established
• Finding of no adverse effect
• Finding of adverse effect
• Preliminary case report
If an adverse effect is determined, a lengthy "consultation and miti-
gation" process would then occur.
One of the consequences of this process for water quality planning is
that the planning agency may be required by the SHPO to contract for addi-
tional professional surveys to identify resources. This is not likely in
Case D situations, but may be required in Case C situations depending on how
close to implementation a project is, and whether the SHPO believes impor-
tant historic resources may exist in the proposed project area. It may also
be necessary to determine which resources not presently on the National
Register may in fact be eligible for the Register.
Because of the discretionary powers of the respective SHPOs in deter-
mining the impacts of water quality strategies on historic resources, it is
not possible to prescribe here a definitive scoping analysis or measurement
approach. The approach suggested below assumes close coordination with the
State Historic Preservation Officer.
Step 1; Examines critical characteristics of water quality alternatives
The general characteristics of a water quality alternative will have
been described as part of the Impact Identification stage. The first step
in the scoping analysis is to examine the site specific aspects of the
alternatives. Alternatives that cannot be described in specific location
terms should probably not be considered for historic impacts — that is.
Case B and Case D situations. If at a later time, more specific information
254
-------
is developed for these alternatives, their impact on historic resources can
occur. Without location information, historic impact assessment is simply
too conjectural.
For those alternatives with location information, their characteristics
of most concern to the historic impact category are the following:
• Physical — size, height, form, lighting
• land — amount and location
• Construction activities — nuisance aspects, alternatives,
excavations
• Operating aspects — nuisance aspects
• Areas expected to be impacted by growth associated with the
alternative
The location of the alternatives should be mapped then as precisely as
possible.
Step 2; Identify Historic Resources
The agency should contact the SHPO to determine all known cultural and
historic resources that have ever been identified in the vicinity of the
proposed alternatives and in the expected growth areas. A trial and error
approach may be required since in Step 3 the goal is to define more closely
the probably impact areas. In this step, the planning agency will want to
avoid excessive data collection. Thus, a preliminary area of impact in
which to identify historic resources should be determined based on Step 1
analysis. The addresses and phone numbers of the respective SHPOs is
included in Appendix D. This identification should include National
Register properties and those properties eligible, identified by the SHPO
that are eligible for the Register. If the SHPO feels that the existing
information on historic resources is moderate in the project area, the SHPO
may require that a detailed survey take place simultaneously later in the
more detailed design stages of a project, the assessment of historic
impacts during the areawide planning stage then should be considered only to
be preliminary. The agency should also request local project area sources
of historic resources information. These local sources, such as historical
and architectural societies, may have also identified sites that, if brought
to the attention of the SHPO, might be considered for nomination to the
National Register. National Register nominations must be approved by
Heritage, Conservation and Recreation Services in the Department of
Interior, after they have been reviewed by SHPOs. Procedures vary, however,
from state to state on writing nominations. Many state SHPOs depend on
local communities to nominate properties. In other states, like Rhode
Island, all nominations are written by the state preservation agency. In
any case, it is unlikely that the water quality management agency will be
255
-------
directly involved in the writing of nominations.
Finally, the water quality agency should map the resources that have
been identified, noting where possible the difference in significance among
the resources. These resources should be mapped on the same map with the
water quality alternatives.
Step 3; Identify Probable Impact Areas
Based on the composite map developed in Steps 1 and 2, it should be
possible to identify areas where historic impacts are likely to occur and
therefore require formal assessment. Given the alternatives, their charac-
teristics of interest to historic resources, and the location of historic
resources, the water quality management agency will be able to identify the
historic areas that are likely to be affected.
In general, the closer the project to the resource, the more likely
that there will be an impact. The impact-distance relationship, however,
varies by the characteristic(s) of the project and by the historic resource
being affected. For example, a sewer line excavation in a street is more
apt to affect an historic house that abuts the street than it will an
historic farm area. Projects with nuisance characteristics — sensory,
noise, or odor — will tend to affect historic resources at a greater dis-
tance than projects involving only construction disruptions.
At this stage, it is not necessary to make a resource-by-resource
determination — defining areas impacted is sufficient. If there is time
and there are resources available, the scoping analysis can be sharpened
considerably by visiting the historic resource sites.
14.4 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
The types of issues to be determined in the assessment of historic
resource impacts revolve around the four types of effects mentioned in
Section 14.2, namely, the amount of resource affected, type of resource
affected; importance of resources affected, and type of effect. Two
approaches are outlined to reflect the Part 800 regulatory guidelines for
National Register sites.
Method 1; National Register Property Approach
Under this method the water quality planning agency relies exclusively
on the SHPO staff to confirm the historic effects and the severity of the
effects for each National Register and Register eligible property. The
water quality management agency should present the information on the pro-
jects and the affected resources for the SHPO's review. This review will
determine which resources are affected and the adversity of effect. The
principal criteria used to determine adverse effects are those listed in
Section 14.1 under Impact Issues, namely, physical alteration, neglect,
disruption of ambient environment, and increased usage due to induced deve-
256
-------
lopment. In order to expedite the SHPO review process, the water quality
management agency should present information on each impacted resource. A
sample worksheet is shown in Example 14-1. The SHPO may also use site
visits as part of the assessment process for selected properties to
supplement information provided by the agency.
Method 2; Non-National Register Property Approach
There are many states and many areas within states in which Nation
Register and Register-eligible properties have not been identified. If many
locally important resources have been identified in the Scoping Analysis,
the agency will be required to work with local agencies to jointly assess
historic impact. The same approach used with the SHPO is suggested:
• Complete Historic Resources Impact Worksheets
• Apply Adverse Effect Criteria
• Summarize Amount, Type and Importance of Resource Affected
There are two issues associated with Method 12. First of all, there may be
many resources in the impact areas that have "local importance.* The agency
should work closely with the local historical agencies to ensure that time
is spent on examining impacts on the most important resource. Secondly,
there is the question of expertise. The agency may require outside local
expertise, if it is not available in the local historical society. Local
universities are a possible source. Alternatively, it may be possible to
obtain some staff assistance from the SHPO office.
14.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS
State Historic Preservation Officers are a relatively recent phenomenon
and support staff size varies considerably from state to state. Thus, it is
not possible to rely solely on the SHPO for local historic resource identi-
fication. If the impact analysis deals with non-National Register proper-
ties, the agency will have to tap several possible secondary sources for
data. Potential sources are listed in Exhibit 14-3.
14.6 REFERENCES
Citations
1. Much of the material for the chapter is drawn from Abt Associates.
Manual for Evaluating Secondary Impacts of Wastewater Treatment
Facilities. U.S.'Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
January, 1978, Chapter 5.
257
-------
Example 14-1
HISTORIC RESOURCES IMPACT WORKSHEET
DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE
Name:
Location (attach map):
Original Use:
Present Use:
Historic Significance:
References:
Nipmuc Indian Burial Ground
Water Street, Pembroke
Indian burial ground
Vacant wooded area
This is one of three known burial grounds of
the Nipmuc tribe in Southeastern Massachusetts.
Probably dates back to early 17th century.
Wilson, C. Massachusetts Archaeology. Plymouth
Press, 1923.
WATER QUALITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Name:
Location:
North River Interceptor and Pumping Station
(Show in attached map)
Distance from Resources: Goes through southern portion of burial ground
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
AFFECTING RESOURCE
IMPACT ISSUES
A. Excavation during construction A. Physical alteration of resource
for interceptor trench .
B. Access roads
B. Increased use and disruption of
resource
C. Pump station aesthetics
C. Disruption of ambient
environment
258
-------
Example 14-1 (continued)
Ul
US
-------
EXHIBIT 14-3
HISTORIC RESOURCES DATA SOURCES
Data Item
Data Source
Use
National Register
Properties
State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO)
National Register of Historic
Places, published annually in
February in Federal Register
Assessment Method 1;
Scoping Analysis
National Register
eligible properties
State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO)
Same as Above
locally significant
resources
Catalogs of the Historic
American Buildings Survey
(HABS) and publications of
the Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER)
Records of state and local
historical societies
Local histories and newspaper
magazine articles
Records, if available, of the
state or local chapter of the
Society for Industrial
Archaeology
Records of local chapters of
the American Institute of
Architects
Assessment Method
Scoping Analysis
2;
260
-------
2. Kaiser, Edward J., et al. Promoting Environmental Quality Through Urban
Planning and Controls. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February,
1974.
3. 36 CFR Part 800.10.
Other References
• Skidraore, Owings & Merrill. Environmental Assessment Notebook
Series; Notebook 4—Physical Impacts. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Transportation under Contract No. DOT-OS-40175. 1975.
• U.S. Department of the Interior. Preparation of Environmental
Statements; Guidelines for Discussion of Cultural (Historic,
Archaeological, Architectural) Resources. 1974.
• Wright, Russell. Techniques for Incorporating Historic Preservation
Objectives into the Highway Planning Process. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1974; available from the Office of Consumer Affairs, DOT.
• National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Guidelines
for Local Surveys; A Basis for Preservation Planning. Office of
Archaeological and Historic Preservation, Draft Report, 1976.
• Abt Associates, Inc. Social Assessment Manual; A Guide to the
Preparation of the Social Well-Being Account. Prepared for the
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior under Contract
No. 14-06-0-7342(5). July 1975.
• Schaenman, Phillip S., and Thomas Muller. Measuring Impacts of Land
Development. Urban Institute. November 1974.
• U.S. Department of the Interior. National Register of Historic
Places. Listed annually in February issue of Federal Register;
updated monthly in the Federal Register.
261
-------
CHAPTER 15
Sensory
The assessment of sensory impacts from water quality strategies relies
heavily on subjective judgements. Many people perceive their sur-
roundings, for example, in terms like "beautiful," "ugly," or "noxious."
For the purpose of impact assessment, however, it is difficult to obtain
agreement among observers as to precise definitions of these terms. This
section will provide the water quality management agency with some guide-
lines in considering the subjective sensory impact category.
The senses that play the largest roles in our perception of the world
are sight, sound, and smell. The remaining senses, touch and taste, play a
less important role in our experience with a larger environment. Thus, this
section will address three types of sensory impacts of concern in water
quality strategies: visual quality, noise, and odors.
15.1 VISUAL QUALITY
IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
This impact category focuses on the aesthetic interrelationships
between manmade and natural features of an area. The purpose of this cate-
gory is not to judge water control strategies in terms of their potential
contribution to a "beautiful" or "harmonious" environment — a usual concern
of aesthetic evaluations. Rather, the assessment process outlined here
attempts to determine whether a particular strategy will impede one's abi-
lity to "sense" the context in which the strategy is implemented or whether
the project will alter the visual character of its landscape.
262
-------
Impact Issues
The implementation of a particular water quality management strategy
can have a variety of effects on the visual environment. Structural con-
trols will by definition cause some changes in an area's landscape during
the construction period. The extent of long-term impacts of structural con-
trols will depend on the scale of the "structure" in relation to its sur-
roundings: a large treatment plant in an industrial area may not present a
ma^or change in the area's landscape. However, the location of a large
treatment plant in an otherwise underdeveloped area could represent a signi-
ficant impact. Non-structural control strategies may also create impacts on
the visual environment, although these may be indirect.
There are five visual impact issues that may occur in the implemen-
tation of water quality strategies.
• Views and Vistas — Perhaps the most identifiable visual issue is
view blockage and vista intrusion. Along with treatment plants
themselves, associated facilities such as fuel storage tanks and
settling tank£ can have view or vista impacts. By closing off a
site to public traffic, the control can also block access to tradi-
tional vantage points from which views valued by the community
could be seen. This type of impact is generally found with those
control strategies involving the construction of large facilities,
although any type of construction of buildings or landscape re-
arrangement has the potential for intruding on a vista.
• Visual Identity — This is a more difficult issue as it involves
the relationship between people's image of themselves and the way
this image is supported or contradicted by their environment. The
principal issue of concern in this factor is compatibility of the
water quality control option as a use with other uses in the sur-
rounding environment. For example, in more urbanized areas, the
expansion of large scale centralized wastewater treatment plants is
often a minor visual issue. They are often located on land zoned
for other "nuisance" uses, such as industrial uses, and thus may
not be perceived as a visual identity issue. Small scale treatment
systems located in neighborhoods, on the other hand, may present
genuine visual identity issues. They may be perceived as "out of
character" in a neighborhood.
Another issue in this category involves secondary development
resulting from a water quality strategy. For example, the pattern
and location of development changes with the provision of sewerage
service, creating major changes in the density and architectural
character of development in the community.
263
-------
• Fit with Setting — Within a more immediate radius of a water
quality control facility, issues of fit with setting may be
raised. This issue primarily relates to the construction of struc-
tural controls. Elements of concern include extreme contrasts of
scale, development density, building materials, or architectural
style between the facility and adjacent development.
• Visual Nuisance — A variety of minor visual irritants may be asso-
ciated with construction activities. Unscreened materials stock-
piled, the sight of heavy equipment where it did not exist before,
large expanses of cleared areas left unseeded for many months —
all of these are nuisances that can usually be avoided with a
minimum of effort. There may also be minor nuisance elements
during regular operations, such as glare from night lighting in
parking or security areas.
• Natural Elements — Trees, grass and other natural features are
valued parts of the visual environment. Some control strategies
will encourage the protection of natural features (e.g., erosion
control). Others will mandate increased planting, or preservation
of existing vegetation to control run-off. In rural areas, control
strategies that replace the natural with man-made landscape
elements can have an important impact upon the area's visual
character.
IMPACT INDICATORS
The selection of impact indicators for this impact category is similar
in nature to the historic resource impact category. Clearly, qualitative
measurement is as important, if not more important, than quantitative consi-
derations. It is essential in visual impact analysis to go beyond the issue
of amount of visual impacts and to consider the type and severity of im-
pacts. In fact, it is probably more appropriate to emphasize the type and
severity of impacts. The quantification of visual impacts resulting from
water quality strategies will often result in meaningless impact indicators.
In general, the use of ordinal type measurement is suggested for
describing visual impacts. Thus for a particular water quality control,
say, a sewage treatment plant, in a particular environment, adverse visual
impacts may be described as follows: slight, moderate, significant. In
certain situations, where a particular water quality control, such as a
sewer interceptor, will affect many locations, it may be appropriate to
quantify visual impacts. For example, the number of unique natural areas
affected by the interceptor would be a useful indicator of visual impact.
PRELIMINARY CONDISERATIONS
The scoping analysis for visual impacts basically must determine
whether changes in the visual environmeent will occur from water quality
264
-------
strategies. The first step in this screening step is to examine in more
detail the characteristics of the control strategy. The water quality
planner must identify aspects of a control strategy that will:
• block views or alter vistas;
• change the visual identity or character of the area;
• be incompatible with nearby development;
• create visual nuisances
• alter the existing balance between natural and built elements in
the area's landscape.
In order to determine whether the proposed project has these character-
istics, the planning agency should use a checklist such as the one presented
in Exhibit 15-1. Because this is only a screening step, a site visit is not
suggested in applying this checklist.
If the strategy appears to have these characteristics and is site-
specific, then it should be mapped. Alternatives that cannot be described
in terms of location should not be considered for further visual quality
analysis.
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
The focus of the assessment process should be to determine the type and
severity of the potential visual impacts. This will require: 1) that the
existing visual environment in the projected impact area be described; and
2) that the projected changes in the environment resulting from the water
quality control be determined and evaluated.
Existing Visual Environment —
There are two issues that will complicate the ability of the water
quality planner to describe the existing visual quality of the area around
the project. One issue is viewpoint. The visual description of an area
will vary with the perspective of the person and will vary over time as the
perspectives of individuals change. Thus, newcomers to a suburban community
from the city, may view their subdivision as "country-like" and in tune with
nature. Older residents in the community may remember the area as a
pleasant idylic meadow before the subdivision spoiled it. The second issue
concerns level of effort. Visual analysis can be time-consuming in the con-
text of areawide water quality planning. Clearly, the planning agency will
have to budget its level of effort for visual assessment carefully with
consideration given to the relative importance of visual issues with respect
to other impact issues.
265
-------
Exhibit 15-1
SUGGESTED CHECKLIST FOR VISUAL IMPACTS
Visual Inoact Factors
Component
Questions
1. Fit with Setting
Massing
Fora
Surfaces
Are the height, bulk, setbacks, site
coverage and open space patterns of
project design compatible with that
of the surroundings, especially at
project edges?
Do major elements of architectural
form — roofline, solid/void relationship,
windows, etc.. correspond to those of
the project's surroundings?
Are the colors, textures and materials of
the project surfaces comparable to those
of the surroundings?
2. Visual Identity
Character
Will the proposed facility constitute
a compatible land use 1n the community;
will It encourage an Increase In the
rate and extent to which undeveloped land
is converted to urban uses7
3. Views and Vistas
Sightlines
Vantages
Vistas
Does the facility design respect sightllnes
from public areas to views valued by the
conmunlty?
Does the facility design conserve a valued
vantage point on-site from which views are
traditionally enjoyed, or does 1t create
one?
Is the facility as a whole compatible with
Its setting where seen from afar? Will It
encourage development that is compatible?
Visual Nuisances
Physiological
Comfort
Physiological
Comfort
Does the facility provide conditions favor-
able to the ease and comfort of sight (no
glare, shadows, flashing lights, etc.)'
Does the facility eliminate or screen visual
nuisances or eyesores?
5 Natural Elements
Conservation
Landscaping
Does the strategy encourage the conservation
or preservation of existing topography, vege-
tation, etc.?
Does the control strategy provide or encourage
the use of new natural features (I.e., planting
shrubs, trees, grass, etc.)?
266
-------
The act of visual assessment is a rapidly developing field. There are
literally scores of techniques that have been suggested and used to assess
visual quality. Three representative techniques that incorporate a range of
staff and community input are shown in Exhibit 15-2. While it is more
desirable to use project area residents for community input, it may be more
appropriate in areawide planning efforts to rely on staff and citizens ad-
visory committee judgements.
Visual Changes —
The most difficult task in visual quality assessment is predicting the
impact of a project before it is actually built. Most project documents —
plans and elevations — are abstractions. Only those experienced in the
interpretation of these technical documents can predict with any accuracy
what the building will be like when it is complete.
In order to gain a more realistic representation of the final product,
a variety of simulation techniques have been developed. Each has its par-
ticular strengths, weaknesses, and usefulness in an assessment. The most
common ones include:
• Rendered elevations, consisting of the building elevation overlaid
with shade and color to represent materials, shadows, landscaping,
etc. These have the advantage of being quick and inexpensive to
produce, but are only as good as their execution. Often the omis-
sion of details will convey a false image of the project — for
instance, windows may be left white, rather than darkened in the
way real windows appear.
Rendered elevations are best suited to representing flat facades or
projects: seen principally from the front — store-front renova-
tions, for instance. For most water quality projects, any of the
following techniques will give a better picture.
• Measured perspectives are the most cost-effective and convincing of
all representation techniques. When carefully prepared, the
resulting sizes, shapes, proportions and juxtapositions are very
much like what one would get in a photograph if the project were
finished. The observer's apparent vantage point can be at ground
level where it should be, and once the drawing is underway, it is
not difficult to add neighboring buildings and landscapes in their
true proportions and location.
Selection of the vantage point is critical to the drawing: van-
tages can be selected to emphasize a project's greatest strengths,
or hide its worst problems. As a general rule, the chosen vantage
should be one from where people will commonly see the project: a
major street or central public space, for example.
267
-------
Exhibit 15-2
TYPICAL VISUAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
to
ff!
CO
METHODOLOGIES
Burke's Photographic
Method
Leopold's Unique-
ness Study
Lltton's Method
CAn:r.(WIES
Series of photographs or
sketches which Illustrate
5 types of views from
roadways.
Physical, biologic and
human Interest features
In 46 categories These
categories are grouped
under landscape scale
(e.g., spectacular scen-
ery, grandeur), degree of
wilderness ami river
characteristics
Visual appearance divided
into landscape, setting
and waterscape units
Each of these units Is
divided Into sub-ele-
ments In which the ele-
ments are rated by uni-
fying visual appearance
using photos, sketches or
written lists.
ASSESSMENT ME IHOP
Each view Is given a numerical
ranking to evaluate how the
landscape deviates from the
"characteristic" view.
M - view Is superior to the
characteristic landscape
c - characteristic landscape
-1 - man-made object Is non
typical but does not
detract
x - zone Is not vlsable
Each item In the baseline Is
assigned a rating based on
how prevalent the features
are in the area (uniqueness)
and the degree of aesthetic
interest
Natural feature components are
rated as to unity, variety, vi-
vidness. Han-made elements are
rated by unifying, focal, en-
closing, organizing and modifying/
enhancing characteristics.
RESOURCES REQUIRED
Staff person with sketching
ability.
Staff person and community
input.
Staff person.
APPLICABII MY 10 HI)M CLAMS
This assessment relies
heavily on staff Judge-
ment and when used for
rural areas in conjunc-
tion with other methodol-
ogies will require sketch-
Ing to project the baseline
Categories used are mainly
applicable to wilderness
areas. However, the me-
thod of uniqueness rating
can be used for the UT]M
assessment with the addi-
tion of community Input.
Technique can provide In-
formation on actual Impacts
of WQH plan. However,
needs to be used In con-
junction with community
Input.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Plans, January, 1977.
Environmental Assessment of Water Quality Management
-------
• Retouched photographs involve taking pictures of the site and modi-
fying them to the project as it will appear. These can accurately
portray surrounding context along with the project design. Modifi-
cations may be quite simple, such as painting over parts of the
picture, or making a drawing to cut out and paste on. For some
projects, dropping in the new building over a photograph is a quick
and inexpensive short-cut to constructing a measured perspective.
There are, however, drawbacks to this technique. For instance, if
the project involves a lot of clearance and the opening of new
vistas, that information will not be in the photograph. Also,
since there are no precisely measurable reference points on a
photograph, it takes a skilled artist to produce an effect that is
both realistic and reasonably accurate.
• Axonometries have no horizon or vanishing point, and are cheaper
and easier to draw than a measured perspective. They appear ab-
stract, however, and their apparent vantage point is above the pro-
ject, not at ground level.
The strength of the axonometric is that it shows spaces, masses and
voids in reasonably accurate relationships over a large area, a
plus for very big projects. Because they are cheap, they are also
useful in analyzing borders of projects in contrast to existing
development.
• Models do what axonometrics do, only better, providing an excellent
overall view of the project. The best models will use realistic
scaled representations of materials, people, trees and cars, and
may seem quite real indeed.
Aside from their high cost, notable drawbacks include the generally
small scales at which models are prepared, and the lack of a van-
tage point on the ground for the observer. These can be overcome
by the use of close up photographs of the model, which observers
"walk through."
When any of these techniques are used, the planning agency should keep
the following in mind:
1. All simulations, no matter what form, should show adjacent off-site
building, landscape and other context elements, unless the purpose
is specifically limited.
2. Accuracy of shape, size and location are more important than fancy
coloring or rendering. Three or four simple but accurate measured
drawings from the most important vantage points will be more useful
than one beautifully colored perspective.
3. Simulations should not introduce wishful elements, like trees
bigger than the project will actually provide, or decorative
sculpture that simply is not present in the plans.
269
-------
4. For most projects, some combination of model and measured perspec-
tive (s) will probably be the best way of representing its real
qualities. If a model is too expensive, then an axonometric is an
inexpensive and useful substitute.
5. Almost any shading or coloring of plans and elevations will be more
informative, for most observers, than unrendered line drawings.
DATA REQUIREMENTS
The data collection burden will vary according to the number of areas
affected by control strategies and the extent of the visual impact issue in
each of those areas. As previously mentioned, it is easy to get quite
involved in collecting and recording data from on-site visits to affected
areas. This obviously will be quite time-consuming if there are a number of
visual impact areas to be assessed. The planning agency should carefully
consider the data requirements for each of the techniques before beginning
any visual assessment. Exhibit 15-3 summarizes data sources.
REFERENCES
Citations
1. Boster, Ron S. "Methodology for Scenic Assessment* in Visual Quality
and the Coastal Zone; Conference Proceedings. State University of New
York, Syracuse, N.Y. 1976, p. 83.
Other References
• Lang, Jon; Burnette, Charles; Moleski, Walter; and Vachon, David
(eds.). Designing for Human Behavior; Architecture and the Behavioral
Sciences. Stroudsberg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. 1974.
• Leopold, Luna. "Landscape Esthetics." Natural History. Vol. 78,
Ho. 4, pp. 36-49 (1969).
• Lynch, Kevin. Managing the Sense of a Region. Cambridge: MIT Press,
1976.
• Washington Environmental Research Center. Aesthetics in Environmental
Planning. Prepared for the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
EPA. Socioeconomic Studies Series EPA 600/5-73-009, November 1973.
• Zube, Ervin H.; Brush, Robert O.; and Fabos, Julian. Landscape
Assessment; Values, Perceptions and Resources. Stroudsberg, PA:
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. 1975.
270
-------
Exhibit 15-3
VISUflL QUJL ITY DATA SOURCES
Data Item
Data Source
Use
Project Area Land
Use Map
See Land Use, Chapter 11
Scoping Analysis;
Existing Visual
Environment Assess-
ment, Leopold's
Uniqueness Study
Project Area Topo-
graphic, Vegetation
and Surface Water
Resources Information
U.S.G.S. Topographic Map
U.S. Soil Conservation
Natural Features Studies
Scoping Analysis
Project Area Existing
Visual Environment
- Type and style of
buildings
- Arrangement of
buildings
- Building materials
- Open space patterns
- Views S vistas
- Significant natural
& physical features
- Existing visual
nuisances
Site Visit/Photographs
or Slides
Site Visit/Sketches
Site Visit/Verbal
Descriptions and Maps
Existing Visual Envi-
ronment Assessment
Project Visual
Characteristics
- Location
- Size of structure
- Height of structure
- Form of structure
- Surfaces of structure
- Fencing
- Natural features
Retent ion
Project Engineer
Visual Changes
Assessment
- Rendered Elevations
- Measured Perspec-
tives
- Axonometrics
- Models
T Retouched Photo-
graphs
271
-------
15.2 NOISE1
IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
"Noise" can be defined as unwanted sound. Sounds become unwanted when
they interfere with people's activities. The nature of noise is by defini-
tion subjective: a sound may be pleasant to one listener and irritating to
another. Among the factors which contribute to an individual's perceptions
of certain sounds as noise are:
• physiological differences in hearing ability;
• a person's expectations and desire for quiet;
• a recognition of the noise source;
• attitudes toward the noise sources that would predispose someone to
tolerate (or be hostile to) the noise.
In addition, the context in which the noise is heard also has a bearing on a
listener's reaction. Noise that interferes with sleep or relaxation may be
perceived as more of a nuisance than noise that interrupts speech, radio or
TV listening or phone conversations.
Impact Issues —
Three types of noise impacts are of concern:
• levels and types of sounds that produce annoyance or dissatis-
faction in listeners (subjective);
• noise that interferes with activities such as sleep or speech; and
• noise that creates physiological impacts, ranging from a startle to
an irreparable loss of hearing.
Water quality strategies will produce these types of noise impacts
through noise-generating activities or equipment. Construction-related
activities and operational activities are two ways of classifying noise
impacts of water quality controls. All of the structural controls, such as
sewage treatment plants, interceptors, stormwater detention facilities,
incinerators, will involve construction phase activities that will produce
noise. Although these impacts will be of a short duration, the construction
equipment and truck traffic may pose severe noise problems for an area.
Operational activities, on the other hand, pose long term noise problems.
There are two types of noise issues within the operational phase of
interest in water quality controls: point source related noise, such as
272
-------
that from equipment (pumps, engines, etc.); and non-point source noise, such
as that from traffic generated by a facility. Examples of the latter
include sewage treatment plants and septage and sludge disposal areas.
IMPACT INDICATORS
Sounds are airborne acoustic signals that consist of small rapid fluc-
tuations of air pressure above the mean atmospheric pressure. There is a
well-developed measurement science for characterizing sound. There are four
noise indicators or parameters that are used in assessing impacts:
• The magnitude of the fluctuation determines the loudness of the
sound. This is measured on a logarithmic scale, in terms of
decibels (dB), and is referred to as the sound pressure level (SPL)
of the signal. A level of dB roughly equals the smallest magnitude
that we are capable of hearing. Because of the logarithmic nature
of the scale, SPL values cannot be added directly where there is
more than one source. A ten-fold increase in the number of iden-
tical sound sources results in an increase in the SPL of 10 dB.
The listener's distance from a sound source will also affect the
magnitude of the noise. Where the sound is a point source (e.g.,
an idling bus), the SPL is reduced by 6 dB with every doubling of
the distance. Where the sound is a line source (e.g., a heavily
travelled highway), a doubling of the listener's distance from the
source results in only a 3 dB reduction in SPL.
• The frequency of the fluctuation determines the tone of the sound.
It is measured in Hertz (Hz), or cycle per second. While the human
ear can hear sounds with frequencies ranging from 30 Hz to 15,000
Hz, we are most sensitive to frequencies in the mid-range. This
bias toward hearing a certain range of frequencies is called the "A
scale" characteristic. Most sounds contain a broad band of fre-
quencies, rather than being made up of a single tone. The most
common method of measuring this range of frequencies of community
sounds is to use electrical filter that has a frequency response
that is the same as the A scale characteristic in conjunction with
a microphone. A meter calibrated in dB is then used to measure the
filtered signal, which is then called the "A-weighted sound pres-
sure level," or dBA. Some typical dBA level values for various
community activities are presented in Exhibit 15-4.
• The variation of sound levels over time will affect the severity of
noise impacts on a community. In a short period of time noise
sources in a community produce a relatively constant sound level.
However, over several hours, the variation in noise produced by
automobile traffic, industrial activities, people's conversation,
birds, etc. can be expected to be significant. In addition to the
variation in background sounds, there are also sounds of short
duration that also must be accounted for.
273
-------
Exhibit 15-4
dBA LEVEL AND RELATIVE LODDNESS OP
Louc
Seal
TYPICAL INDOOR AND OUTDOOR NOISES
ness
e
8 VerX
Loud
4 Loud
Sound
3ressure
Level
—mm 90dBA
Commuter Jet Takeoff at 2000 ft.
Jackhammer at 50 ft '.
• Diesel Train at 50 ft.
Propeller Aircraft Takeoff at 1000 ft.
Diesel Truck at 50 ft.
J SOdBA
Phone ring at 5 ft.
Diesel Train at 200 ft.
Diesel Truck at 200 ft.
2 ^U 70dBA A .. ,
Automobile at 50 ft.
• Typewriter ot 5 ft.
Normal Conversation
1 ^n 60dBA
Quiet Automobile at 200 ft.
1/2 J srunA Crici
-------
A community's total sound signal changes stochastically over time,
as its component sources combine in a quasi-random fashion. This
variation is measured by taking a set number of readings from a
sound level meter over several hours. These readings are then con-
verted to a continuous energy equivalent or LEQ level, which repre-
sents the dBA level of a constant sound which, over the same time
period, carries the same amount acoustical energy as the signal
measured in the community.. Frequently, the specified time period
used is 24 hours; this measure is denoted as LEQ(24). Another
measure which is also frequently used is the day-night equivalent
energy level, or LDN. THis is computed in the same way as LEQ but
includes a 10 dB penalty on SPL values measured between 10 pro and 7
am.
• Our perception of sound is also sensitive to its direction as sig-
nals travel from their source to a receiver. When measuring com-
munity noise levels, it is important to choose a site that allows
the sound to travel freely (i.e. where there are few barriers) or
sound-reflecting surfaces. Directional characteristics of signals
are important in designing mitigation, as dBA levels can be reduced
and/or redirected to a relatively insensitive area through the use
of a variety of barriers.
Appropriate indicators for noise may involve one or more of these
measurements linked to exposure. Useful indicators might include:
• Number of people impacted by a given noise frequency
• Number of people impacted by a given LEQ level
• Area impacted by a given noise frequency
• Area impacted by a given LEQ level
• Type of use impacted by a given noise frequency
• Type of use impacted by a given LEQ level
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Federal Noise Guidance—
The Environmental Protection Agency under the mandate of the Noise
Control Act of 1972 is the lead noise agency at the Federal level. EPA is
authorized under the Act to promulgate noise emission regulations for any
product identified as a major noise source. EPA was specifically directed
to consider products in the following categories:
• Construction equipment
275
-------
• Transportation equipment
• Motors and engines
• Electrical or electronic equipmment
Regulations are gradually being promulgated in each of these areas, but in
most cases, final regulations have not been published.
In addition to dealing with noise emitters at the product level, EPA,
through the Quiet Communities Act of 1978, is attempting to stimulate the
development of state and local noise programs to manage community noise pro-
blems. The 1978 Act is not a regulatory act, but rather uses grants and
technical assistance to encourage state and local noise programs. EPA is
also the coordinating Federal agency on noise assessment criteria.
From the standpoint of the generalized community level assessments
required for water quality management options, the criteria promulgated by
EPA2 gears the assessment to the potential for both indoor and outdoor
hearing loss and activity interference with U)N and LEQ(24) measures. These
criteria, which are presented in Exhibit 15-5, are especially useful because
they are tied to the various types of land uses/activities likely to be
found in a typical community.
Scoping Analysis—
Similar to the Historic Resources and Visual Quality impact categories,
the scoping analysis for noise should focus on eliminating for further noise
assessment strategies that are not site-specific. The assessment of noise
impacts is dependent on the noise sensitivity of an area around a project.
Thus, the first step in the screening analysis is to preliminarily map the
location of water quality projects that are potential noise emitters. In
only the locations around these projects, then, would a screening analysis
take place. A two-staged screening technique is proposed. First, a very
rough approximation of existing community noise levels in the area can be
made based upon measures of population density according to the following
equation:
LDN = 22 + log p
where IDN = day-night energy average noise level measured in dBA, and
p = population density measured in people per square mile.
This equation predicts noise levels for residential areas in "typical" com-
munities, and only indirectly accounts for traffic generated by nonresiden-
tial uses or other community-specific noise sources. Where this step indi-
cates that community noise levels are relatively low (less than 45 dBA),
then the types of land uses in the area should be more closely examined. If
there is any development in the area, then the analysis should proceed to
those steps suggested in Section 15.2.4. If the area is virtually vacant
276
-------
Exhibit 15-5
EPA IDENTIFIED NOISE LEVELS REQUISITE
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY
YEARLY AVERAGE*EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS
REQUISITE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH
AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY
Residential with Out-
side Space and Farm
Residences
Residential with No
Outside Space
Commercial
Inside Transportation
Industrial .
Hospitals .
Educational
Recreational Areas
Farm Land and
General Unpopulated
Land
Measure
Ldn
Leq(24)
Ldn
W24)
Leq(24)
Leq(24>
Leql24)(d)
Ldn
Leq{24)
^(24)
LeqCMXd)
W24)
^(24)
Activity "Hearing Loss ^^^
inter- Considers- gJtnEf-
ferenoe tion . ,..
fects(b)
45
45
(a)
(a)
(a)
45
45
(a)
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
45
45
7Wc)
(a)
70(c)
45
45
7(Xc)
Outdoor TQ pro|ect
Activity Hearing Loss
inter- Consider, J—
ference lion , ,. ,
fects (b)
55
(a)
(a)
55
55
(a)
(a)
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
55
7(Xc)
70(c)
55
55
70(0
70(0
Code:
a. Since different types of activities appear to be associated with different levels, identifi-
cation of a maximum level for activity interference may be difficult except in those
circumstances where speech communication is a critical activity. (See Figure D-2 for
noise levels as a function of distance which allow satisfactory communication.)
b. Based on lowest level.
c. Based only on hearing loss.
d. An Leq(g) of 75 dB may be identified in these situations so long as the exposure over
the remaining 16 noun per day is low enough to result in a negligible contribution to
the 24-hour average, ix., no greater than an LCQ of 60 dB.
Note: Explanation of identified level for hearing loss: The exposure period which
results in hearing toss at the identified level is a period of 40 years.
•Refers to energy rather than jnlhmetio avenges.
277
-------
with no adjacent recreational or agricultural uses, then the planning agency
should consider eliminating the area for further noise assessment. Where
the equation indicates that the community noise levels are already rela-
tively high (above 45 dBA), then a more detailed assessment will probably be
required only in light of additional information regarding specific noise
sources. Generally, this issue is not usually a concern in areas of pre-
dominantly industrial or commercial uses, where overall noise levels are
typically high to start with.
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
The overall measurement approach for noise impacts involves an assess-
ment of existing levels in a project area and an estimation of the changes
in noise levels produced by the project.
Existing Noise Measurement —
Method 1; Mapping Approach
Under this approach, the planning agency relies strictly on in-
house, readily available information to estimate the noise levels of an
area. In the area of the proposed facility, all sensitive receptors by
type are noted: single-family residences, apartments, schools, recrea-
tion areas, etc., with approximate distances to the facility location.
If possible, terrain and vegetation features, such as ground care,
trees, hills, are noted. Finally, likely existing noise sources —
roads, factories, shopping areas — are shown on the map. It might be
possible also to obtain traffic information, if available, for the
area. Using the noise level scale of Exhibit 15-4, make an estimate of
the existing major source dBA level in the project area. It will
probably only be possible to use an estimated range and it will likely
take someone with noise analysis experience to make the estimation.
Method 2; Site Visit Approach
If it is possible to visit a site, it will be possible to obtain a
much better estimate of existing noise levels. Two approaches are
suggested. In one approach, which will be called Method 2A, a small
hand-held sound level meter is obtained and dBA readings are measured
at the site area. Meters may be borrowed from the EPA regional noise
office or the state noise program if one exists. It will be necessary
obviously to obtain advice on the use of these meters. If the noise
issue is a major issue in the overall impact assessment, it probably
will be appropriate to use EPA or state personnel for the actual
measurement. In any case, average readings plus the range of dBA
levels at each location should be measured. Noise contours should be
mapped.
Method 2B assumes the unavailability of noise measurement equip-
ment. In this approach, a qualitative approach is used. A battery-
278
-------
operated cassette recorder is used to record sounds. Sample recordings
should be taken at various location around the site. Use a voice-over
to identify the locations on the tape or gaps in the taped signal (use
the advance button or disconnect the microphone to provide the gap).
Keep a written record of footages, control settings, and other perti-
nent information as an aid when playing back the tape. While a typical
cassette recorder is not a suitable instrument for sound level record-
ings, a cassette recording can still provide useful information about
relative levels, changes in noise level, fluctuation rates and other
qualitative features of the noise climate. In addition to recording
sound levels, take a camera along and take pictures of the area to give
a total stranger a good idea of the total location.
Using the information from Method 2B, have a noise analysis expert
from within the EPA regional noise office or the state noise office
estimate the existing dBA levels in the project site area. If at all
possible, visit the proposed location late at night as well as during
the daytime hours. This is particularly important if there are
residential receptors nearby, as nighttime residential noises are
typically 10 dB or so less than normal daytime levels. If the proposed
wastewater treatment facility is to operate on a 24-hour basis, the
noise impact will be most severe during the nighttime due to the
possible sleep interference effects. It is, therefore, necessary to
quantify the existing community noise level during the critical
nighttime period. If night visit cannot be made, the observed daytime
levels should be reduced by 10 dB to estimate the existing nighttime
noise level.
Estimating Noise from Control Strategies—
Given the level of detail that is likely to be available on the pro-
posed water quality control strategy, it will be very difficult for the
planning agency to accurately estimate the increase in noise emissions from
a particular facility. Two approaches are suggested:
Method 1; Similar Facility Approach
In this method, a facility similar to the one in question is
visited or information about it is obtained from the EPA regional noise
office. If the facility is visited, and noise measurement equipment
cannot be obtained, a subjective estimate can be made which would
include the following information:
What level of noise will the plant generate at some reference
distance? A subjective evaluation — loud (65 dBA or higher),
audible (50 to 60 dBA), or just noticeable (less than 45 dBA) — at
some known distance from the approximate center of the plant, is
suitable here.
279
-------
What frequency content can be expected? Fans, motors, pumps and
other rotating or reciprocating machinery will have pure tone com-
ponents — usually at the fundamental blade passage rate for fans
and compressors. The frequency content of various noises can also
be described by phrases such as "clanging," "whish," "dull roar,"
etc., which give useful hints about the frequency content.
What temporal variations can be expected? Seasonal variations in
operations, number of hours per day and days per week of operation,
plus types of noises — continuous, intermittent, or impulsive —
should be noted. Nighttime operations are particularly important,
if residential receptors are involved. Summer, versus characteris-
tics, are also important, due to windows being open during the
wanner weather.
Directional characteristics should also be noted if they are
obvious. Does an operating facility sound the same on all four
sides, or are different sources audible in different locations?
This type of information can be obtained by just walking around the
outside of an operating plant and carefully listening to the noise
signal at different locations.
Translate the above observations and information to the facility being
assessed. If a visit to a facility similar to the one being assessed is
made, then a hand-held sound level meter, a cassette tape recorder and a
camera can be used in the same manner as in the baseline assessment to pro-
vide a record of noise levels at the "surrogate" facility. It may also be
helpful to visit the project engineer/designer of the "surrogate" facility
to obtain data on emitted noise levels.
Method 2; Control Strategy Performance Information
This method assumes a relatively well-defined facility in which it
is possible to obtain specific information about the equipment to be
used in the facility. A general configuration of the proposed facility
is obtained, along with a description of the major noise emitted.
These times would include ventilation systems, loading areas, falling
water and other possible noise sources. Estimates of noise parameters,
identical to those obtained in Method 1 are then attempted with the
help of a project engineer for the proposed facility.
Impact Determination —
By comparing baseline noise levels with estimated noise levels of can-
didate control strategies, an estimate of the impacts can be made. In
general, an increase in the LEQ(24) or LDN level of less than 5 dBA will
result in only slightly discernible impacts. An increase of 5-15 dBA will
result in moderate impacts, and an increase of more than 15 dBA will pro-
bably be quite severe. While the analysis outlined above should provide
280
-------
enough information for a preliminary assessment and screening, more detailed
evaluation should certainly be undertaken where noise levels are expected to
increase by more than 15 dBA. Where the area may be especially sensitive to
noise impacts (i.e., a low-density residential area may be especially sen-
sitive to increases in nighttime noise levels), an estimated increase in the
range of 10-15 dBA probably should also result in a more detailed analysis.
DATA REQUIREMENTS
The data requirements for noise assessment can be extensive. Thus it
is important to limit the assessment to only those facilities that are
clearly of major concern. Suggested data items and sources are shown in
Exhibit 15-6.
REFERENCES
Citations
1. This section relies heavily on Russell and Ivey. "Chapter 10 - Noise,"
in Environmental Assessment Manual, prepared by Anderson-Nichols, Inc.
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I. June 1978.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with
an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 550/9-74-004. March, 1974.
15.3 ODORS
IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
This impact category is concerned with one of the most objectionable
sensory quality issues often associated with water quality controls —
namely, odors. As with noise impacts, people respond to different odors in
different ways; an odor that annoys some people may cause serious health
problems to others. Generally, the longer the time that odors can be
detected in a community, the greater the number of residents who will notice
them. Thus, a measure of intensity of odors detected in a community may not
be a good indicator of levels of annoyance felt by residents. Rather, for
many water quality problems, the existence of odors is a major indicator of
the existence of the problem. Management strategies should be definition
alleviate these odor problems. However, some strategies — e.g., those
involving land spreading of effluent and/sludge — usually create odors at
the facility site. Others, such as conventional sewage treatment plants,
often produce odors if the facility malfunctions. While facilities are
obviously designed to run well, the facility should provide for odor control
or minimization as a contingency.
281
-------
EXHIBIT 15-6
NOISE IMPACT DATA SOURCES
Data Item
Data Source
Use
Project Area Land
Use Map
See Land Use, Chapter 11
Scoping Analysis;
Existing Noise
Measurement
Assessment, Method 1
Project Area
Population Density;
Topographic and Vege-
tation Information
U.S.G.S. Topographic
Service Map
Scoping Analysis
Project Area Traffic
Information
Local or State Highway
Department
Existing Noise
Measurement
Assessment, Method 1
Project Area Noise
Levels
Site visit/sound level
meter
Site visit/cassette
recorder
Existing Noise
Measurement Assessment,
Method 2
Control Strategy
Noise Emissions
Similar Facility
Actual Facility
Performance Data
Impact Analysis
282
-------
Impact Issues —
Generally, odor situations will be one of two types:
• Acute episodes, where an odor occurring only once and lasting no
more than one day in a three-month period is detectible beyond the
property limits of a source. These are usually the result of
industrial accidents or unexpected malfunctions of industrial pro-
cesses (which could include, for example, sewage treatment plants).
• Chronic situations where odors are discernible beyond the property
limits of a source, lasting for more than one day in a three-month
period or occurring more than once during this period.
Where the odors are caused by measurable quantities of pollutants, an
air quality standard may be violated. However, pervasive odors may also be
caused by immeasurable quantities of emitted substances. Sources of odors
can be categorized as either point, where the type and quantity of the
odorous emission can be identified and where the odor is confined to a spe-
cific area (e.g., industrial stacks or vents), and nonpoint, where the
odorous substance is unconfirmed, such as with the application of wastewater
effluent or sludge to land, or with malfunctioning on-site septic systems.
Generally, chronic situations produce more serious and more widely
spread impacts than acute, or short-term episodes, where impacts are likely
to be temporary discomfort and/or annoyance. Impacts resulting from chronic
situations generally become more severe as the intensity of an odor in-
creases from normal levels. Studies1 have shown that the only measurable
reaction to the vast majority of odor problems is annoyance, although severe
chronic situations produce secondary socioeconomic and health effects, such
as declining property values in areas with a history of odor problems and
increased incidence of respiratory problems in especially severe situations.
IMPACT INDICATORS
Three measures are used to determine the extent of odor problems in
certain areas. These are:
• Intensity of the odor, which is a numerical or verbal indication of
the strength of the smell. This measure is directly dependent upon
the concentration of the "odorant" or substance emitted by the
source. This measure is characterized by evaluative phrases such
as "boy does it stink around here," etc.
• Quality of the odor, which is a verbal description of an odor.
This measure is based upon the vocabulary of the person making the
assessment, and is normally expressed by means of a comparison with
common odors (or odors for which a common name is customarily
used). Exhibit 15-7 indicates several possible verbal scales that
can be used to label various odors.
283
-------
EXHIBIT 15-7
VERBAL ODOR DESCRIPTIONS
Henning's Odor Classification
(a) Spicy: conspicuous in cloves, cinnamon, nutmeg, etc.
(b) Flowery: conspicuous in heliotrope, jasmine, etc.
(c) Fruity: conspicuous in apple, orange oil, vinegar, etc.
(d) Resinous: conspicuous in coniferous oils and turpentine
(e) Foul: conspicuous in hydrogen sulfide and products of decay
(f) Burnt: conspicuous in tarry and scorched substances
Crocker-Henderson Classification
(a) Fragrant or sweet
(b) Acid or sour
(c) Burnt or empyreumatic
(d) Caprylic, goaty or oenanthic
Horstman Classification of Odor Descriptions
(a) Flowers
(b) Pulp mill
(c) Smoke, woodsmoke
(d) Burning leaves
(e) Mustiness
(f) Gasoline
(g) Rendering plant
(h) Rubbish burning
(i) Animal odors
(]) Miscellaneous odors
Source: Copley International Corporation, National Survey of the Odor
Problem, Phase I of a Study of the Social and Economic Impact of
Odors. Prepared for the EPA (NTIS: PB 194 376), January, 1970.
pp. 12-13.
284
-------
• Pervasiveness of an odor, or its ability to spread throughout a
large volume of air and to persist at strengths sufficient to allow
it to be detected over a wide area. A measure commonly used for
this attribute of odors is the dilution threshold, which is an
indicator of the smallest concentration of a substance that can be
sensed under laboratory conditions and is compared with an obser-
ver's perception of the same odor in the field.
It is probably most appropriate to rely on qualitative measurement in
this impact category. Thus ordinal measures such as the following should be
used as indicators: slightly objectionable; moderately objectionable;
highly objectionable. These can be expressed in exposure terns similarly to
the noise indicators along area, population, and type of receptor dimensions.
It is also appropriate to consider frequency considerations in ex-
pressing odor impacts because of the susceptability of water quality con-
trols to climate effects on operational problems. Some example odor indi-
cators then may be expressed as follows:
• 100 acres exposed to moderately objectionable odors
• 75 homes exposed to 3-6 highly objectionable odor episodes each
spring
• Cherry Hill recreation area exposed to continuous slightly objec-
tionable odors
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
The odor assessment should focus on site-specific strategies because of
the location sensitivity of this sensory impact category. Thus, the plan-
ning agency in the scoping analysis should initially map the location of
water quality projects that have been identified in the Impact Identifica-
tion stage as potential odor emitters. Only in the locations around these
projects, then, would a screening analysis take place. Using information on
wind direction and topography and information on worst case situations
involving facilities of similar type and size, an impact area should be
defined in the scoping analysis. Information on odor problems for similar
facilities can be obtained from the regional EPA office, particularly the
Enforcement Division. The best proxies for the facility being assessed will
be those in which meteorological conditions approximate those in the area of
the proposed site. Information will be needed on the types of odors
experienced, intensity of odors with relation to the type of wastes and the
amounts handled, hours of operation of the facility, and the like.
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
The assessment of odor impacts should attempt to refine the area of
influence and attempt to estimate episodes and severity of odor impacts.
Besides using EPA as a resource for defining the odor characteristics of
285
-------
different facilities, the planning agency should also consider contacting
state water pollution control field inspectors and local officials in com-
munities with similar facilities to determine the likely area of influence.
The area likely to be influenced should then be mapped.
DATA REQUIREMENTS
The data requirements for the odor impact category are relatively
modest and are shown in Exhibit 15-8.
REFERENCES
Citations
1. Copley International Corporation. National Survey of the Odor
Problem. Phase II of A Study of the Social and Economic Impact of
Odors. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972, p.
107.
Other References
• Copley International Corporation. National Survey of the Odor
Problem. Phase I of A Study of the Social and Economic Impact of
Odors. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January
1970.
• Copley International Corporation. Procedures for the Identification
and Assessment of Community Odor Problems. Prepared for EPA, October,
1971.
• Goldsmith, John R. Health Annoyance Impacts of Odor Pollution.
Prepared by California Department of Health for U.S. EPA, Human Studies
Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center. EPA-650/1-75-001.
October, 1973.
• Rains, Bernard A. Odors Emitted from Raw and Digested Sewage Sludge.
St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District, Missouri. Prepared for U.S.
EPA, December, 1973.
286
-------
EXHIBIT 15-8
ODOR IMPACT SOURCES
Data Item
Data Source
Use
Project Area
Land Use Map
See Land Use, Chapter 11
Scoping Analysis;
Assessment
Local Climate
Information:
- Annual Precipitation
- Mean Temperature
- Temperature Ranges
- Humidity
- Prevailing Winds
National Weather Service
Local Airport
Local University
Same as Above
Project Area Topography
U.S.G.S. Topographic
Map Service
Same as Above
Characteristics
from Similar Facilities
EPA Regional Office,
Enforcement Division
State Water Pollution
Control Office
Other Local Officials
Same as Above
287
-------
CHAPTER 16
Public Health and Safety
16.1 IMPACT DESCRIPTION
Impact Definition
One of the basic purposes of a water quality strategy is to improve
water quality. In most cases this will have beneficial public health
impacts by reducing or eliminating bacteria and harmful toxic chemicals that
might eventually reach humans.
The discussion in this section is aimed primarily at other public health
and safety impacts, both direct and indirect, which may occur as a result of
the strategy but which are not outcomes for which the strategy was
intended. These other impacts may provide additional benefits and they may
also have harmful negative effects.
Impact Issues
Water quality strategies will pose both measurable public health and
safety effects and potential public health and safety risk issues.
Measurable Public Health and Safety Effects—
Typical public health issues associated with water quality strategies
include:
• Urban stormwater source controls—improved street sweeping and
litter control measures will contribute to environmental health
goals, particularly in urban areas.
288
-------
• Residuals management--may reinforce or improve existing solid waste
disposal facilities and reduce the need for new landfill sites.
• Centralized wastewater treatment plants—may induce considerable
growth and development in an area and result in increased mobile
source air pollution.
• Sensitive area growth management controls—will contribute to
public safety to the extent that development is prohibited in
hazardous areas, such as flood plains and unstable steep slopes.
• Urban stormwater controls—will contribute to public safety to the
extent that downstream flooding is minimized (a rare, but
potentially very valuable impact).
Public Health and Safety Risk Issues—
If water quality strategies are well-defined, the above issues are
reasonably predictable and measurable. The risk-related issues discussed
here are far less predictable; by their very nature they are clouded with
uncertainty. Some of the water quality impact issues that potentially
increase or reduce public safety and health risks include:
• Stormwater detention ponds—may pose safety hazards to neighborhood
children if not properly screened.
• Erosion sediment basins—nay also pose safety hazards to
neighborhood children.
• Reduction in chemicals for highway deicing—may pose additional
driving hazards unless other snow and ice measures are instituted.
• The construction of water pollution control facilities,
particularly sewer line excavation work, involves the risk of
worker accidents.
• The operation and maintenance of water pollution control
facilities, particularly treatment facilities and sewer lines,
involves continual employee risks related to exposure to toxic
chemicals or pathogenic materials.
• For every water pollution control facility there is the risk of
system failure. Depending on the facility and its location,
contamination may pose risks to individuals through a number of
pathways—water-based recreation sites, groundwater contamination,
or food chains.
While it is assumed that water quality strategies will meet water
quality standards, as seen by this above list the implementation of some
289
-------
water quality strategies poses greater environmental risks than others. Of
particular concern are wastewater controls discharging to surface or
groundwater areas used for public water supply. Unless planned fail-safe
mechanisms are inserted in operation and maintenance requirements for
centralized wastewater treatment plans, for example, these facilities may
pose health risks when operating or structural difficulties develop.
Management is also crucial to the operation and maintenance of on-site
systems in order to minimize failure.
Water quality strategies with the greatest potential public health
hazards are land application techniques. When sludge or effluent is applied
to land for disposal and/or agricultural uses, there is an opportunity for
the bacteria and hazardous chemicals in the sludge to eventually reach a
public water supply or recreational water facility. The most common path of
movement to surface waters is with soil by erosion. Although less likely,
hazardous bacteria and chemicals may enter into runoff which feeds into
surface water. Also, the bacteria and chemicals may filter into groundwater
supplies if the soil characteristics are not adequate. Contamination of
water supplies is a very serious matter and any proposed land application of
sludge or effluent must be examined carefully for its potential impacts.
Even if the potentially affected water is not used for drinking purposes,
chemicals may still enter the food chain, and/or the public may be exposed
to bacteria by water contact.
Other hazards associated with land application techniques are:
• Effects on crop quality, especially the absorption of hazardous
chemicals into the crops;
• Transmission of aerosols downwind potentially contaminating people
or other areas;
• Propagation of insects that could be vectors in disease
transmission.
16.2 IMPACT INDICATORS
Measurable Public Health and Safety Effects
Indicators for these effects are straightforward. Examples from the
issues raised in Section 16.1 include:
• number of street miles cleaned per year
• number of tons of street litter collected per year
• number of non-compliant landfills eliminated or upgraded
• increase in capacity (tons/year) of acceptable solid waste disposal
facilities
290
-------
• increase in tons/per year of specific air pollutants (such as HC,
SO2, NO, TSP, etc.)
• amount (in acres) of hazardous areas removed from development
capability
• amount (in acres or property value) of areas eliminated from flood
risk or prone areas
Public Health and Safety Risks
Impact indicators for public health and safety related risks should
encompass the following variables:
• population or resource at risk
• severity of the risk
• probability of the risk
Example indicators, using the issues listed in Section 16.1, include:
• Amount (in acres) of shellfish area exposed to a major wastewater
treatment plant malfunction with a low probability of occurrence
• Number of workers exposed to sewer line excavation accidents with a
moderate probability of occurrence
• Number of households with children living within 500 yards of a
large stormwater detention pond
• Number of highway miles subject to road salt reductions and
increases in automobile accident rates
16.3 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Public health and safety risks discussed in this chapter are probably
the most speculative for water quality planners to deal with in the
socioeconomic assessment process. If anything, by raising these issues you
are likely to spur discussion that may result in either mitigation measures,
monitoring systems, or contingency arrangements being considered to manage
the risks posed by water quality strategies. Mitigation measures that do
reduce or manage risk are likely to be in the form of more sophisticated
operation and maintenance approaches. The greater the detail in a strategy
description including its management arrangements, the greater reliability
you have in doing risk assessments.
Even with highly detailed strategies, risk assessment may represent a
block box in socioeconomic assessments for areawide water quality planning
291
-------
and facility planning efforts. Given the difficulty in doing risk
assessment, it is suggested that your socioeconomic assessment limit risk
assessments to the most important issues. It is possible to categorize and
screen risk assessment issues by looking at the variables of probability of
risk occurrence, risk magnitude, and value of the resource at risk. For
example, given a number of resources at risk you may limit your analysis to
only selected resources, such as drinking water supplies, types of
recreation areas, certain population areas. Given this screening, you would
then categorize the situation using the following matrix:
PROBAB3L ITY OF RISK OCCURRING
Low
Medium
High
RISK
MAGNITUDE
LOW
Medium
High
E
H
For example, you may wish to limit your analyses to situations E, F, H,
and I where both the probability of occurrence and risk magnitude are
"medium" or "high."
16.4 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
Measurable Public Health and Safety Risks
The direct impact issues in this category should be relatively easy to
quantify. If you have a well-defined control strategy, the impacts can be
calculated without much difficulty. For example, the amount of additional
litter that will be collected as a result of urban stormwater source
controls can be calculated by:
1) Estimating the increased level of effort (in street miles or
weather days) associated with the control strategy;
2) Estimating litter collection from past efforts in tons/street mile
or tons/person-day level of effort;
3) Multiplying 1) by 2).
Changes in residuals disposal will depend on the control strategy. For
example, if an incinerator is replaced by a resource recovery facility, you
will want to calculate the reductions in tons/year of air pollutant
emissions. If septage disposal lagoons are replaced by co-treatment
292
-------
strategy at a new regional wastewater treatment facility, you will simply
estimate the number of sites eliminated or the gallons of waste diverted.
Tne most significant indirect impact issue in this category is the air
quality issue. As discussed above, increased air quality emissions will
increase with induced residential and employment growth in the area.
Industry-related air quality emissions are too speculative to estimate at
this point. Emissions related to residential growth are reasonably
quantifiable. New residential growth will cause air pollutant emissions
from:
1) motor vehicle trips related to the new housing,
2) on-site fuel combustion for heating and cooling of the new housing,
and
3) off-site fuel combustion for generating the additional electricity
required by the new housing.
On-site fuel combustion emissions from new housing as well as motor vehicle
emissions will generally be released as an area source, i.e., at a low
density over a large area. By contrast, the off-site fuel combustion for
generating new electricity can be assumed to occur at one or more of the
existing generating stations in the region.
Emissions can be estimated for six different pollutants related to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: sulfur oxides (SOx), total
suspended particulates (TSP), nitrogen oxides (NOX), non-methane
hydrocarbons (NMHC), carbon monoxide (00), and lead (Pb). Bnissions should
not be estimated for ozone (03) since this pollutant is formed in the
atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions. Control
strategies for 03 generally focus on emission rates for NMHC and NOX.
In urban areas, motor vehicles are the principal source of NMHC emissions,
which are also referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOC). Fuel
combustion normally produces small amounts of NMHC. Due to the fact that
existing hydrocarbon emission factors for fuel combustion sources do not
distinguish the methane portion, emission estimates for these sources are on
the basis of total hydrocarbons (HC) only.
The air pollutant emissions estimated by this analysis can be translated
into ambient air quality levels using available computer dispersion models.
However, due to the extensive data input requirements of such models, you
should not attempt to calculate ambient effects unless you have expertise
available that is thoroughly familiar with air quality modeling.
Because of space limitations in this guidebook, the methods for
calculating these air quality emissions are not presented here. The methods
rely on a series of equations and emissions factors. For a 16 page
explanation and examples for these equations, see Urban Systems Research and
Engineering's Secondary Impact Assessment Manual referenced below. The
293
-------
equations and data inputs are quite manageable for both areawide water
quality planning and facilities planning.
Public Health and Safety Risks
The level of difficulty for estimating risks in this impact category
will obviously vary by impact issue. For example, the level of effort
required to estimate the contamination of an aquifer by a large wastewater
land application site is considerably greater than that for estimating risk
associated with not using de-icing chemicals on a particular highway. In
general, though, your analysis will include the generic steps outlined below.
Step 1.; Define the nature of the risk
In this step, you should define as concisely as possible the nature of
the risk:
• type of health and safety effects that are at issue (e.g.,
automobile damage and injuries, food contamination, drownings,
worker accidents, etc.)
• how the effects would occur, i.e., from weather related accident, a
system failure, through normal operation and maintenance
activities, through construction activities, etc.
• the frequency of the risk—chronic, highly variable, infrequent.
Step 2; Define population/resource at risk
In this step, you should attempt to determine how the risk described
above might affect different receptors. Essentially, this step should trace
the pathways that the risk-producing event is likely to follow and then
characterize the population/resource that is at risk. For example, what
would be the implications of a 4-hour or 1-day bypass at a proposed
wastewater treatment facility? How far downstream will there be
water-quality related public health effects? What resources (shellfish
beds, recreational areas) would be affected? Similarly, at a proposed spray
irrigation wastewater disposal site, what direction would aerosols likely
follow? How far would this effect be felt? As seen from these questions,
you will need to coordinate this assessment closely with the environmental
issues and data collected for the proposed water quality strategy.
The description of the population/resource at risk should focus on basic
characteristics. Examples include:
• Shellfish Area
- location
- size of area
- average daily yield (in bushels or dollar value)
294
-------
- consumer market area
• Recreation Area
- location
- type of activities affected
- number and type of users.
• Highway
- location
- area affected
- average daily traffic
• Neighborhood
- location
- population characteristics
Step 3t Determine potential magnitude of risk
In this step, you will want to estimate in, at least a crude fashion,
the likely consequences if a risk-producing event actually occurs. The step
is largely concerned with developing crude damage functions.
An example of a typical S-shaped damage function is illustrated in
Exhibit 16-1. The ordinate or damage can be expressed in a number of terms,
e.g., individuals affected, dollar value, or physical size of aquifer
threatened. The abscissa represents the dosage in terms of time at a given
contaminant, pollution, or accident concentration. The lower portion of the
curve suggests that, up to a certain exposure value, little or no damage is
observed. The upper portion indicates that after a point, increased
exposure does not produce additional damage. Exposure is the integral over
time and of the ambient concentration to which the receptor has been exposed.
In addition to mapping the control strategy, the pathways, and the
receptors at risk, you may estimate the actual magnitude of the risk
consequence by:
• Using existing environmental models (e.g., surface water,
groundwater, or air);
• Interviewing key informants (e.g., state public health specialists,
local board of health officials, local public safety officials).
You will probably have to express any estimates in quantitative ranges
or qualitatively using ordinal measures (e.g., severe, moderate, minimum).
295
-------
Exhibit 16-1
HYPOTHETICAL DAMAGE FUNCTION
Saturation
Level
10
v
en
With Without
Controls Controls
Exposure
296
-------
Step 4; Estimate probability of risk
It is absolutely encumbent in doing risk assessment to factor in
uncertainty. In addition to using uncertainty envelopes above (ranges or
ordinal measures) to describe the magnitude of the impact, you should also
estimate where possible the liklihood of the risk-producing event
occurring. Two approaches are suggested:
• Literature searches and trade association contacts - many of the
activities that may result in a risk-producing event occurring have
some type of statistical evidence associated with them. For
example, the U.S. Department of Labor periodically publishes a
•Handbook of Labor Statistics" which provides data on industrial
accidents. They publish work-injury rates for, among other things,
sewerage facilities (expressed as frequency of accidents per hours
worked).
Similarly, you can contact public agencies and private trade
associations for other accident-related data, such as the National
Highway Safety Board, and a local construction workers trade union.
• Similar facility approach - while the above approach is most useful
for accident-related causes of risk, this approach is more suitable
for water quality control system failures. In this approach, data
is gathered on facilities similar to the one in question. You can,
for example, talk with EPA regional and state officials to
determine the type of problems that are occurring in other
facillities. Differences in staffing and operation and maintenance
should be related to these facility problems. In some cases, the
regional office wil have good aggregate data on permit compliance,
performance, and compliance problems for different types of
facilities. The product of this search should be an estimate of
the frequency of the risk-producing events that you are interested
in, such as number of septic system failures per year involving
breakouts, number of waste-water treatment bypasses per year (or
month) for different types of comparable treatment facilities,
number of aerosol incidents for comparable spray irrigation systems.
Obviously, the validity of this approach is based on using data
from "comparable" facilities. In situations involving performance
evaluation across systems, it is crucial that variables on system
age, size, treatment, and operation and maintenance parameters be
examined closely.
16.5 DATA REQUIREMENTS
The data requirements for this impact category are shown in Exhibit 16-2.
297
-------
EXHIBIT 16-2
Public Health and Safety Data Sources
Data Item
Water Quality Control
Characteristics
Receptor Characteris-
tics (examples:
recreation areas,
farms, fishing areas,
neighborhoods)
Risk Consequences
Risk Probability
Estimate
New Housing Units
Work Trip Length
Residential Trip Gen-
eration Rates
Residential Fuel Use
Power Plant Fuel Use
Solid Waste Public
Services Characteris-
tics
Highway Data for Selec-
ted areas (accident
rate, average daily
traffic)
Data Source
• Facility Engineer
• 208 study
• Local planning
agency
• State natural
resource agencies
• Literature search
• Key informants
• Literature search
• Similar facillities
(EPA, state)
Chapter 11 Analysis
Local transportation
planning agency
Same as above
State Energy Office
Local utility company;
state air pollution
control agency
local department of
public works
Local and State depart-
ment of public work
Use
Determining risk-producing
activities and events
Characterizing population/
resource at risk
Determining potential mag-
nitude of risks
Determining liklihood of
risk occurring
Air density emissions
analysis
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Public Health Benefit
Analysis
Public Safety Analysis
298
-------
16.6 REFERENCES
Guldberg, P. and D'Agostino, R. Growth Effects of Major Land Dae
Projects, Volume II. EPA-450/3-78-014b.Research Triangle Park, NC,
1978.
Hill, D. E., and C. R. Frink. "Longevity of Septic Systems in
Connecticut Soils". Bulletin 747, the Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station. New Haven, CT, June 1974.
Saxton, Gary B., and J. H. Zeneski. "Prediction of Septic System
Failures". Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division. June
1979. pp. 503-509.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of Land Application
Systems, EPA-430/9-75-001, March 1975.
D.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater Effluents; Design Factora-1, EPA Technology Transfer Seminar
Publication, January 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Areawide Assessment Procedures
Manual, Volume I. EPA-600/9—=76-014, July 1976.
Urban System Research and Engineering, Inc. Secondary Impact Assessment
Manual. Prepared for EPA. January 1981.
299
-------
APPENDIX A
Potential Socioeconomic Impacts of
Water Quality Strategies
-------
Appendix A; POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF WATER QUALITY STRATEGIES
A-l INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents a summary of potential socioeconomic issues
associated with alternative water quality control strategies. The
discussion focuses on the thirteen types of water quality controls listed
below:
• On-site and alternative wastewater systems
• Conventional centralized wastewater systems
• Residuals management controls
• Infiltration/inflow and combined sewer controls
• Water conservation controls
• Industrial wastewater controls
• Urban stormwater source controls
• Urban stormwater flow attenuation controls
• Urban stormwater storage and treatment controls
• Urban soil erosion controls
• Agricultural source controls
• Growth management controls
• Hydrographic modifications
This classification scheme is designed to reflect the majority of water
quality issues commonly addressed in water quality managaement planning. It
is not intended to be inclusive. Certain water quality issues such as
silviculture activities are particularly important in certain portions of
the country.
For each of the water quality control categories in this appendix,
examples of water quality controls are presented. Implementation measures
and institutional arrangements, are not developed for each water quality
control category because of the great potential variability at the local
level. The discussion of socioeconomic impacts, however, reflects typical
characteristics of implementation measures and institutional arrangements
that might affect impacts.
301
-------
A-2 ON-SITE SYSTEMS
This control category is concerned with domestic wastewater systems
where the generation, treatment, and disposal of waste is done on-site.
On-site systems have traditionally been perceived by engineers and planners
as a temporary wastewater management control in urbanizing areas to be even-
tually replaced by sewers and centralized treatment. This reasoning was
primarily based on economies of scale, alleged failures with on-site
systems, and groundwater pollution from on-site systems. While many of
these assertions have been true in the past, on-site systems are currently
enjoying a resurgence of interest by water quality planners. This rekindled
interest is in part due to the growing costs—both capital and operational—
associated with conventional centralized sewerage systems. For many com-
munities, there simply is no cost-effective alternative to on-site systems.
On-site systems, if properly installed and maintained, are now seen as
attractive alternatives to conventional centralized systems. The 1977 Clean
Hater Act also recognized the on-site system as a legitimate means of waste-
water management by enabling construction grant funds to be spent on the
rehabilitation or replacement of existing (as of December 31, 1977) indivi-
dual on-site systems if adequate future operation and maintenance of systems
can be demonstrated.
1.0 Control Strategies
Issues to be addressed in the development of on-site control strategies
potentially fall into three categories:
• Siting and installation of new systems
• Repair and/or replacement of existing and future problem systems
• On-going maintenance of all systems
Generally, on-site control strategies will encompass all of these
issues. Some communities may have recently revised their on-site regula-
tions regarding siting and installation but still may have inadequate
measures for continuing maintenance and repairs. It is also likely that
control strategies for any one issue will affect existing controls for the
other issues. In developing on-site control strategies, the planner will
also consider septage control strategies (See A-4).
In addition to the traditional septic tank and soil absorption systems,
on-site systems also encompass less traditional means of disposal and treat-
ment, such as waterless toilets. These include composting, incinerating,
oil flush, and biological toilets. While these waterless toilets
accommodate sanitary wastewater, a separate greywater system involving some
type of soil absorption system is also required to handle other household
wastewater. Waterless toilets are very often used in situations where a
subsurface system has failed and repair is difficult.
302
-------
2.0 Socioeconomie Impacts
The types of socioeconomic impacts associated with on-site systems are
very dependent on the existing performance of on-site systems. The extent
and type of problems with existing on-site system will naturally influence
the type of alternative strategies to be considered. Strategies may encom-
pass minor changes in the management of systems which will influence public
fiscal costs or, at the extreme, they may involve extensive repair and reha-
bilitation programs. Public fiscal, individual costs/benefits, and land use
impacts are the prominent socioeconomic impact issues associated with on-
site systems. Exhibit A-2 illustrates these and other impacts.
3.0 References
1. The recent literature on on-site wastewater systems, particularly the
management aspects, is becoming more extensive. For a comprehensive over-
view, see Hancor Inc., On-Site Waste Management, six volumes, variously
published 1973-77 (available through Fred J. Crates, Director of Wastewater
Management Systems, Hancor, Inc., P. O. Box 1047, Olive and Park Street,
Findlay, Ohio 45840). For the only available bibliography of materials on
on-site management, see Niehus, Don C., "On-Site and Alternative Wastewater
Systems Management," August, 1978 (available from the author, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Facilities Requirements Division, 401 M Street
S.H., Washington, D.C. 20460.
2. See 40 CFR 35 for provisions and constraints on use of EPA funds for
on-site systems.
3. See HUD Handbook 4901.1, Division 15, Vol. 1, April 1977 (revised).
4. The size and type of system will depend on the soil permeability of the
individual site and water quality constraints. Soil permeability will
affect the size of the absorption system and costs may vary from $500 to
$1,200. (These are 1976 costs. See Kriessl, James F., "U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Response to P.L. 92-500 Relating to Rural Wastewater
Problems," in Individual On-Site Wastewater Systems, Nina I. McClelland,
ed., Ann Arbor Science, 1977.) If soil is highly impermeable or high
groundwater is a problem, then only more expensive options are feasible,
such as mound systems or evapotranspiration systems. Because of groundwater
or surface water quality constraints, systems that provide better treatment,
such as aerobic systems, may be required.
Systems requiring larger land areas in conjunction with setback
requirements may increase lot size requirements and thus land costs per
dwelling unit. Water quality constraints may also increase land costs by
requiring larger lots per dwelling unit. The key water quality parameter is
nitrate which is not readily absorbed by the soil. The nitrate load to
groundwater from on-site systems is reduced by decreasing the density of
development.
303
-------
Exhibit A-2
ON-SITE SYSTEMS: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Private Firm Costs
(1) Increases In development
costs for developers
Installing new on-slte
systems
(1) Size and type of system will
affect development costs4
(1) Regulatory requirements will
affect size and type of system
regulatory procedures will af-
fect length of development
process and amount and type of
planning requirements^;
(1) Performance bonds
(1) If regional or state
authorities must approve
systems, review time might be
more lengthy than a local
management agency
Public Fiscal Costs
(1) Increases In regulatory
and administrative costs
(2) Costs associated with
public ownership and
operation of facilities
(2) Size, amount, and type of
facilities
(1) Increased regulatory and
manaqement Involvement will
stimulate hlqher regulatory
and administrative costs
!2) Public purchase of systems
2) Amount of outside cost sharlnq
(1) Distribution of regulatory
requirements among local, re-
gional, and state agencies
will affect local public costs1
distribution of management
responsibilities between home-
owner, private sector, and
public authorities will affect
local public costs
(1) Type and amount of developer
fees and Inspection fees
(2) Distribution of ownership of
facilities between public and
private sector
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Changes In direct capi-
tal costs
(2) Changes In operating
costs
(1) Type of replacement system or
rehabilitation required for
problem systems6
(1).(2) Type and effectiveness of
maintenance practices'
(1) Type and effectiveness of
design/Installatlon/regula-
tlonsB
(1) Public cost sharing will re-
duce homeowner costs of repair
or replacement
(1).(2) Public acquisition
(2) Operation/maintenance require-
ments
(2) Public education
-------
Exhibit A-Z (continued)
ON-SITE SYSTEMS
Direct Impacts
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Land Use
(1) Changes in growth pat-
tern, i.e., the amount,
type, density, location,
and timing of growth9
(1) Type of on-site system used;
use of on-site systems versus
public sewerage facilities
(1) Health codes and regulations
for on-site systems will affec
lot sizes, allowable wastewatei
flows, and the rate of develop'
ment and thus Influences
growth pattern
(1) Public cost-sharing for re-
habilitating or repairing on-
site system problems will af-
fect the economic ability of
some conmunittes and areas to
remain on on-site systems
rather than going to public
sewerage
LJ
o
in
Public Health
(1) Changes in potential
health risks associated
with malfunctioning
systems
(1) Type and effectiveness of
maintenance practices
(1) Type and effectiveness of
design/Installation regulation:
Sensory
151
Odor nuisances
(1) Certain systems, such as
mounds and evapotranspiration
systems, may not be visually
compatible in certain house
lots with the overall land-
scaping
(2) Type and effectiveness of
maintenance practices
(2) Type and effectiveness of
design/installation regulation
Public Services
(1) Changes in groundwater
recharge10
(2) Changes in water con-
sumption demands"
(3) Changes in public sewer-
age need"
(1) Number and density of subsur-
face systems
(2) Size of systems; use of water
conservation devices
(3) Type and effectiveness of
maintenance practices
|2) See Exhibit A-7
Type and effectiveness of
design/installation regula-
tions
-------
u>
o
CT>
Exhibit A-2 (continued) ON-S1TE SYSTEMS
Direct Impacts
Employment
(1) Changes In employment
for administration,
planning, and manage-
ment of on- site systems
Indirect Impacts
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Changes In property
values
(2) Changes In Individual
expenditures for public
services
Housing
(1) Changes In nous 1 no
availability
Employment
(1) Changes In employment
opportunities
Population
(1) Changes In the future
population mix
Characteristics Affecting Impacts
Structural Control /Management
Practice Characteristics
(1) Type and number of facilities
Impact Stimulant
(1) Public health Impacts; sen-
sory Impacts
(2) Public service Impacts
(1) Land use change
(1) Land use
(1) Indirect housing and employ-
ment Impacts
Implementation
Measures
(1) Type and extent of regulations
Institutional
Arrangements
(1) Distribution of responsibil-
ities between the public
sector, and the homeowner
Discussion
(1) On- site systems may have both adverse and beneficial Impacts on
property values. For example, poor system performance will tend
to lower property values In existing development. In general,
. In areas without sewers vacant and suitable For on- site systems
will have higher property values than unsuitable areas. In areas
with sewers, and vacant sewered land, even properties with
adequately performing systems will tend to have lower property
values than sewered properties'3
(2) If demand for public sewerage or for system expansion Is fore-
stalled by adequately performing on-slte systems, the on-slte
property owner will generally benefit by not Incurring sewerage
hook-up costs. Both sewered and non-sewered property owners will
benefit by not having to pay for community-wide costs associated
with a new or expanded public sewerage system. Similarly, changes
In the need for water supply Infrastructure affected by on-slte
systems will also affect Individual expenditures. In both cases,
the type of public financing for public services will affect the
nature and distribution of Individual costs.
(1) As discussed In note 9 , on-slte systems may affect the growth pat-
tern. These effects may be reflected In the location of new hous-
• Ing, In the type of housing, and In the cost of housing.
(1) The effects of on-slte systems on land use nay affect the ability
of an area to attract new businesses and to keep existing
businesses Interested In expanding.'4
(1) Changes In the availability of housing and jobs will affect
population movement within a region.
-------
5. For example, some communities require that soil permeability tests only
be conducted during the wettest months of the year (e.g., April-June).
6. The existing site characteristics, amount of wastewater flow from a
dwelling unit and the type of problem, affect the choice of repair of reha-
bilitation technique that can be used for problem systems. There are basi-
cally two types of problems: continuous problems or occasional problems.
The latter may involve less corrective action and may be related to seasonal
periods of the year or excessive water use. Corrective actions may range
from low-cost water saving techniques to major reconstruction of a system.
7. Adequate maintenance will extend the longevity of an on-site system and
thus decrease a homeowner's capital costs. These capital costs may be in
the form of rehabilitation costs or replacement costs. The longevity of a
system is also dependent on adequate design and installation as discussed
below. For more discussion and verification of the relationship between
system maintenance and system longevity see Clayton, J.U., "An Analysis of
Septic Tank Survival Data from Fairfax County, VA," Journal of Environmental
Health. 36:562-67; Hill, D.E. and C.R. Frink, longevity of Septic Systems
in Connecticut Soils," Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station; Bulletin
747, 1974; Saxton, Gary B. and Zeneski, J.M. "Prediction of Septic System
Failures," Journal of the Environmental Engineering. June 1979, pp. 503-509.
8. Inspections, for example, during the installation are critical to the
eventual success of an on-eite system.
9. On-site systems have been viewed as both a friend and an enemy by those
concerned with the land use effects of wastewater management. For example,
some conclusions from a 208 study on septic systems in Delaware provide one
viewpoint: "In urbanizing areas, septic systems should be considered as a
temporary waste treatment method to be replaced by planned sewer construc-
tion. Liberal septic system policies contribute to urban sprawl, undermine
urban planning,and subsidize fringe growth at the expense of the general
public." (See "Septic Systems: A Case Study," New Castle County Areawide
Haste Treatment Management Program, August, 1977). In contrast to this
sentiment, on-site systems are often viewed by communities as a way to
exclude rapid growth or high density residential development. See Jackman,
R.D., "The Septic Tank's Role in Land Use," Conference on Land and Hater Use
in Oregon, Hater Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University,
Convallis, July, 1974, pp. 69-75; Twichell, J.H., "The Effects of the Use
and Regulation of Septic Tank Systems Upon Land Use in Massachusetts," Hater
Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Publication No. 96,
January, 1978.
Amid these two viewpoints, are a variety of claims and counterclaims
about the growth effects of on-site systems. The differences in opinion
point out the difficulty in making definitive assertions about on-site
systems. There has, in fact, been very little research on the on-site
system/land use relationship that is valid beyond site specific cases. Some
generalizations that can be made include the following:
307
-------
• Any wastewater system will affect the ability of land to be
developed. The extent to which on-site systems affect development
ability depends on the land's capacity for development. This capa-
city may be determined by soil permeability, water quality con-
straints, or other physical constraints. In general, these capa-
city constraints will determine the use and type of on-site system
possible and will be reflected in requirement in health codes and
other regulations.
• The carrying capacity of land is also affected by the land use
controls governing the use of the land. These controls may or may
not reflect the physical and natural limitations of the land for
development. Often development controls or land use regulations
are not in harmony with the development capability of land. Land
zoned for four dwelling units/acre may be only able to support one
dwelling unit/acre. In this particular case, land zoned for one
dwelling unit/acre may in fact be able to support four dwelling
units with on-site systems. In this case, zoning serves as the
development constraint.
• A key consideration in evaluating land use is the demand for deve-
lopment in a community and in a region. The amount of development
demand and community and regional attributes, such as accessibility
to employment centers, natural and man-made amentities, and the
supply of vacant land are major factors influencing growth. In
unsewered areas, the use of on-site systems may affect the distri-
bution of this demand, the amount of development, the type of
development, and the rate of development.
It is clear from the above points that any assessment of the growth
affects of on-site systems can only be made after examining the following
community and regional issues: the demand for development and the factors
that shape development, namely vacant land, natural and infrastructure
development constraints land use controls, amenities, accessibility, and
community growth goals.
10. In developed areas that rely on septic systems and also obtain the
water supply from shallow aquifers underneath the developed areas, the
septic systems serve to recharge household water back to the aquifer. The
removal of this recharged water by public sewerage may have significant
effects on the groundwater levels. Portions of Nassau County, Long Island,
for example that rely on groundwater for public water supply have
experienced a drop in the water table due to sewering. This in turn has
created a salt water intrusion problem. One report projected 5-20 feet
drops in the water table under proposed sewering plans. See Kimel, G.E. and
AW. Harbourgh, "Analog Model Analysis of Hydroligic Effects of Sewerage in
Southeast Nassau and Southwest Counties, " U.S. Geological Survey, Mineola,
NY Open File Report 75:535, October, 1975. A key consideration in this type
of analysis is the amount of groundwater recharge from the domestic
308
-------
watewater compared to the amount of recharge reaching the aquifer from
precipitation and surface water sources. (See Chapter 12, Section 12.4.)
While there may be a positive quantity effects associated with septic
system recharge, there may also in densely developed areas be an adverse
quality affect. See, for example, Smith, S.O. and D.H. Myott, "Effect of
Cesspool Discharge on Groundwater Quality on Long Island, NY,* Journal of
the American Water Works Association, Volume 67, No. 8, pp. 456-458, August,
1957.
11. If water conservation methods are instituted as part of an on-site
wastewater management program, there may be positive effects on reducing the
demand on public water supply (see Exhibit A-7).
12. If on-site system management reduces the number of on-site problems and
failures, it may reduce the need for the extension of public sewerage into
non-sewered areas. It is difficult to see how many on-site failures are
necessary before public sewerage is required. The nature of the problem,
the public health and water quality impacts, the community's development
goals — all must be considered in evaluating whether to correct existing
problems or go to a centralized sewer system. See also "Technical
Memorandum: Determining the Magnitude and Extent of a Need for a Public
Sewerage System," Old Colony Planning Council, May, 1977, for guidance in
determing the on-site system problems.
13. The theory behind higher values is often directly related to the
development potential of the property. A sewered property, for example, has
a greater potential for high density or non-residential use than a non-
sewered property. See Milgram, Grace, The City Expands. Institute for
Environmental Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1967
for a study which used multiple regression analysis to establish the
influence of sewers on land values. Federal regulations, such as those used
by the FHA in evaluating properties, may also tend to increase land values
for sewered property. (See note 3 above.)
In non-sewered developed areas, there also may be differences in pro-
perty values attributable to the performance of on-site systems. In
general, systems that perform will be reflected in higher land values.
However, this may be a difficult correlation to make. For example,
scattered problems on one street may influence the land values on the entire
street.
309
-------
A-3 CENTRAIZED WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
In virtually every areawide water quality study, a new centralizd
waste- water system will be proposed or renovations/expansions to existing
systems will be required. These proposals will form the framework for later
more detailed facilities planning and assessment under Section 201 of the
Clean Water Act. This section outlines some of the generic options that
normally will be considered in the facilities planning portion of areawide
planning. A complete municipal wastewater strategy will also likely include
control techniques from Sections A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7. Thus,
socioeconomic impacts for municipal wastewater strategy would have to be
aggregated across the various components.
1-0 Control Strategies
For the purposes of this socioeconomic impact guidebook, the discussion
in this section will be limited to three types of controls: land application
treatment and disposal systems; conventional treatment and disposal systems;
and transport systems. Distinctions in control techniques within these
general categories will sufficiently distinguish socioeconomic impacts.
Treatment
• Conventional systems, including lagoons, activiated sludge, other
biological systems, physical-chemical systems
• Land application systems, such as irrigation, overland flow, and
infiltration
• Subsurface disposal systems (see A-2)
Collection/Transport Systems;
• Conventional gravity sewers
• Pumping stations
• Small diameter gravity sewers
• Pressure sewers
Increased Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of Facilities;
• Personnel training
• Spare parts management
• Performance monitoring
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
The prinicipal socioeconomic impact issues associated with centralized
wastewater systems are costs, the distribution of these costs to users and
non-users, and land use charges. Exhibits A-3.1, A-3.2, and A-3.3 summarize
310
-------
these impacts as well as several other potential impacts associtated with
centralized wastewater systems. These exhibits consider land application
impacts, conventional centralized treatment and disposal impacts, and col-
lection/transport impacts consecutively.
The growth impacts associated with sewers, as seen in the Exhibits,
have the most significatnt implications. Land use changes may stimulate a
variety of indirect impacts, such as housing and population changes, public
service demand changes, community aesthetic changes, and tax base changes.
Because of the number of changes potentially triggered by growth changes, it
is particularly important for water quality planners to isolate and estimate
growth impacts.
While cost and growth impacts of sewers may have the most
community-wide interest, there may be a considerable number of localized
socioeconomic issues. As seen in the exhibit, these include public health,
sensory, historic, and recreation impacts.
3.0 Exhibit References
1. Climate conditions which may limit continuous land application of
effluent include severe cold when the ground is frozen and high
precipitation periods when the ground is frozen and high precipitation
periods when the ground is saturated.
2. The desired use is one of the most important factors afc'irecting socio-
economic impact. A traditional land application notion is to simply dis-
charge the effluent to some remote site for percolation into the ground.
Other uses, however, clearly see the effluent as a beneficial resource. For
example, potential uses that would enhance natural elements are irrigation
and recreational lakes. Irrigation uses are numerous: public parks, rights-
of-way, golf courses, and crops.
3. Aerosols are microscopic droplets that result from spraying operations.
Aerosol travel and the transmission of pathogens depends on buffer zones,
wind direction, and other climatic conditions. For additional material on
public health issues associated with land application, see Metcalf and Eddy,
Inc., Evaluation of Land Application Systems; Evaluation Checklist and
Supporting Commentary, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
March, 1975.
4. Depending on the type of industries tied into the municpal sewerage
system and the type of pretreatment, there is a possibility of toxic con-
taminants being transmitted into the food chain.
5. Land application may alter groundwater flows and change the groundwater
table as well as the direction of flow.
311
-------
Exhibit A-3.1
Direct Impacts
CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT: LAND APPLICATION: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Stiuctural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Sensory
(1) Increase In odor
nuisances
(2) Changes In local natur-
al elements
(1) Extent to which buffer areas
are Included on site; extent
to which holding ponds are
needed because of climate
conditions^
(2) Use of effluent for Irrigation
or recreational lake purposes2
Ul
»-•
M
Public Health
(1) Increase in potential
groundwater contamina-
tion
(2) Increase In potential
disease vectors associ-
ated with mosquitoes
and rodents
(3) Transmission of patho-
gens In aerosols
(4) Increase In toxic con-
taminants In the food
chain
(D.(2).(3).(4) Adequacy of treat-
ment prior to land application
(3) Use of spray systernsJ
(4) Use of effluent for crops4
(1).(2).(3),(4) Extent to which
monitoring procedures are re-
quired by regulations
Public Services
(1) Augmentation of water
supply sources
(2) Disruption of municipal
water supplies
(3) Change In drainage
requirements
(1) Use of effluent for ground-
water recharge or prevention
of salt water Intrusion; loca-
tion and size of facility;
type of treatment provided
(2),(3) Groundwater conditions at
location; amount of effluent
applied5
(2),(3) Extent to which monitoring
procedures are required by
regulations
Recreation
(1) Changes in water-based
recreational opportun-
ities
(2) Changes In land-based
recreational opportun-
ities
(1) Use of effluent to create artl
ficial lakes
Loss of surface water below6
Extent to which effluent Is ap
plied to existing recreational
uses or is used to create new
opportunities'.
(i)
-------
Exhibit A-3.1 (continued)
CENTRALIZED HASTEWATER TREATMENT: LAND APPLICATION
Direct I reacts
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Managanent
Practice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
il) Pre-emption of land
2) Enhancement of existing
land uses by the waste-
water effluent
(3) Changes In growth pat-
terns. I.e., the amount,
type, density, location
and timing of growth
(1) Amount of land used exclusive-
ly for.land application
systair; multiple use oppor-
tunities
(3) Capacity changes, treatment
changes, facility location
changes will all affect growth
pattern
(1),(3) Cost sharing will affect
facility sizing; regulatory
requirements will affect
capacity, treatment and
location
(1) Type of ownership and opera-
tion! ' of land application
sites
U)
H
Ul
Private Firm Costs/Benefits
(1) Decreased costs for
water supply and
fertilizer for
agricultural users 12
(1) Extent to which wastewater
effluent Is used for Irriga-
tion by agricultural sector
(2) Municipal wastewater flows
diverted from streams may
allow additional industrial
waste load allocations to
occur
(1) Agreements between municipal-
ity and users of wastewater
effluent
(I) Type of ownership and opera-
tion of land application
sites (see note ")
Fiscal
(1) Increases In capital
and operational costs
associated with the
facility
(2) Increase In revenue
from sale of wastewater
effluent
(1) Size and type of facility
(2) Use of wastewater effluent
(1) Costs affected by amount of
outside cost sharing; compli-
ance requirements of state
and federal regulations
(2) Regulations and permit condi-
tions may affect use of
wastewater effluent for
Irrigation or other uses
(2) Existence of contracts/agree-
ments with users of waste-
water effluent
(1) Type of ownership and
operation of land application
sites (see note 11)
Employment
(1) changes In construction
and operation employ-
ment opportunities as-
sociated with the treat
ment facility
(1) Size and type of facility
-------
Exhibit A-3.1 (continued)
CENTRALIZED WASTEUATER TREATMENT: LAND APPLICATION
Indirect limiacts
Land Use
(1) Change In land uses
adjacent to land ap-
plication site
Impact Stimulant
(1) Sensory Impacts; public health
impacts
Discussion
(1) The frequency and magnitude of sensory and public health Impacts
may disrupt existing neighboring land uses or they may alter
proposed development In the Impact area around the land applica-
tion site.
Public Fiscal
!1) Loss of tax revenues
2) Changes In public
service costs
(1) Loss of taxable land for land
application site
(2) Public service Impacts
(1) As Indicated In note 10, thts Impact depends on whether the land
application site Is publicly or privately owned
(2) Possible changes In public expenditures for recreation, water
supply, and drainage may result from Impacts on these public
services
Individual Cost/Benefit
(1) Changes In homeowner
wastewater user charges
or property taxes
(2) Decrease In property
values adjacent to land
application site
(1) Public fiscal costs
(2)
Sensory Impacts; public health
Impacts
(1) See Section 3 for a discussion of public financing mechanisms
and effect on users and non-users.
(2) The Impact on land values due to sensory Impacts will likely be
limited to a small area around the land application site. Public
health Impacts, on the other hand, may be more wide spread and
land value changes more difficult to determine.
Population
(1) Changes In the popula-
tion pattern
(1) Changes In community growth
patterns
(1) To the extent that sewer capacity affects local and area growth
patterns—location, type, and amount of growth, there may be
changes In future population amounts and types.
(See Chapter 11 and note 17 below.)
Employment
(1) Changes In employment of
firms tied Into mu-
nicipal wastewater
system or firms using
the wastewater effluent
(1) Private firm costs/benefits
(1) Changes in the cost of wastewater management for firms tied Into
municipal system may be reflected In plant closings, reduced
employment, or new plants moving Into the area. (See
Chapter 9.)
Private Firm Cost/Benefits
(1) Changes In wastewater
treatment costs for
firms tied Into
municipal system13
(1) Public fiscal costs
(1) Changes In a treatment facility costs will be reflected In changes
In wastewater costs and property taxes for Industries. The type
of public financing and the use of economic Incentives will
determine the type of cost effects for private firms.
-------
Exhibit A-3.2 CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATHENT: CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT DISPOSAL SYSTEMS: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Hananement
Practice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrannements
(1) Changes In odor
nuisances
(2) Changes In visual
nuisances; Increase In
visual conflicts; visual
changes In natural
elements
(3) Changes In noise
nuisances
(1) Type and effectiveness of 0AM
practices; extent to which
buffer areas are used
(2) Type of facility design;
extent to which buffer areas
are used; amount of construc-
tion-related and operation
traffic
(3) Extent to which buffer areas
are used; amount of construc-
tion-related and operation
traffic
(1) Type and effectiveness of
design/Installation require-
ments
(1),(2),(3) Zoning ordinance
Public Health/Safety
(1) Increase In municipal
facility operational
accidents
(2) Changes In potential
health risks associated
with malfunctioning
sys terns
(?) Type and effectiveness of O&H
practices
(1) Amount of technical assistance
received; extent to which loca
sewer use ordinances restrict
toxic materials entering the
system
(2) Type and effectiveness of
design/installation require-
ments; allowed users down-
stream from facilities^
Public Services
(1) Changes In local water
consumption demand'-"
(2) Changes in local solid
waste disposal demand
(1) Type of water conservation
devices used (See A-7, Water
Conservation)
(2) Type of sludge management
techniques used (See A-4.
Residuals Management)
(1) Type of pricing mechanisms or
other water conservation
Incentives used (See A-7,
Water Conservation)
Recreation
(1) Changes in water-based
and land-based recrea-
tional opportunities16
(1) Size and location of a facility
-------
Exhibit A-3.2 (continued)
CENTRALIZED HASTEHATER TREATMENT; CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Direct Impacts
Employment
(1) Changes In construction-
related employment
(2) Changes In employment
associated with
municipal wastewater
management
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
(1),(2) Size and type of munici-
pal facility
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
(2) Distribution of functions
among levels of government
Land Use
(1) Changes In growth pat-
terns. I.e.. the amount
type, density, location
and timing of growth*?
(2) Pre-emption of land
(1) Facility staging (design life
and reserve capacity); type of
treatment; service area size
and location; extent of
regionalIzatlon
(2) Amount of land used exclusive-
ly for facility
(1) Cost sharing will affect
facility sizing and service
area; compliance requirements
of state and federal regula-
tions will affect capacity,
treatment and location
(2) Type of public financing
mechanism
Public Fiscal
(1) Changes In capital and
operational costs
associated with the
municipal facility
(1) Facility staging (design life
and reserve capacity); type of
treatment; service area size
and location; extent of
regionallzatlon
(1) Type and amount of outside
cost sharing; compliance
requirements of state and
federal regulations
(1) Amount of public ownership of
sewerage facilities; type of
public financing used
Individual Cost/Benefit
(1) Change In property
values of sewered
property owners18
(1) Changes In capacity will
affect sewered land,
particularly sewered vacant
land
Indirect Impacts
Impact Stimulant
Discussion
Housing/Population
(1) Changes In the avail-
ability of housing;
changes In population
mix and amount'9
(1) Changes In community growth
pattern
(1) The land use changes stimulated by public sewerage may affect the
type, density, amount, and location of housing which will In turn
affect population movement. (See Chapter 11.)
-------
Exhibit A-3.2 (continued)
CENTRALIZED HASTEHATER TREATMENT: CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Indirect Impacts
Impact Stimulant
Discussion
Recreation
(1) Alteration of recrea-
tion uses adjacent to
municipal treatment
facilities
(2) Changes In demand for
recreational facilities
(1) Sensory and public health
impacts
(2) Population Impacts associated
with land use changes
(1) The location of a treatment In a recreation area may affect
adjacent recreational experiences.
(2) Population changes will affect recreation demand.
Private Firm Cost/Benefits
(1) Changes In wastewater
costs and tax burden
for firms connected to
municipal systems
(1) Public fiscal costs
(1) Changes In a treatment facility costs will be reflected In
changes In wastewater costs and property taxes for Industries.
The type of public financing and the use of economic Incentives
will determine the type of cost effects for private firms.
(See Industrial Wastewater Controls. A-5.)
Employment
(1) Changes In employment
for existing firms af-
fected by private firm
wastewater costs
(2) Changes In employment
due to accelerator
effects
(3) Changes In employment
due to multiplier
effect
(1),(2) Private firm costs
First and second-order employ-
ment changes
(1) These Include reductions and expansions in employment for existing
firms and job losses from outright plant closings
(2) Certain Industries may move to an area In response to relative
changes In locatlonal attributes such as the availability and cost
of wastewater capacity (see Volume II, Section 4).
(3) The demand for labor, land, or materials related to a strategy will
create new demand for other goods. Firms moving Into or leasing
an area will also stimulate secondary employment changes.
(See Chapter 9.)
Public Services
(1) Changes in demand for
all community public
services
(1) Land use, housing, employment,
population impacts
(1) The changes In community growth may affect the demand for public
services and the performance of existing public services. (See
Chapter 12.)
Public Fiscal
!1) Changes in tax base
2) Changes In public
service revenues/
expenditures
(1) Fmployment changes; land use
changes
(2) Changes In public services
demand
(1) The loss or Increase of firms will affect the Industrial tax base
In the area. In addition, tax base changes will also result from
houslng/pouplation changes.
(2) Changes In public service demand may have mixed effects on public
revenues/expenditures. (See Chapter 7.)
-------
Exhibit A-3.2 (continued)
CENTRAL 17ED HASTEHATER TREATMENT: CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Indirect Impacts
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Changes In wastewater
costs
!2| Changes In tax burden
3) Changes In property
values adjacent to
treatment facilities
Impact Stimulant
Public fiscal costs
Changes In tax base produced
by land use and employment
changes; changes In public
fiscal costs for public
service
(3) Sensory or public health
Impacts
Discussion
(1) The distribution of wastewater costs to Individual properties will
depend on the type of public financing used.
(2) Changes In land use, particularly Industrial and commercial land
use. will affect existing residential tax burden. Taxes will also
be affected by public service demand charges.
(3) Adjacent properties may be adversely affected by the operation and
location of treatment facilities.
Sensory
(1) Changes In the visual
character of the
community
(1) Land use changes
(1) Land use changes that affect the amount, distribution, type, and
location of growth may have both positive and adverse effects on
the visual quality of an area. (See Chapter 15.)
Public Health
(1) Changes In air quality
CO
(1) Changes In the growth of an'
area
(1) Changes In land use, particularly In Industrial and commercial
uses, will Increase or decrease stationary sources of air
pollutants. Changes In the growth pattern will also affect
air pollution from mobile sources. (See Chapter 16.)
-------
u
!-•
vo
Exhibit A-3.3 CCNTPALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT: COLLECTION/TRANSPORT SYSTEMS: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Sensory
(1) Increases In noise
nuisances
(2) Increases In visual
nuisances; Increase 1n
visual conflicts;
visual changes ID
natural elements2"
(3) Changes In odor
nuisances
Public Health
(1) Disruption of rodent
nests along rivers and
waterways
Historic Resources
(1) Changes In the number,
type, location, use,
and character of
historic, archaeologies
and architectural
resources2'
Public Services
(1) Increased demand on
traffic control during
construction
(2) Disruption of ground-
water supply sources22
Private Firm Costs
(1) Disruption of existing
business activities23
(2) Changes In development
costs for subdivision
developers
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
(1) Amount of construction
activity
(2) Use and design of pumping
stations; construction
activity disruption; location
and use of above-ground pipes;
extent to which buffer areas
are used
(3) Type and effectiveness of O&M
processes; extent to which
buffer areas are used
(1) Construction activity;
location of pipes
(1) Construction activity;
location of pipes
(1).(2) Construction activity;
location of pipes
(1) Construction activities
Implementation
Measures
(2), (3) Type and effectiveness of
design/Installation require-
ments
(2) Local subdivision requirements:
local urban service or capital
facilities expansion require-
ments
Institutional
Arrangements
(2) Distribution of construction
responsibilities between
developer and public sector
-------
10
o
Exhibit A-3.3 (continued) ', CENTRALIZED WASTEHATER TREATMENT: COLLECTION/TRANSPORT SYSTEHS
Direct Impacts
Land Use
(1) Changes in the growth
pattern, I.e., the
amount, type, density,
location, and timing
of growth24
Recreation
(1) Changes In water-based
and land-based recrea-
tion opportunities
Public Fiscal
(1) Changes In capital and
operational costs
associated with
facilities25
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Change In property
values of sewered and
previously unsewered
properties26
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural lontrol/ManageiiienT
Practice Characteristics
(1) Facility stagfng(desfgn life
and reserve capacity); loca-
tion of pipes; types of
sewer lines used; extent of
regional izatfon
(1) Location of sewer pipes
(1) Facility staging (design life
and reserve capacity); loca-
tion of pipes; type of sewer
lines used; extent of
regional Izatlon
(1) Location of sewer lines
• Implementation
Measures
(1) Sewer extension regulations/
policy; cost sharing; com-
pliance requirements of state
and federal regulations
(1) Cost sharing; compliance
requirements of state and
federal regulations
Institutional
Arrangements
(1) Type of public financing
mechanisms
(1) Distribution of construction
responsibilities between
public and private sector;
type of- public financing used
INDIRECT IMPACTS
Indirect Impact Issues for sewer lines will be similar to those for treatment facilities.
-------
6. In areas where municpal discharges are transferred from surface water
to land application areas, the flow loss may be significant enough to affect
downstream recreation activities.
7. The use of effluent in public parks or golf courses may cause some dis-
ruptions. In general, where effluent is applied to land for reclamation or
reforestation purposes, there will be positive recreational benefits. These
will stem from increases in wildlife and vegetation. One of the most publi-
cized land application systems in this country in Huskegon, Michigan reports
new hunting activities, cross country skiing, and snowmobiling opportuni-
ties. See Mummert, P., "Recycled Wastewater Turns Muskegon's Economic
Tide," ASFO Planning. August, 1978.
8. Soil types will have a major influence on the type of land application
technique used — rapid infiltration, overland flow, or spray irrigation.
The type of technique will in turn affect the amount of land needed. Rapid
infiltration requires far less land generally than the other two techniques.
9. The sewer/growth issue is, of course, one of the principal socio-
economic impact issues in areas experiencing growth pressures. There are
several variables that affect this impact issue including: existing
development constraints, the amount of additional capacity, the location,
existing and proposed collection sewers, other growth constraints, and the
timing of construction of the sewerage facilities. See note 17 below.
10. Many sewer commission or state regulations require that properties
abutted by sewer lines tie into the sewerage system. The type of public
financing, particularly the use of betterment assessments, will also affect
the development of vacant land along the sewer line. See Chapter 2 on
public financing mechanisms. Communities may also use phased infrastructure
planning under a capital inprovement program to coordinate growth and
sewers. See A-13.
11. There are numerous institutional arrangements that will affect this
impact as well as public fiscal costs. In this particular impact, the
ownership of the land is a key issue. If the land is owned by a public
agency, the land may be considered pre-empted from other uses and taken off
the tax rolls. The preemption issue may be muted, however, by any revenue
derived from the land or by recreation uses possible on the site. In
addition, the public agency may own the land and obtain revenue by leasing
it.
12. In arid and semi-arid areas, the wastewater effluent may be viewed as a
cheap or no-cost source of irrigation.
13. Depending on the previous costs for wastewater management, the new
alternative may increase or decrease the cost of wastewater management for
firms tied into the public system.
321
-------
Additional Land Application References
Seabrook, Belford L., "Land Application of Hastewater with a
Demographic Evaluation," in Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land, National Association of State
Universities and land Grant Colleges, July, 1973.
Schmidt, C.J. and D.E. Ross, Cost-Effective Analysis of Municipal
Wastewater Use, Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
WPD-4-76-92, April, 1975.
winn, Walter T., et.al., Recreational Reuse of Municipal Wastewater,
Texas Tech University, Water Resources Center, July 1973.
Sullivan, Richard, H., M.M. Cohen, and S.S. Baxter, Survey of
Facilities Using Land Application of Wastewater, prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, July 1973.
14. Some states, such as Rhode Island, automatically classify water down-
stream of sewage treatment plants Class C in order to minimize public health
problems if a facility malfunctions.
15. In areas that have been traditionally using on-site systems and where
system performance is sensitive to water consumption, the implemention of a
pubic sewerage system may stimulate increased domestic per capita water con-
sumption. This hypothesis has not received adequate study. For one view-
point, see Goldrosen, John, "Water Supply Impacts of Sewers," in
Alternatives to Sewers; Conference Proceedings, Old Colony Planning
Council, Brockton, MA, December 1976.
16. Above and beyond the recreational benefits of cleaner water that may
occur, there may be both positive and adverse recreational impacts asso-
ciated with the treatment facility. For example, the treatment plant site
may provide or close off access to a waterfront area.
17. The effect of sewerage on land use is perhaps one of the most contro-
versial socioeconomic impact issues in water quality planning. While there
has been an increase in recent literature attempting to explain the rela-
tionship, the actual land use effects of sewerage are difficult to predict
because of the numerous variables involved. For recent research and dis-
cussion on the topic see the following: Tabers, Richard D., et al., Land
Use and the Pipe, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1976; Bascom, S.E., et
al., Secondary impacts of Transportation and Wastewater Investments; Review
and Bibliography, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1975; Urban
Systems Research & Engineering, Inc., Interceptor Sewers and Suburban
Sprawl; The Impact of Construction Grants on Residential Land Use, Volume
I; Analysis, Council on Environmental Quality, September 1974; Downing,
Donald, "The Role of Water and Sewer Extension Financing in Guiding Urban
322
-------
Residential Growth," Water Resources Research Center Report No. 19,
University of Tennessee, June 1972. (See also Chapter 11 of this
guidebook.) Not surprisingly, each of the above studies have determined
that sewer investments are key factors in shaping development.
18. If treatment plant capacity serves as a development constraint in
sewered areas, then capacity expansion will tend to increase property values
on vacant land.
19. As discussed in note 17, sewerage will affect the developability of
vacant residential land. This may mean an increase in housing opportunity—
both single family and multi-family units—in a community. The cost and the
mixture of this housing will directly affect the type of population groups
that will move into a community. Young families and other low income groups
may find it difficult to move into a community where there are few multi-
family units or low cost single family housing. This is, of course, a key
socioeconomic issue in many communities where sewers are being proposed.
The automatic response in some communities is to equate sewers with "low-
income housing projects". Sewers may be rejected by these communities or
sewer moratoria instituted as exclusionary devices.
20. Generally, the permanent visual issues of transport systems are asso-
ciated with pumping stations, particularly where they are located in resi-
dential areas or in scenic areas. The construction of sewer lines, however,
may also involve long-term alteration of the landscape. In addition, in
some stream and river areas, the use of gravity systems will dictate cros-
sing a river above ground rather than going below the stream bed. This can
cause a permanent visual conflict.
21. The presence of historic resources is, of course, a necessity for
impacts to occur in this category. The extensive landscape alteration asso-
ciated with sewer line construction makes this a high potential impact
issue. In particular, archaeological remains are often located near stream
beds which is also an area where gravity sewer lines are often located.
Excavations for sewer lines in developed historic areas may also result
in subsidence problems for adjacent properties. (See Chapter 14.)
22. Trenches associated with sewer line construction, particularly deep
trenches for interceptors, may siphon off groundwater by diverting ground-
water down the length of the sewer pipe. This may alter groundwater flows
and in turn affect public and private wells located in the aquifer. Check
dams at intervals along the pipe length may be required to prevent this
phenomenon.
Areas using pressure sewers or vacuum sewers will be less susceptible
to this problem because of the small trench depths. See Kriessl, J.F.,
"Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Technology Transfer, EPA-625/4-77-011, October 1977.
Trenchless sewer construction techniques may also be possible for collector
323
-------
sewers to minimize groundwater disruption. See Beetschen, L.J., "Evaluation
of Trenchless Sewer Construction at South Bethany Beach, Delaware," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/2-78-022, March, 1978.
23. The construction of sewer lines in commercial areas will involve
traffic and parking disruption that may temporarily affect adjacent
businesses.
24. See note 17 for land use impacts associated with sewer line extensions
and financing. Generally the use of alternative sewer collection systems—
pressure sewers, vacuum sewers, and small diameter gravity sewers—will
allow less excess capacity to be built into the collection system because of
the smaller pipe sizes. A community may be able to limit growth associated
with sewers, if desired, by using these alternative collection systems.
25. The primary factor in sewer line costs is the excavation cost which
will vary by subsurface conditions and by type of area. There may be very
high costs associated with construction in developed areas due to costs
associated with locating and protecting other utilities and minimizing
public convenience. Alternative collection systems are likely to have
cheaper capital costs than conventional gravity lines because of cheaper
excavation costs and pipe costs.
26. As discussed in note 17, sewer lines will tend to increase the develop-
ment potential of abutting land, particularly vacant land. Higher values
may also be attributed to sewered developed land than unsewered developed
land because of the ability of sewers to remove the wastewater disposal
problem off-site.
324
-------
A-4 RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT
Sludge and septage management issues are important considerations in
the selection and evaluation of wastewater management strategies. The
treatment and disposal of residuals from both conventional sewerage systems
and on-site systems be considered simultaneously in the planning for
wastewater effluent treatment and disposal.
Of major concern in sludge management is the presence of heavy metals
and other toxics. The ability to use land application of sludge, particu-
larly for crops, is directly related to industrial waste loads. The dis-
position of sludge, then, is tied to the extent to which source controls and
pretreatment measures are implemented by industries as required by local and
federal regulations.
1.0 Control Strategies
Treatment technologies for both sludge and septage are fairly extensive
as seen below. Ultimate disposal, however, for both residuals is limited-
options are land disposal oriented. Ocean dumping is no longer acceptable
under the 1972 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (P.L.
92-532) and remaining ocean disposal practices are being phased out. The
removal of this alternative will place even greater strain on land disposal
options.
Sludge Treatment/Disposal Options
Treatment Disposal
• Dewatering: —sand drying beds
—drying lagoons
—centrifugation
—vacuum filtration • landfill
• land application
• Stabilization: —incineration
—chemical oxidation
—chemical treatment
—aerobic/anaerobic
treatment
325
-------
Septage Treatment/Disposal Options
Treatment
Disposal
L iguid
Landfill
Lagoon
Wastewater treatment plant
Composting
Chemical oxidation
Sand drying beds
Land application
Ground percolation
Ground percolation
Surface water; subsurface
disposal; land application
Evaporation
Wastewater treatment
plant; subsurface disposal
Ground percolation
Ground percolation;
evapotranspiration
Solids
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Land
Landfill; land
reclamation
Landfill
Land
For the purposes of identifying socioeconomic impacts in this section,
the impact discussion will be limited to the two major disposal options —
landfills and land application. In addition, impacts associated with
incinerators will also be identified.
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
Since these structural controls generally involve public ownership, one
of the important socioeconomic impact issues will be public fiscal costs.
Public acceptance of these controls, however, will likely center around the
sensory and public health impacts. The traditional perception of these
facilities as nuisances makes theses socioeconomic issues primary candidates
for special attention prior to public presentation. Summaries of the poten-
tial socioeconomic impact issues associated with incinerators, landfills,
and land application (sludge) are presented in Exhibits A-4.1, A-4.2, A-4.3,
respectively.
3.0 Exhibit References
1. Characteristics of the sludge and wind direction are also important in
affect-ing the impact.
2. It may be economically practical to build a facility for use on a
regional basis. In this case user fees from outside the locality could be
used to pay the facility costs. The extent to which non-local users and
commercial interests would use the facility would depend on how cost compe-
titive the facility is with other regional and non-local alternatives.
3. See discussion under note 11, A-3.
326
-------
Exhibit A-4.1
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT: INCINERATION: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Sensory
(1) Increases In odor
nuisances
(2) Visual conflict In fit
with setting
(3) Increases In visual
nuisances due to traffic
to the facility
(1) Operating and maintenance
characteristics^; stack height
(2) Stack height
(3) Location with respect to
residential areas
(1) Extent to which enforcement
takes place to Insure adequate
operation and maintenance
(2) Extent to which visual crlterl
required In design review
Public Health
(1) Increase In potential
air pollution problems
(1) Operating and maintenance
characteristics
(1) Performance requirements of
federal and state air
regulations
Public Services
(1) Increase In multiple use
possibility for local
solid waste management
(1) Extent to which design 1s com-
patible with residential solid
waste processing
Public Fiscal
(1) Increase In capital and
operational costs
associated with facility
(2) Increase In revenues
from non-local and
commercial user fees2
(1) Size and type of facility
(1) Costs are affected by amount
of outside cost sharing; com-
pliance requirements of State
and federal regulations
(2) Regulations and permit condi-
tions may affect type and
amount of users
(2) Existence of long-term con-
tracts with private sector or
other communities
(2) Extent to which state regula-
tions are enforced to close
cheaper alternatives (dumps)
that are In non-compliance
with environmental regulations
(1) Type of ownership and
operation ; type of public
financing used
-------
U)
to
09
Exhibit A-4.1 (continued) RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT: INCINERATION
Direct Impacts
Employment
(1) Changes In construction
and operation employ-
ment opportunities
associated with the
incinerator
Indirect Impacts
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Increase in homeowner
wastewater user charges
and/or property taxes
(2) Decrease In land values
Public Fiscal
(1) Decrease In overall
solid waste expenditures
Land Use
(1) Changes In existing or
expected growth pattern
in surrounding area
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
(1) Size and type of facility
Impact Stimulant
(1) Public fiscal costs
(Z) Sensory Impacts; public health
Impacts
(1) Public service Impact
(1) Sensory Impacts
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Discussion
(1) See Chapter 2 for a discussion of public financing mechanisms
and effect on users and non-users. The Impact on land values, if
there are sensory Impacts, will be confined to a small area around
the facility. Obviously, the siting process will attempt to avoid
residential areas to avoid these Impacts.
(1) If the Incinerator Is designed to treat residential and other
solid wastes In the community, it may reduce capital and operating
costs associated with other facilities In the community
(1) The Impact of the facility on neighboring land uses will depend on
the existing land uses In the area, i.e., whether they are com-
patible uses, such as industrial; whether the facility is being
built In a new location; and the severity of the sensory impacts.
-------
Exhibit A-4.2
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT: LANDFILLS: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
(1) Increases In odor
nuisances
(2) Increases In visual
and noise nuisances due
to traffic to the
facility
(1) Operating and maintenance
characteristics
(2) Location with respect to
residential areas
(1) Extent to which enforcement
takes place to Insure adequate
operation and maintenance
Public Health
(1) Increase In potential
disease problems due to
rodents
(1) Operating and maintenance
characteristics
(1) Extent to which enforcement
takes place to Insure adequate
operation and maintenance
to
vo
Public Services
(1) Increase In demand on
existing solid waste
management facilities
(1) Extent to which use Is made of
existing solid waste facili-
ties; amount of sludge/septage
In relationship to existing
capacity of solid waste
facility
Public Fiscal
(1) Increase In capital and
operating costs associ-
ated with facility
(2) Increase In revenues
from non-local and
cornnerdal user fees
(see note 2)
(1),(2) See discussion for
Incinerator alternative
(1),(2) See discussion for
Incinerator alternative
Land Use
(1) Pre-emption of land for
public landfill
(1) Size and location of facility
-------
Exhibit A-4.2 (continued)
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT: LANDflLLS
Indirect Impacts
Impact Stimulant
Discussion
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Changes In homeowner
wastewater user charges
or property taxes
(2) Decrease In land values
(1),(2) See discussion for
Incinerator alternative
(1),(2) See discussion for Incinerator alternative
Public Fiscal
(1) Increase In overall
solid waste expendi-
tures
(1) Public service Impact
(1) To the extent that sludge and septage disposal present Increased
demands on existing landfills used for solid waste disposal,
additional capital and OtM costs may be Incurred.
Land Use
(1) Changes In existing or
expected growth pattern
In surrounding area
(1) Sensory Impacts
(1) See discussion for Incinerator
U)
o
-------
Exhibit A-4.3
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT: LAND APPLICATION: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Increases In odor
nuisances
Increases In visual and
noise nuisances
associated with truck
traffic
(1) Extent to which buffer areas
are Included on site; extent
to which holding ponds are
needed because of climate
conditions
(2) Extent to which trucks, barges
or pipelines are used to ship
sludge to site
u>
LJ
Public Health
(1) Increase In potential
groundwater contamina-
tion
Increase In potential
disease vectors associ-
ated with mosquitoes
and rodents
Increase In toxic
contaminants In the
food chain
(2)
(3)
(1),{2),(3) Adequacy of
stabilization prior to land
application
(3) Use of sludge for crops
(1).(2).(3) Extent to which
there are adequate pretreat-
ment regulations; extent to
which monitoring procedures
are required by regulations
(1) Pre-emption of land
(2) Land reclamation
(1) Amount of land used for land
application
(1) Type of ownership and opera-
tion of land application
sites3
Recreation
(1) Changes In land-based
recreation opportunities
(1) Extent to which effluent Is
applied to existing recrea-
tional uses or Is used to
create new opportunities^
Private Firm Costs/Benefits
(1) Decreased costs for
fertilizer for
agricultural users
(1) Extent to which sludge Is used
by agricultural sector
(1) Agreements between municipal-
ity and agricultural users
(1) Type of ownership and
operation of land application
sites5
-------
LJ
U
N>
Exhibit A-4.3 (continued) RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT: LAND APPLICATION '
Direct Impacts
Public Fiscal
(1) Increases In capital
and operational costs
associated with the
facility
(2) Increase 1n revenue fron
sale of sludge
Indirect Impacts
Land Use
(1) Changes In land use
adjacent to land
application site
Public Fiscal
(1) Loss of tax revenues
Individual Cost/Benefit
(1) Changes In homeowner
wastewater user charges
or property taxes
(Z) Decrease In property
values adjacent to land
application sites
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
(1) Size of facility
(2) Use of sludge
Impact Stimulant
(1) Sensory Impacts; public health
Impacts
(1) Loss of taxable land for land
application sites
(1) Public fiscal costs
(2) Sensory Impacts; public health
Impacts
Implementation
Measures
(1) Costs affected by amount of
outside cost sharing; com-
pliance requirements of state
and federal regulations
(2) Regulations and permit
conditions may affect use of
sludge for other uses
(2) Existence of contracts/
agreements with users of
sludge
Institutional
Arrangements
(1) Type of ownership and
operation of land application
site6; type of public fin-
ancing used. (See Chapter 2)
Discussion
(1) The frequency and magnitude of sensory and public health hazards
may disrupt existing neighboring land uses or they may alter
proposed development In the Impact area around the land
application site
(1) This Impact depends on whether
publicly or privately owned
the land application site Is
(1) See Chapter 2 for a discussion of public financing mechanisms
and effect on users and non-users.
(2) The Impact on land values due to sensory Impacts will likely be
limited to a small area around the land application site. Public
health Impacts, on the other hand, may be more widespread and
land value changes more difficult to determine.
-------
4. See discussion under note 4, A-3.
5. See discussion under note 10, A-3.
6. See discussion under note 10, A-3.
333
-------
A-5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER OONTOLS
1.0 Control Strategies
While the list of control options below appears to be fairly extensive,
many existing firms have rather limited abatement options because of their
location, their production process, and their investment in existing abate-
ment controls. For example, a firm discharging to a river in a heavily
urbanized city generally does not have the option of discharging to land.
User charge and pretreatment requirements as originally formulated by
P.L. 92-500 were intended to distribute the water pollution abatement finan-
cial burden to firms in an equitable manner. Despite these attempts, con-
siderable variation exists in the actual costs each firm must pay. This is
particularly true for firms tied into municipal systems. Some municipal
facilities are located in water quality-limited stream reaches and face
relatively stringent effluent limitations. Some public facilities are small
and consequently they do not benefit from scale economies.
While local water quality planners may develop plans proposing alter-
natives for industries or develop implementation measures to guide their
decision, the actual response by an industry will be largely based on the
firm's internal analysis of the economic impacts of a variety of alter-
natives. These options may include one or more of the structural control/
management practices listed below, non-compliance, business shutdown,
decrease in business size, product or process changes, business relocation,
or product price increases. Alternatives include:
• Pretreatment and discharge to municipal system
• Treatment and direct discharge to surface water
• Treatment and direct discharge to land
• Treatment and direct discharge to injection wells
• Joint pretreatment and discharge to municipal system or directly to
surface water.
In some industrial areas, plants in the same industrial sector tend
geographically to cluster together. Examples include the jewelry
industry, automobiles, steel, and food processing. Such geo-
graphical proximity may make joint treatment an attractive and
feasible option.
• Process controls
Faced with stringent effluent requirements and rising treatment
costs, it may be cost effective for many industries to consider a
variety of process changes to supplement end-of-the-pipe pollution
abatement techniques. An industry may reduce its waste in several
ways:
334
-------
Water Reuse - This is particularly relevant for cooling water, For
example, the meat processing industry has been able to substan-
tially cut its wastewater by connecting to air cooled condensing
systems or shell and tube condensing systems rather than barometric
condensers.
Water Conservation - The major water using industries in the
country—food, textiles, chemicals, pulp and paper—all are poten-
tial industries for water conservation. As wastewater user charges
and water intake prices increase, process changes to achieve water
conservation become more desirable. At the present time, several
water conservation demonstration projects are being conducted in
the food processing industry.
Waste Segregation - Many industries find it possible at minimal
cost to reduce waste load concentrations by separating wastes from
the effluent stream. The residuals could then be managed as a
solid waste problem or, if feasible, used in a product recovery
operation.
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
Depending on the amount of industry in a local area, the actions taken
by firms with respect to industrial wastewater may have resounding socio-
economic implications in an area. The type of action that a firm will take
in response to potential increased costs will be affected by several
factors: plant efficiency, plant size and age, firm size, market position,
profitability, capital structure, and production processes. Depending on
the action by the plant, the types of major indirect socioeconomic impacts
that may occur include: employment changes, public service demand changes,
land use changes, and public fiscal changes.
Because of the significant socioeconomic implications associated with
plant closings, EPA in conjunction with the Department of Labor maintains an
Economic Dislocation Early Warning Systems (EDEMS) which attempts to monitor
and track job losses attributable to EPA pollution abatement programs.
Information on plant closings attributable to EPA water pollution abatement
programs is available from the EPA regional offices.
Because this guidebook is geared to local socioeconomic impacts, there
is no attempt to deal with national or multi-regional impacts. For example,
one of the responses of a local firm to water pollution requirements is to
simply pass along the costs to consumers. While these higher prices are a
socioeconomic issue, they are beyond the scope of the guidebook.
Exhibit A-5 summarizes some of the potential socioeconomic impacts
associated with industrial wastewater controls.
335
-------
Exhibit A-5
Direct Impacts
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER CONTROLS: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOHIC IMPACT ISSUES
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
w
Private Firm Costs/Benefits
(1) Changes In wastewater
management costs for
direct dischargers
(2) Changes In solid waste
management costs
(3) Changes <1n water supply
costs
(1),(2) Joint treatment may offer
economies of scale; process
controls may reduce size and/or
type of treatment facility
(2) The removal of wastes via pro-
cess controls will Increase
Industrial solid wastes
(1),(2).(3) EPA/state NPDES permit
new source performance stan-
dards; local waste load alloca
tlons; availability of techni-
cal assistance; extent to whicd
state and federal tax and loan
Incentives are used
Public Fiscal Costs
(1) Changes In public waste-
water management costs
(1) Amount and type of Industrial
waste load connected to mu-
nicipal system; size of mu-
nicipal facility; extent to
which process controls are usec
(1) EPA and local pretreatment
regulations; Industrial cost
recovery formula; type of sewer
user charges; type of water
price structure used6
(1) Amount of distribution regula-
tory/enforcement functions;
type of financing used
Land Use
(1) Increases In existing
industrial land use
(2) Redlstributlon-of indus-
trial land use'
(1) Expansion due to industrial
wastewater control technique
(e.g., direct land application
of industrial wastes)
(2) Capacity of municipal treatment
facility; availability of joint
pretreatment facilities
(1) EPA/state NPDES permit; local
waste load allocations
(2) ICR; EPA and local pretreatmen
regulations; municipal user
charges; water use pricing
structure
Public Services
(1) Changes in local water
consumption demand
(2) Changes In solid waste
disposal demand
(1),(2) Use of process controls
(1) ICR; municipal user charges;
water use pricing structure
(2) EPA and local pretreatment
regulations
-------
OJ
Ul
Exhibit A-5 (continued) INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER CONTROLS
Direct Impacts
Employment
(1) Changes In construction-
related employment
(2) Changes In employment
associated with munici-
pal wastewater manage-
ment
Indirect Impacts
Employment
(1) Changes In employment
for existing firms af-
fected by Industrial
wastewater controls
(2) Changes In employment
due to acceleration
effect
(3) Changes In employment
due to multiplier effect
Public Fiscal
ill Changes In tax base
2) Changes In public ser-
vice revenues/expendi-
tures
Private Firm Costs/Benefits
(1) Changes In wastewater
management costs for
firms connected to mu-
nicipal systems
Individual Costs/Benefits
11) Changes In tax burden
2) Changes In wastewater
costs
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/ManagemenT
Practice Characteristics
(D.(2) Type and size of Industrial
facilities and municipal
facilities accomodatlng Indus-
trial waste
Impact Stimulant
(1).(2) Private firm costs
(3) First and second-order employ-
ment changes
(1) Employment changes; land use
changes
(2) Changes in public service
demand
(1) Public fiscal costs
(1) Changes in Industrial land use;
public service demand
(2) Public fiscal costs
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Discussion
(1) These Include reductions and expansions In employment for existing
firms and Job losses from outright plant closings.
(2) Certain Industries may move to an area in response to relative
changes In locatlonal attributes such as the availability and cost
of wastewater capacity (see Volume II, Section 4 ).
(3) The demand for labor, land, or materials related to a stragtegy
will create new demand for other goods. This Indirect demand,
or multiplier, will stimulate further employment changes.
(See Chapter g.)
(1) The loss or Increase of firms will affect the Industrial tax base
In the area. In addition, tax base changes will also result from
population changes stimulated by direct and Indirect employment
changes .
(2) The changes In public service demand may have mixed effects on
public revenues. A decrease In water use by Industry, depending
on the pricing structure, may significantly decrease revenues.
(1) Changes In a treatment facility costs will be reflected In changes
In wastewater costs and property taxes for Industries. The types
of public financing and the use of economic Incentives will
determine the type of cost effects for private firms.
(1) Changes in the Industrial tax base will likely affect the tax bur-
den of residential. These tax base changes could, however, br off-
set or Intensified by changes In public service demands. For exam-
ple, an Increase in industrial tax base could be offset by Increas-
ed costs for a new municipal water suoolv well.
-------
3.0 References
1. Write the Industrial Development Research Council, Conway Research,
Inc., Peachtree Air Terminal, Airport Road, Atlanta, Georgia for information
on individual state pollution control incentives.
2. The 1977 Clean Water Act instituted an "EPA Civil Penalty Policy* for
firms that have delayed compliance with regulations. From an economic point
of view, it is generally in a firm's best interest to delay the commitment
of funds for pollution abatement equipment. EPA has devised complex for-
mulas for calculating the "economic benefit" of delayed compliance to deter-
mine the fee to be charged a firm. See Bureau of National Affairs, "The
Environment Reporter: Current Developments," October 13, 1978, p. 1146.
3. ICR charges may have mixed results. Theoretically, they are designed
to equalize capital costs between direct discharges and industries connected
to municipal systems. At first glance, however, the economies of scale
offered by a municipal system and the interest-free aspect of ICR would tend
to favor industries connected to municipal systems.
4. Sewer user charges may increase industrial wastewater costs but they
may also serve as an incentive to reduce waste generation and thereby reduce
overall wastewater costs. See, for example, Bundgaard-Nielsen, M., "A Note
on the Use of Economic Incentives in Water Pollution Abatement," Water
Resources Bulletins, August, 1976, pp. 755-758. Herzog, H.W., "Economic
Efficiency and Equity in Water Quality Control: Effluent Taxes and Infor-
mation Requirements, "Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2,
1976, pp. 170-184.
5. Similary higher water prices may increase industry's water supply costs
to a point, but they also may serve as an incentive to reduce consumption
and thereby lower overall water supply costs.
6. See Exhibit A-7.
7. The availability or lack of availability of industrial wastewater capa-
city in an area may serve as one of many locational attributes affecting the
location of firms.
338
-------
A-6 INFLTRATION/INH-OW AND COMBINED SEWER CONTRCLS
During intermittent wet weather events, the capacity of public sewerage
systems is frequently overtaxed by excessive flows. These flows are often
bypassed by the treatment plant and discharged directly without treatment.
These excessive flows are the result of several factors: combined sewers;
inflow due to direct connections between the sanitary and storm sewers,
improperly located sanitary sewer manholes, or downspouts connected to the
sanitary system; and infiltration due to high groundwater levels and leaky
sewer pipe joints.
1.0 Control Strategies
Alternatives include:
• Sewer Separation - This approach involves the construction of
separate sewers to transport sanitary wastes to a wastewater treat-
ment facility. While providing the most satisfactory solution with
respect to handling of sanitary wastes and the proper operation of
wastewater treatment facilities, sewer separation does not contri-
bute in any way to stormwater management.
• Flow Control - In-line devices are used to regulate sanitary sewage
flow during dry weather providing periodic flushing of the combined
sewers preventing the build up of solids. Systems have been pro-
posed using various types of flow control devices including gates
and inflatable dams. An advantage of the flow control option is
that the same equipment could be used to control stormwater flows.
However such in-line storage of combined sewer effluent would only
be useful for relatively small storms for which the in-line capa-
city of the system were not exceeded. Large storms would result in
discharges.
• Detention - Provision of sufficient end-of-the-pipe detention would
ensure that the initial, highly contaminated slug of storm water
from a combined sewer would not be discharged to the stream.
Instead, the wastewater would be stored until it could be dis-
charged to the wastewater treatment facility at an acceptable
rate. Detention measures include underground tunnels and tanks or
surface ponds and basins.
• Separate Storage/Treatment- - A final approach involves the separate
treatment of all combined sewer effluents during storm periods.
This approach can be combined with detention or flow control tech-
niques. Treatment generally involves mechanical separation of
solids, such as using swirl separators, and disinfection. Such
limited treatment of combined sewer effluent may not provide the
maximum protection from contamination by sanitary wastes. However
it may be a very effective way of reducing the impact of storm
water. In some cases the net result may be that limited treatment
of combined sewer effluent may provide the best overall protection
of water quality.
339
-------
• Inflow - The strategies to deal with inflow can be structured
similarly to those for combined sewers, except that sewer
separation would not apply.
In many cases surveys will indicate that the few major inflow pro-
blems, such as storm pipe construction, are contributing to the
majority of storm flow to the sanitary system. In such cases, the
actual reconstruction/correction of the problem may be desirable.
Disconnecting individual drain spouts that drain into the sanitary
sewers from buildings may also be verified by the field survey as
an effective means for reducing storm flows. In still other cases,
there may be hundreds of points in the system where flow is
entering. In these situations, it may be more cost-effective to
consider end-of-the-line approaches, i.e., increase capacity of
storage/treatment facilities.
• Infiltration - Groundwater infiltration occurs either through holes
in the sewer pipes or, more likely, through poor connections
between pipes. The principal solutions are to reline portions of
the system with polyethylene pipe for example; to replace problem
pipes and connections; or to regrout pipe connections. This tech-
nique can be very cost-effective, but may be limited to areas where
a portion of the system has to be replaced because of overloading.
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
Socioeconomic impacts in this control category primarily result from
storage/treatment facilities and sewer system rehabilitation projects.
Storage/treatment impacts are similar to those discussed in A-10. Sewer
system rehabilitation projects encompass infiltration connections, inflow
connections, and sewer separation. Impacts stem primarily from the con-
struction aspects of those projects as well as from the costs associated
with those projects.
Of the sewer rehabilitation controls, sewer separation will
particularly effect traffic in heavily travelled areas. A more serious
public service impact may occur in aquifer recharge areas used for municipal
water supply. Any type of sewer rehabilitation work in these areas may
disrupt normal groundwater flows as well as pose contamination problems.
The limited amount of cost sharing for sewer rehabilitation projects may
mean significant public fiscal cost impacts and consequently significant
individual cost impacts. It is because of these cost-related impacts that
sewer rehabilitation alternatives do not generally fare as well as
end-of-the-line storage/treatment alternatives in alternatives evaluation.
340
-------
3.0 General References
Weston, Roy P., Inc. Combined Sewer Overflow Alternatives. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1970.
Amy, G. et al. Water Quality Management Planning for Urban Runoff.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
Poertner, H.G. Practices in Detention of Urban Stormwater Runoff; An
Investigation of Concepts, Techniques, Applications, Costs, Problems,
Legislation Aspects and Opinions. American Public Works Association, 1974.
341
-------
A-7 DOMESTIC WATER CONSERVATION
While water conservation strategies are currently receiving
considerable attention in terns of water supply management, there is also a
growing interest in using them as a wastewater management technique. Water
conservation strategies can be used to reduce sanitary wastewater flows to
both public facilities and to private on-site sewerage facilities. Thus,
they can supplement control strategies discussed in Section A-2 and A-3.
The 1977 Clean Water Act (F.L. 95-217) calls for more consideration of water
conservation alternatives than has been given in prior water quality manage-
ment planning and should provide an incentive for the active consideration
of water conservation strategies.
The discussion in this section is limited to domestic water
consumption; industrial water consumption has a different set of demand
curves than individual households. While not explicitly considered in this
section, many of the impacts discussed would also apply to large water-using
institutions as hospitals, schools and group living quarters.
1.0 Control Strategies
There are literally hundreds of water-saving devices that are commer-
cially available or will soon be available. A few generic types are listed
below. Except where noted, most of these would be applicable to both pre-
construction and existing development.
• Water-saving toilets which are similar to conventional types but
which use up to 40% less water per flush
• Water-saving appliances, such as dishwashers, clothes washers, and
showerheads
• Pressure-reducing valves which can be incorporated at the main
service pipe in a house to reduce pressure for all household uses
• Non-water using toilets, such a compost toilets, oil recycling
models, and incinerator toilets
• Correction of household plumbing leaks
• Water closet devices, such as plastic bottles, specially-fired
bricks, or dams, which displace capacity in the water closet
(primarily for retrofitting existing development)
• Faucet and showerhead inserts (primarily for retrofitting existing
development)
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
There are four principal socioeconomic impact issues associated with
domestic water conservation strategies: private firm (developer) costs for
new development; individual costs/benefits; public expenditures/revenues;
and public services demand. Each of these is briefly examined in Exhibit
A-7.
342
-------
Exhibit A-7
DOMESTIC HATER CONSERVATION: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOHIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Characteristics Affecting Impact
"StniCturalControl/Management Prac-
tice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Private Firm Costs/Benefits
(1) Changes In development
costs'
(1) Amount and type of water-savinc
devices Installed In new
development Mill affect costs
(1) Regulatory requirements for
performance of water-using
appliances In new development
will affect costs
*>.
u
Public Services
(1) Reduced consumption de-
mands on water supply
Infrastructure2
(2) Reduced wastewater flow
demands on sewerage
Infrastructure3
0).(2) Type and amount of fixtures
Installed or fixed In the
household will affect amount of
water savings'!
(1).(2) Extent to which voluntary
or mandatory techniques are
used; extent to which public
sponsorship or retrofitting
devices is done for existing
development; use and type of
pricing mechanism^; extent to
which strategies are geared to
new development or existing
development.6
Public Fiscal
(I) Changes in water and
sewer revenues
(2) Increases in regulatory
and administrative costs
(3) Costs associated with
public retrofitting
(1) Type and amount of conservetior
fixtures used in the household
will affect water savings and
thus revenues derived from
water use7
(1) Extent and type of pricing
mechanisms used
(2) Extent to which strategies are
geared to new development
(3) Extent to which retrofitting
measures are publicly sub-
sidized
(2) Extent to which regulatory and
administration costs are fin-
anced by public funds or
through permit fees
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Changes water and sewer
user costs
(2) Increases in landscaping
damage costs8
(3) Increases in retrofit-
ting costs
(1) Type and amount of fixtures
used in the household will
affect amount of water savings9
and user costs
(3) Type of retrofitting undertaken
will affect capital costs
(D.(2).(3) Extent to which volun-
tary or mandatory techniques
are used; use and type of prlc
Ing mechanisms'0; extent to
which strategies are geared to
new development or existing
development
(3) Extent to which public sponsor
ship of retrofitting devices 1:
done for existing development
-------
Exhibit A-7 (continued)
DOMESTIC WATER CONSERVATION
Indirect Impacts
Impact Stimulant
Discussion
Land Use/Housing
(1) Increase In new housing
costs
(I) Private firm (developer) costs
(1) This Impact reflects the passing along of water conservation-re-
lated costs to new home buyers
Public Fiscal
(1) Changes In capital and
O&H costs for water
supply and sewerage
Infrastructure
(1) Public services demand changes
for water supply and public
sewerage
(1) As discussed In note 2, the effects of water conservation strate-
gies on water supply and sewerage Infrastructure are dependent on
many factors. Because of fixed costs associated with operating
these Infrastructure, small flow reductions may not affect OSM
costs. Water conservation strategies may, however, favorably
affect maximum day and peak demands or enable certain capital
costs to be postponed.
-------
3.0 Exhibit References
1. Developers are affected by pre-construction water conservation require-
ments. The costs of installing water-saving toilets and shower heads vary
across the country. While they are generally cost competitive with conven-
tional fixtures, they may represent additional costs to the developer. In
any case, these additional costs are incidental in the context of overall
housing costs. Furthermore, these costs will be passed along to the buyer.
2. The benefits of water conservation to the local water supply system are
dependent, of course, on the existing demands on the system as well as the
effectiveness of the conservation strategies. Theoretically, in systems
where existing consumption demands are straining capacity, reductions in
demand may postpone system investments. There may be little effect, how-
ever, in systems with substantial capacity. The most promising infra-
structure benefit associated with water conservation is the reduction of
seasonal peak demands. The latter require substantial capital investments
in order to meet an infrequent need. Seasonal peak demand are flattened
out, however, most effectively by outside water bans. These are general
responses to crises situations rather than permanent behavior changes.
3. As in the case of water supply infrastructure, water conservation stra-
tegies may potentially reduce the demands on public sewerage facilities.
The impact is dependent on the amount of flow reduction achieved, the number
of homes using public sewerage facilities, and the capacity of the facili-
ties relative to the flow reduction.
4. Toilet and shower flows represent about 75% of indoor water use. (See
Milne, Murray, Residential Water Conservation, prepared for Office of Hater
Research and Technology, March, 1976.) Thus, conservation strategies that
emphasize these fixtures will enable fairly significant flow reduction to
occur. See also Cohen, J. and Wallman, H., "Demonstration of Flow Reduction
From Households," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Protection Technology Series, National Environmental Research Center,
Cincinnati, 1974.
5. Water is generally an inexpensive commodity and user charges associated
with it generally represent only a small portion of household expenses.
Therefore, small price increase are generally not successful in altering
domestic water demand. Consumer responsiveness to price increases generally
depends on price elasticity. Many water use studies have shown that
consumption necessary for basic indoor uses is price inelastic, i.e., higher
prices will have negligible effects on demand. Studies have also shown that
the demand for water used outside the house is more elastic than the demand
for water used inside the house. Seasonal peak demand rates if restrictive,
can affect seasonal demands that result from more elastic outdoor water
use. Socioeconomic status also affects demand—more affluent families use
more water because of more appliances, pools, cars, and bigger lawns. (See
345
-------
for example, Lupsha, P.A., et al., "Rain Dance Doesn't Work Here Anymore, or
Hater Use and Citizen Attitudes Towards Water Use in Alberguerque, New
Mexico," University of New Mexico, Alberquerque, New Mexico, 1975; Aboot,
E., et al., Social Aspects of Urban Water Conservation, Century Research
Corporation, Arlington, VA., 1972; Linaweaver, R.P. and Howe, "The Impact of
Price on Residential Water Demand and its Relation to System Design and
Price Structure," Johns Hopkins University, 1967.)
In general price mechanisms may increase water conservation by reducing
elastic uses, such as outdoor uses. Small changes in the price of water are
not likely to cut into inelastic demand and induce consumers to change their
behavior.
6. The effectiveness of conservation strategies is dependent on the amount
of water demand desired to be affected. Strategies designed to affect pri-
marily new housing development in relatively stable population areas will
affect only a small portion of overall demand.
7. The decrease in water revenues brought about by water conservation
strategies may not be favorably viewed in communities with high fixed
costs. In particular, communities that have recently invested in
improvements are looking for increased revenues to pay off the debt service
charges.
8. Outside water bans may produce these costs.
9. See also note 4. For homeowners with private on-site systems, flow
reductions will generally benefit septic system maintenance costs. If the
overall household waste volume is reduced, there will be a longer retention
time for the wastewater in the septic tank. This will enable the septic
tank to perform its basic function, i.e., the settling of solids, in a more
efficient manner. This will reduce the chance of solids entering the
leaching field (where leaching fields are used) and clogging the field and
causing premature failure.
10. As discussed in note 5, water user costs represent a small percentage
of family income. Thus, increased user costs will not represent a large
cost incidence. For low income families, however, demand reduction savings
may not offset price increases because their demand is relatively
inelastic. The effect of different pricing mechanisms are shown in the
following graphs:
346
-------
The decreasing block rate, widely used in this country, reduces the
incentive for water conservation and benefits larger water users such as the
affluent. The consumer under this scheme pays one price for a certain quan-
tity of water and then pays a lower price for any water used beyond this
quantity. Under the flat rate and increasing block rate, costs increase
with quantity consumed and provide an incentive for conservation. The
increasing block rate, however, is more equitable to poorer and fixed income
consumers than the flat rate.
Flat Rate
Increasing
Block Rate
Decreasing
Block Rate
-------
A-8 URBAN STORMWATER SOURCE CONTROLS
For many urbanized and urbanizing areas, it may simply be impractical
from a cost point of view to implement large-scale structural solutions for
stormwater pollution. As discussed in A-10, there are also other important
socioeconomic issues associated with end-of-the-line structural solutions.
Source controls may represent very attractive alternatives to these struc-
tural controls—particularly in selective urbanized watersheds that have
been identified as critical to water quality.
The purpose of source controls is to prevent pollutants from being
washed from impervious surfaces into local waterways. Typical preventative
approaches in stormwater management include:
• Removing surface pollutants before they are washed into the
drainage system (e.g., street sweeping)
• Preventing precipitation from coming into contact with materials
that could potentially be transformed into water pollutants
(outside materials storage controls)
• Restriction on the use of certain items or materials that have
water pollution potential (highway deicing management practices,
lawn fertilizer controls)
1.0 Control Strategies
1.1 Street Sweeping
Host urbanized areas have some type of street sweeping program, but it
is traditionally performed for aesthetic reasons. In order to direct street
sweeping operations toward pollution abatement goals, some modifications in
existing practices'may be necessary:
• Use of more efficient street sweeping vehicles (e.g. vacuum type)
• More frequent sweeping intervals
1.2 Litter Control
In areas where there is considerable pedestrian activity, particularly
commercial areas, more effective litter prevention represents a potentially
attractive means of urban stormwater source control. In addition, restric-
tions on the storage and transport of refuse and other potential polluting
materials, may be effective stormwater prevention measures. Alternatives
include:
• More refuse disposal receptacles in high litter generation areas
• Restrictions on outside storage of materials
• Restrictions on the transport of debris, sand, and waste, in
uncovered vehicles
348
-------
1.3 Highway Deicing Controls
The use of salt for winter maintenance of highways and roads represents
a traditional method for ensuring highway safety in snowbelt areas. Salt-
related damage from the use of sodium chloride has come under increasing
scrutiny.1 The types of costs associated with salt damage include: con-
tamination of public and private water supply wells; automobile corrosion;
bridges and highway corrosion; vegetation damage. It is also apparent that
high salt levels in drinking water pose risks for people who require low-
salt diets because of hypertension, cardiac surgery, and pregnancy.2
In terms of water quality issues, highway runoff poses particular pro-
blems for groundwater. Surface waters rarely exceed 70-100 ppm of chloride
because of dilution and fast-moving streams. A maximum safe limit of 250
ppm has been set by EPA.3 Salt-laden runoff leaching into groundwater
sources on the other hand experiences less dilution particularly if wells
are adjacent to runoff sources.4 Alternatives include:
• Installation of runoff retention basins adjacent to highways
• Replacement of and calibration of truck salt spreaders to achieve
less salt use
• Reduction of the salt/sand ratio used in application
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
2.1 Street Sweeping Controls
Socioeconomic impacts for street sweeping controls are relatively
limited and will in most cases be minor, particularly if applied in selec-
tive areas. The principal impact issue relates to public fiscal costs which
may be capital, regulatory, and operational costs. The latter costs may be
particularly important for strategies involving more frequent sweeping.
These added costs may also be considered as costs for improved public ser-
vice as there will be beneficial sensory and public health impacts asso-
ciated with better street sweeping.
2.2 Litter Control
Compliance costs fall on both private individuals and the public
agencies if all of the management practice alternatives are implemented. In
addition, public fiscal costs will include some regulatory costs for moni-
toring private compliance. As in the case of street sweeping measures,
there will also be beneficial sensory and public health impacts. In addi-
tion, these strategies may positively affect individual property values.
349
-------
2. 3 Highway Deicing Controls
The socioeconomic issues are potentially numerous for this strategy.
One of the primary benefits of deicing strategies is the water quality/
public health issue. Because this guidebook is assuming that water quality
goals are achieved by each alternative for a water quality issue, public
health benefits associated with reduced sodium chloride in drinking water
will not be discussed here. (See references in notes 1 and 2 for public
health impacts.) In any case, the other socioeconomic impacts associated
with deicing controls are markedly different depending on the strategy. The
"non-structural" approaches—reductions in salt—basically involve less
public capital costs, with beneficial impacts in terms of bridge corrosion
costs, roadway maintenance costs, and vegetation replacement costs. Deten-
tion basins, on the other hand, represent "end-of-the-pipe" structural solu-
tions and may involve capital costs. The significant socioeconomic tradeoff
between the structural and non-structual approaches involves public safety.
The classic argument against reduced highway salting is that increased acci-
dents will occur. While a few studies have looked at the issue, it has by
no means been resolved.6 Reliable statistical evidence to establish a
causal relationship between salt and safety simply does not exist. What has
been established is that proper driver education is necessary to supplement
salt reduction policies to reduce highway accident risk. Some communities,
for example, use warning signs to indicate salt-free stretches of highway.
Other communities also attempt to minimize the accident issue by retaining
normal salt application in "high risk" areas, such as curves, hills, and
intersections.
3.0 References
1. See, for example, Abt Associates, An Economic Analysis of the
Environmental Impact of Highway Deicing, prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-600/2-76-105, May 1976; Massachusetts Department of
Public Works, "Environmental Impact Report: Snow and Ice Control Program,"
1974; Terry, Robert D., Jr., Road Salt, Drinking Water and Safety;
Improving Public Policy and Practices, Bellinger Publishing Co., 1974.
2. In addition to above, see also Dahl, Lewis K., "Salt and
Hyptertension," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 25:231-244, 1972;
Russell, Edward, M.D., "Sodium Imbalance in Drinking Water," Journal of the
American Water Works Association, 62;2:102-105, 1970.
3. See EPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards, 40 CFR 141.
4. Soils, particularly, clay soils absorb sodium fairly well; chlorides,
however, tend to leach into groundwater more easily. Because ground-
water moves so slowly, there is very little mixing action.
5. See Safe Drinking Water Act, P.L. 93-523, Section 1424.
350
-------
6. Some studies that have examined the issue include the following: "Salt
Deicing Cuts Accidents by 75% According to New 116-City Survey,"
American City, p. 19, 1973; Anderson, Robert C., "The Economics of
Highway Safety," Traffic Quarterly, pp. 99-111, 1975. While the
salt/safety issue has not been resolved, the courts have often found
highway officials negligent for not applying adequate amounts of salt
to provide safe driving conditions for motorists. See Abt Associates
reference above.
351
-------
A-9 URBAN STORMWATER FLOW ATTENUATION CONTROLS
The purpose of this water quality management strategy is to reduce the
amount of stormwater runoff or to reduce the velocity of the stormwater run-
off. Source controls, previously described, represent the first line of
defense in stormwater management. Flow attenuation controls also represent
a prevention-oriented method for stormwater management. By reducing the
pollution and the quantity of stormwater runoff through source controls and
flow attenuation controls, end-of-the-pipe approaches such as storage and
treatment can be concommitantly scaled down.
1.0 Control Strategies
Flow attentuation controls can be used in two different ways: to sup-
plement source controls and storage/treatment controls in already developed
urbanized areas; or to serve as a preventative technique in newly-developing
areas. When used as a preventative method in new development, a site plan
and grading plan is normally developed to guide the overall development of
the site. The planning strategy essentially involves minimizing the amount
of impervious surface in a particular site. By minimizing impervious sur-
faces and maintaining as much natural vegetation as possible, more storm-
water infiltrates into the groundwater on-site and less stormwater runoff is
produced. To further minimize runoff from a site, detention ponds may also
be incorporated into the site plan.
In existing urbanized areas, there may be several variations in storm-
water detention. Because of space and topography constraints, it may be
infeasible to construct detention ponds. Consequently, multiple use alter-
natives, such as parking lots and roof tops, may be used. The adaptation of
these other uses may require very little construction but the extent to
which these can be used may be considered prior to construction. After it
is detained, the runoff may infiltrate on-site, if soil and hydrologic con-
ditions permits, or it may be released to the off-site drainage network.
A more elaborate version of temporary storage and release—which deten-
tion ponds represent—are larger stormwater retention ponds, where runoff is
collected from a very large site area creating permanent ponds. The storm-
water gradually infiltrates into the ground or evaporates.
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
This category of controls is very similar to the Urban Erosion Controls
category (see Section A-11) in terms of socioeconomic impacts. Controls
applied to new development primarily involve increased compliance costs for
developers and increased regulatory costs for public agencies. In addition
to these direct impacts, the increased developer costs would likely be
passed on to consumers of new development.
352
-------
It is generally rare for structural stormwater controls to be applied
retroactively to existing development, but in such cases individual costs
would be an important socioeconoraic issue. Unlike urban erosion controls
which are generally temporary in nature, many structural stormwater controls
may be permanent in nature. These controls, particularly those that are
planned as large multi-purpose facilities, may stimulate a range of socio-
economic impacts similar to those associated with reservoir projects. Such
impacts may include: sensory benefits associated with the aesthetic attri-
butes of the water body; recreation benefits; and individual benefits in the
form of real estate benefits for adjacent property owners.
3.0 Exhibit References
1. Unlike urban erosion control measures which generally represent addi-
tional costs of development for builders and developers, stormwater
management measures may in fact decrease developer's overall site
drainage costs by reducing pipe sizes and excessive pavement costs.
Increased developer costs are not automatic. Also, in the case of
large-scale recreation ponds in new development used for stormwater
management, the developer's stormwater management costs may be offset
by increased real estate values surrounding the pond.
2. In addition to the compliance costs imposed by regulations, new
administrative requirements may result in development delay and
additional developer costs.
3. Developments requiring complicated or extensive control measures will
require more extensive plan review and inspection costs.
4. Size is the critical factor in this impact issue. Obviously, a large
multiple-purpose stormwater detention lake will have potentially
greater aesthetic appeal than a small detention pond where runoff
evaporates.
5. The ability to "water harvest," as artificial recharge of stormwater
runoff is sometimes called, is highly dependent on the water quality of
the runoff and the filtering ability of the soil. In particular, the
first flush of stormwater after a storm may be laden with solids, sus-
pended solids, and heavy metals. Some areas like Los Angeles County,
California, however, have been successfully using water spreading
basins for over 60 years. Other areas where stormwater harvesting has
been used include Long Island, New York; Fresno, California; and
Orlando, Florida. In some of these areas, pretreatment of stormwater
before it enters detention basins is required. For further
information, see Poertner, H.G., Practices in Detention of Urban
Stormwater Runoff (Special Report No. 43), American Public Works
Association, 1974; Hittman Associates, Inc., The Beneficial Uses of
Stormwater, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
January, 1973.
353
-------
Exhibit A-9
URBAN STORMUATER FLOW ATTENUATION CONTROLS: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management Prac-
tice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Private Firm Costs
(1) Increase In land devel-
opment costs
(1) Site characteristics; amount
of development; type and size
of facility; amount of main-
tenance requlredl
(1) Regulatory requirements and
procedures which dictate nature
and extent of technical compli-
ance costs and administrative
costs;2 performance levels
which represent opportunity
costs
(1) The number of agencies required
to review a developer's plans;
maintenance arrangements nego-
tiated with a locality during
the post-construction phase;
extent to which developer fees
and charges are used by public
agencies to finance plan review
and site Inspection costs.
land Use
(si (1) Land pre-empted for new
development; (2) Modi-
fication of uses in
existing development
(1) Amount of land required for
control measure; (2) Extent to
which there Is multiple use of
existing development for storm
water management
(1), (2) Regulatory requirements
for new and existing develop-
ment; extent to which there arc
explicit provisions for density
bonuses based on minimizing
runoff
Public Fiscal
(1) Increase In administra-
tive costs; (2) Increase
in operational costs
(1) Type, size, and nature of con-
trol measures3
(1) The extent to which regulations
rely on specification standards
performance standards, or dis-
cretionary standards (see
Chapter 2); (2) The nature and
adequacy of any performance
bond requirements
(!),(?) The number of administra-
tive functions to be performed:
the distribution of functions
among public agencies and be-
tween the public and private
sector; the extent of fees and
charges used to offset public
costs
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Increase In compliance
costs for control
measures on existing
development
(1) Site characteristics; type and
size of control measures;
amount of maintenance required
(1) The extent to which regulatory
requirements Impose compliance
requirements on existing devel-
opment; the use and extent of
drainage fees Imposed on exist-
ing property
-------
Exhibit A-9 (continued)
URBAN STORMHATER FLOW ATTENUATION CONTROLS
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management Prac-
tice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
ui
in
Public Health/Safety
(1) Diseases associated with
mosquito-breeding condi-
tions In detention basin:
(Z) Increased drownIna
hazards posed to small
children posed by deten-
tion basins; (3) In-
creased downstream and
localized flood protec-
tion benefits
(1),(2) The size and permanence
of stormwater basins; the
location of these facilities
(1).(2) Regulatory requirements for
facilities maintenance; regula
tory requirements for forcing
and safety precautions
(1) Inspection and monitoring
arrangements
(1) Visual nuisance; (2)
visual enhancement;
(3) odor nuisance
(1),(2) The size and permanence of
detention facilities; the loca-
tion of these facilities; (2)
the extent to which natural
features and open space are
used as control measures
(1).(2) The extent to which visual
criteria are provided for In
the design review; (1),(2),(3)
The extent to which there are
maintenance requirements
(1),(3) The extent to which there
are adequate provisions for
Inspection and maintenance of
facilities
Public Services
(1) Increase or maintenance
of groundwater supply
sources by artificial
recharge; (2) Reduction
In downstream capital
and maintenance require-
ments for municipal
drainage facilities
(1).(2) Size and location of
facility
(1) Water quality characteristics
of runoffS
(1) The extent to which regulations
require groundwater recharge
consideration In site design;
extent to which detailed plan-
ning has been done for ground-
water recharge; (2) Performance
standards required for differ-
ent developments
(1) Extent to which there Is public
operation and/or monitoring of
stormwater supply entering
recharge basins
Recreation
(1) Increased opportunities
for recreational
opportunities
(1) Size and location of stormwater
management pond6
(1) Extent to which regulations
require recreational planning
considerations In stormwater
management
(1) Extent to which there Is ade-
quate operation and maintenance
arrangements for the lake'
-------
Exhibit A-9 (continued)
URBAN STORMHATER FLOW ATTENUATION CONTROLS
Indirect Impacts
Impact Stimulant
Discussion
Employment
(1) Increase 1n construction'
related employment; (2)
Decrease In construction-
related employment
(1),(Z) Private firm costs
(1) To a minor extent, the Imposition of storowater management controls
will stimulate small Increases In employment by the developer;
(2) The Imposition of stormwater management control measures will
represent Increased costs for some developers that have to be
carried until they can be passed on to consumers. These carrying
costs. 1n combination with other developer requirements, may force
small developers and builders out of business. (See Chapter 9.)
LJ
in
Private Firm Costs
(1) Increase In land opportu-
nity costs
(1) Land pre-empted for development
by control measures
(1) The amount and location of land that Is pre-empted by control
measures will affect the extent of this opportunity cost for a
developer. Unlike many erosion control measures which are
temporary In nature, many flow attenuation controls are permanent
1n nature and Involve a permanent pre-emption of land or a multiple
use of existing development. To some extent, a developer may be
able to offset these opportunity costs by negotiating density
bonuses or transfer of development rights from the regulatory
agencies
Land Use
(1) Increase In development
costs
(1) Private firm costs
(1) In most cases the costs Imposed upon developers and builders will
be passed along to consumers and be reflected In higher costs for
housing and other developments (See Volume II, Sections.)
Population
(1) Change In local popula-
tion mix.
(I) Development costs
(1) This Is a potentially higher order impact resulting from the
previous land use Impact. Higher housing costs In certain loca-
tions may potentially restrict the ability of low and moderate
Income groups to move Into a community. Because of the number of
variables affecting a regional housing market, however, this
Impact Issue should be examined carefully
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Increases In Individual
property values; (2) De-
creases in Individual
property values
(I),(2) Sensory Impacts; (1) public
safety impacts arising out of
flood potential
(1),(2) Property values for properties adjacent to stormwater facilities
may be adversely or beneficially affected depending on the sensory
Impacts associated with the facility. If stonnwater detention
facilities relieve downstream flooding, affected downstream proper-
tips mav hnnpfitJiv incrpaspd valups.o
-------
6. A number of large residential developments have incorporated man-made
recreational lakes into their design. In order to maintain sufficient
water levels, however, they generally need supply sources in addition
to intermittent stonnwater—that is, an existing stream or groundwater
sources.
7. Without adequate provisions for minimizing water quality degradation
and sediment deposits in recreational lakes, the recreational
attractiveness of these lakes may be severely diminished. Two of the
most famous recreational lakes in the united States—Lake Anne in
Reston, VA, and Lake Kittamaquandi in Columbia, MD—have suffered from
severe sediment problems from upstream development.
8. The benefits associated with this indirect impact is a standard benefit
associated with larger reservoir projects. Because of their much
smaller scale, recreational lakes and stonnwater detention basins will
generally have smaller scale flood protection benefits. See, Reid,
G.W., A Methodology for Assessment of Water Resources Development; A
Competitive Evaluation Hodel for Water Resource Planning, Office of
Water Resources Research Institute, July 1973; Dornbusch, David H. and
Stephen M. Barrager, Benefits of Water Pollution Control on Property
Values, prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, August 1973.
357
-------
A-10 URBAN STORMWATER STORAGE/TREATMENT FACILITIES
It will be impossible to eliminate all stormwater pollution strictly by
source controls or flow attenuation controls. To avoid discharge of storm-
water pollution from existing infrastructures into surface and groundwater,
it will be necessary in some cases to develop end-of-the-pipe storage and
treatment facilities. This category includes only controls involving
separate stormwater systems. While the structural storage and treatment
controls for separate stormwater systems are similar in some respects to
those for combined sanitary/sewer systems, the institutional arrangements
are likely to be different and this will affect many of the cost-related
impacts.
1.0 Control Strategies
The structural options for storage of urban stormwater will basically
consist of storage and treatment alternatives similar to those available for
combined stormwater/sanitary waste systems.
• Flow Control - In-line devices, such as gates and inflatable
dams, are used to regulate flow and provide
in-line storage.
• Deep Underground
Tunnel/Tank - More substantial storage capability is
provided in this control.
• Surface Pond/Basin - These usually achieve the greatest storage
capacity.
• Treatment
Alternatives - Physical, biological, physical-chemical.
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
The socioeconomic impacts associated with urban stormwater
storage/treatment facilities may be similar to those for stormwater
detention facilities. This is particularly the case where the facilities
are above ground. Unlike flow attenuation devices, however, which are
generally implemented during new construction and which are financed by
developers and builders, urban storage and treatment facilities are
generally financed by public revenues to serve existing development.
Exhibit A-10 summarizes the principal socioeconomic impacts.
358
-------
Exhibit A-10
URBAN STORMWATER STORAGE/TREATMENT FACILITIES: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOHIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Sensory
(I) Visual and noise nui-
sances associated with
construction
(2) Visual conflict with
existing natural settlnc
(3) Increase In odor
nuisances
(1) Length of construction period;
type and size of facility'
(2) Size and location of facility2
(3) Extent to which above-ground
facilities are operated and
maintained properly
(2) Extent to which design crlterl
are Incorporated Into the plan
review
(3) Enforcement of operating pro-
cedures by regulatory
authorities
u>
ui
to
Public Helath/Safety
(1) Increase In potential
disease vectors as-
sociated with mosquitoes
and rodents
Increase In downstream
flood control protectlor
(2)
(1) Extent to which facilities are
operated and maintained proper'
ly; extent of construction
along river banks3
(2) Size of facility
(1) Enforcement of operating pro-
cedures by regulatory
authorities
Public Services
(1) Augmentation of water
supply sources
(2) Disruption of traffic
(1) Use of stormwater for ground-
water recharge or prevention
of saltwater Intrusion.
Location and size of facility;
type of treatment provided
(2) Length of construction;
location of facility
Land Use
(1) Pre-emption of land
(1) Use of above ground facilities;
size of facility
Public Fiscal
(1) Increase In capital and
operational costs
associated with the
facilities
(1) Size and types of facility
(1) Costs affected by amount of
outside cost sharing; compli-
ance requirements of state and
federal regulations
(1) Type of public financing used
-------
Ul
CO
o
Exhibit A-10 (continued) URBAN STORHWATER STORAGE/TREATMENT FACILITIES
Direct Impacts
Employment
(1) Changes In construction
and operation employment
opportunities associate!
with the treatment
facility
Indirect Impacts
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Changes In homeowner
drainage fees or
property taxes
(2) Decrease In property
value adjacent to
above-ground facilities
Land Use
(1) Change In land uses
adjacent to above groum
facilities
Public Fiscal
!1) Loss of tax revenues
2) Changes In public
service costs
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
(1) Size and type of facility
Impact Stimulant
(1) Public fiscal costs
(2) Sensory Impacts; public health
Impacts
(1) Sensory Impacts; public health
Impacts
(1) Loss of taxable land for above
ground facilities
(2) Public service Impacts
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Discussion
(1) See Chapter 2 for a discussion of public financing mechanisms
and effect on users and non-users.
(2) The Impact on land values due to sensory Impacts and public health
Impacts Is likely to be confined to a small area around the above
ground facilities. This type of Impact Is, of course, highly
dependent on the type of other uses In the area.
(1) The frequency and magnitude of sensory and public health Impacts
may disrupt existing neighboring land uses or they may alter
proposed development In the Impact area around the facility.
(1) This loss could be particularly significant If It Involves prime
water front property.
(2) Possible changes In public expenditures for water supply may
produce this Impact.
-------
3.0 Exhibit References
1. Underground tunnels, for instance, will probably pose more
construction-related impacts.
2. Underground alternatives will probably be less of a visual intrusion in
the natural landscape.
3. Construction along river banks, particularly in urban areas, will also
generally disturb rodent nests.
361
-------
A-ll URBAN SOIL EROSION CONTROLS
This control strategy is primarily concerned with construction-related
erosion that occurs at the site of new buildings, roads, transmission lines,
and other development activities. While the principal focus in this dis-
cussion is with private sector development activities, major public con-
struction projects, such as roads, dams, and reservoir construction, may
also be subject to soil erosion controls. In these projects public expen-
ditures become a significant socioeconomic issue. Agricultural activities
that produce erosion are discussed in Section A-12.
Urban erosion control activities may have substantial interaction with
stormwater flow attenuation controls. Erosion discharge controls, for
example, such as sediment detention basins, may be used after construction
is complete at stormwater detention facilities. Conversely, stormwater
detention facilities will help to reduce off-site erosion that takes place
on streambanks because of increased stormwater runoff velocities. In
general, if both types of controls are applicable to a site under develop-
ment, the two should be planned and regulated simultaneously. To the extent
that growth management controls are used to protect critical areas, there
may also be congruence between urban soil erosion control and growth manage-
ment objectives.
1.0 Control Strategies
There are numerous sediment controls that have been developed in recent
years to prevent construction-related soil erosion. Because many controls
are simply variations of each other, only representative examples are listed
in this discussion of socioeconomic impacts.
Source Controls;
• Modification of surface characteristics, such as temporary seeding,
mulching, planting; use of jute or other materials
• Modification of topography, such as slope modification, contour
furrowing, and terracing
• Modification of runoff by the use of diversion dikes or small
on-site basins
• Staged development to minimize soil exposure in wet-weather months
• Construction activity restrictions to minimize removal of vege-
tation or proximity to critical areas (steep slopes, water bodies,
etc.)
Discharge Controls;
• Off-site detention basins
• Sediment filters or traps
• Land set aside as buffer vegetation
362
-------
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
The principal socioeconomic impacts associated with erosion control
measures are private firm costs, that is, the compliance costs to developers
and builders for implementing erosion controls. These costs, in turn, are
likely to be reflected in higher housing and other development costs.
The other socioeconomic impact issue that will likely be pertinent with
erosion controls is the cost to government administering erosion controls.
These costs may include plan review. In essence, the development of an ero-
sion control program for new development at the local level involves a
tradeoff between ensuring the effectiveness of private erosion control
measures and minimizing public expenditures for administering local erosion
control programs.
Exhibit A-ll presents a summary of these and other potential socio-
economic impacts associated with urban erosion controls.
3.0 Exhibit References
1. The maintenance and replacement of the erosion control measures may
represent a significant cost component. This is a labor intensive task and
may require hauling costs for off-site disposal of sediment.
2. The developer's costs are particularly affected by the necessity to
develop grading plans for the site and by the delays represented by
increased plan review time.
3. Developments requiring complicated or extensive control measures will
require more plan review and inspection costs.
4. There are two important issues here. The number of public adminis-
trative functions is clearly critical. If enforcement arrangements are
voluntary or irregular, then inspection and monitoring costs will be negli-
gible. Similarly, technical assistance may not be used. Secondly, the
ability to "share" public administrative costs with agencies such as the
District Soil Conservation Service will distribute these costs outside of
the local tax jurisdiction.
363
-------
Exhibit A- 11 URBAN SOIL EROSION CONTROLS: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Private Firm Costs
(1) Increase In land
development costs
Land Use
(1) Land pre-empted for
development
Public Fiscal
(1) Increase In administra-
tive costs
(2) Increase In operational
costs
Public Health/Safety
(1) Diseases associated
with mosquito- breed Ing
conditions In detention
basins
(2) Increased drowning to
small children posed by
detention basins
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control
Characteristics
(1) Site characteristics; rate of
construction; type and size
of facility; amount of main-
tenance required'
(1) Amount of land required for
control measure
(1)»(2) Type, size, and nature of
control measures3
(1),(2) The size of detention
basins; the permanence of
these facilities; the loca-
tion of these facilities
Implementation
Measures
(1) Regulatory requirements and
procedures which dictate
nature and extent of techni-
cal compliance costs and
administrative costs;2perform-
ance bonds which represent op-
portunity costs; technical as-
sistance that may help to re-
duce control costs
(1) Regulatory requirements
(1) The extent to which regula-
tions rely on specification
standards, performance stan-
dards, or discretionary stan-
' dards.
(2) The nature and adequacy of an>
performance bond agreements.
(1).(2) Regulatory requirements
for facilities maintenance;
regulatory requirements for
fencing and other safety pre-
cautions
Institutional
Arrangements
(1) The number of agencies re-
quired to review a develop-
er's plans; maintenance ar-
rangements negotiated with
locality during the post-con-
struction phase; extent to
which developer fees and
charges are used by public
agencies to finance plan re-
view and site Inspection
costs
(1).(2) The number of administra-
tive functions to be perform-
ed; the distribution of func-
jtlons among public agencies
'and between the public and
'private sector;4 the extent
'of fees and charges used to
•offset public costs
(1),(2) Inspection and monitoring
arrangements
-------
Ol
01
Exhibit A- 11 (continued) URBAN SOIL EROSION CONTROLS
Direct Impacts
Sensory
!1 Visual nuisances
2 Visual enhancement
3 Odor nuisances
Indirect Impacts
Employment
(1) Increase In construc-
tion-related employ-
ment
(2) Decrease In construc-
tion-real ted employ-
ment
Private Firm Costs
(1) Increase In land oppor-
tunity costs
Land Use
(1) Increase In development
costs
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control
Characteristics
(1) The use and size of detention
basins; the permanence of
these facilities; the loca-
tion of these facilities
(2) The extent to which control
measures preserve vegetation
and provide for natural area
buffer zones
Impact Stimulant
(1).(2) Private firm costs
(1) Land pre-empted for develop-
ment by control measures
(1) Private firm costs
Implementation
Measures
(1),(2) The extent to which vlsua
criteria are provided for In
the design review
0).(2).(3) The extent to which
there are maintenance require-
ments
Institutional
Arrangements
(1).(3) The extent to which there
are adequate revisions for
Inspection and nuintanence of
facilities
Discussion
(1),(2) The Imposition of erosion control requirements will Increase
private firm costs. For some firms capable of carrying these
costs before they can be passed on, there may be small Increases
In employment to perform the new erosion control tasks. This In-
creased employment Is likely to be rare, however, as In most
cases the developer will simply use existing employees to perform
these tasks. The Imposition of erosion control costs, In combin-
ation with other developer requirements, may, however, force
small developers and builders out of business. (See Chapter 9.)
This decrease In firms might result In local area loss in
construction-related employment.
(1) The amount and location of land that Is pre-empted by control
measures will affect the extent of this opportunity cost for a
developer. Because most erosion control measures are temporary
In nature, this is not likely to be a significant component of
the developer's added costs.
(1) In most cases the developer and builder costs will simply be re-
flected In higher costs for housing and other development.
(See Chapter 11.)
-------
Exhibit A-ll (continued)
URBAN SOIL EROSION CONTROLS
Indirect Impacts
Impact Stimulant
Discussion
Population
(1) Change In local popula
tlon mix
(1) Development costs
(1) This Is a higher order Impact resulting from the previous land
use Impact. Higher housing costs In certain localities may po-
tentially restrict the ability of new residents to move Into a
comnunlty. Because of the number of variables affecting a re-
gional housing market, however, this Impact Issue should be ex-
plained carefully.
w
-------
A-12 AGRICULTURAL SOURCE CONTROLS
Agricultural nonpoint source include a variety of agricultural acti-
vities that pose a threat to water quality. The principal ones included in
this discussion are the following:
• soil erosion
• fertilizer runoff/seepage
• pesticide runoff/seepage
• livestock waste runoff/seepage
The physical actions that nay be taken by farmers to reduce or prevent
water quality problems may involve actual construction of structural
controls or the implementation of different management practices. Manage-
ment practices may simply be changing planting periods, changing crops, or
changing the location of different activities on a farm.
1.0 Control Strategies
Control strategies for each of the agricultural water quality issues
are discussed separately. Obviously, there are strong relationships, how-
ever, among the structural controls. For example, conservation tillage
practices for erosion control may result in greater amounts of pests. This
may require use of chemical pest controls. There may also, of course, be
similar implementation measures and institutional arrangements for each of
the agricultural water quality issues. It is clear, for example, that the
Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) will have an important role in
the institutional arrangements for each of the issues.
1.1 Erosion Control
There are scores of structural controls available for erosion control.
A sampling of some of these is listed below.
• No-till Plant in Prior-crop Residues - This technique requires that
planting be done in narrow slots opened by a fluted coulter or
other device. Crop residues remain all year.
• Conservation Tillage Practice - A variation in conventional tilling
would be to till the soil with noninversion devices, such as
chisel-type or disc-type plows. Another practice would involve
tilling in alternating rows; this is referred to as strip tillage.
• Winter Cover Crop - This practice, where possible, provides a vege-
tated surface to prevent erosion that is particularly severe in the
spring runoff periods.
• Contouring - This technique allows excess runoff to be infiltrated
and slows the velocity of runoff thus minimizing soil detachment.
The technique is only effective in moderate slope areas.
• Terraces - These systems support contouring in steep slope and long
slope areas and act as a backup control when contour capacities are
exceeded.
367
-------
• Discharge Controls - Other support mechanisms would include sedi-
ment traps and vegetation buffers that would capture sediment and
thus minimize eroded soil from entering waterways.
• Change in Land Use - Restrict planting in highly erodible land and
use less erodible areas more intensively.
• Crop Rotation - Alternate crops, such as hay, reduce soil loss in
alternate years.
1.2 Pesticide Controls
In defining best management practices for controlling pesticides, area-
wide water quality planning will generally examine alternatives dealing with
the amount, timing, and method of chemical application, such as the general
types listed below:
• Use Alternative Chemicals - To a certain extent, chemicals for
crops are interchangeable and those with lower toxicity can be
used; in situations with minor erosion problems but with surface
runoff problems, pesticides that are adsorbed by the soil can be
used rather than more soluble ones.
• Apply Pesticides to Minimize Loss - When it is possible to incor-
porate the pesticide in the soil rather than to broadcast over the
surface of the land, there is less likelihood of runoff loss. In
those situations, such as cranberrying, where aerial spraying is
often used, applications should be managed carefully particularly
during windy weather periods, to avoid contaminating nearby areas.
• Eliminate Excessive Treatment - Sometimes pesticides are applied in
too liberal amounts "just to be sure." This practice should be
avoided, as well as the application of pesticides in areas where
they are not necessary.
• Rotate Crops - Use crop varieties resistant to diseases and pests.
1.3 Fertilizer Control
Nutrients used in fertilizer operations, like pesticides, can be trans-
ferred from the land by leaching, runoff, and eroded soil. Thus, practices
designed to curtail soil erosion will also benefit nutrient management.
Listed below are a few generic control options:
• Avoid Excessive Application of Nutrients - To a certain extent
soils tests will enable farmers to predict the amount of fertilizer
necessary for their crops in a particular year.
• Apply Nutrients to Maximize Plant Absorption - In many cases
nutrient loss to runoff and leaching can be avoided by timing
applications according to time of year and climatic conditions.
368
-------
• Use Animal Wastes - Because of the rising costs of fertilizers due
to energy prices, smaller agricultural operations may be able to
meet a large amount of the fertilizer needs by using available
animal wastes. There are difficulties associated with this method
— particularly determining the amount of nitrogen that animal
wastes are providing to crops.
• Use Crop Rotations and Winter Cover Crops - where possible, to
control nutrient loss to waterways. In the former case, less
nitrogen may be required and in the latter case nutrient uptake is
provided during the winter and spring, helping to minimize nitrate
leaching.
1.4 Livestock Waste Controls
Prior to the widespread use of chemical fertilizers, animal manure was
a principal means for crop fertilization. With chemical fertilizers
supplying almost 90% of present fertilizer needs in the country, there is an
on-going problem of what to do with manure wastes. The problem can be dis-
cussed in terms of two separate issues: animal grazing practices and con-
centrated animal feedlots.
Animal Grazing Practices;
• Fencing to prevent grazing in areas susceptible to pollution in
nearby waterways
• Special watering facilities to allow livestock access to drinking
water without having to use critical nearby water resources
Concentrated Animal Feedlots;
• On-site treatment and disposal facilities, such as oxidation
ditches and septic tanks
• On-site storage and land application for use as a fertilizer
• On-site storage and composting for use as a fertilizer
• On-site storage and transport to a regional treatment
processing/disposal facility
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
The two primary local and areawide socioeconomic impact issues of
interest for each of the above four areas are agricultural producer costs
and public expenditures for regulatory/administrative costs and cost
sharing. Within the agricultural cost incidence issue, there are two
general concerns of farmers related to these water quality controls: reduc-
tions in crop yield/farm income and direct compliance costs for implementing
best management practices. An additional concern which falls more into an
implementation feasibility issue, is the perceived threat to agricultural
autonomy that is represented by water quality concerns. The economic impli-
cations of these controls is complicated, as it is in any situation
369
-------
involving the imposition of external controls on a business production func-
tion, by the individual producer's cost structure and by the market for the
producer's products. An agricultural producer's view of these water quality
controls will depend on the investment value the fanner puts on the farm.
If the land is being held to be sold for development, then the farmer will
be anxious to maximize short-term profits. Longer-term fanners, on the
other hand, may view water quality costs as a necessary investment for
long-term productivity.
Public regulatory and administrative costs may be split among federal,
state, and county agencies. local or county costs will be higher, of
course, in agriculturally-intensive areas. Exhibit A-12 summarizes poten-
tial socioeconomic impacts associated with agricultural controls.
3.0 Exhibit References
1. The fanner's total production cost includes such items as direct crop
costs, land costs, and transportation costs. The imposition of pollution
control measures may affect each one of these major cost items through
capital expenditures and operation/maintenance expenditures. Direct crop
costs are the most sensitive area for cost impacts. Because crop operations
such as soil preparation, fertilization, planting, pest control, harvesting,
storage, and transportation are so interrelated, however, it is difficult to
absolutely predict cost increases. For example, a given alternative prac-
tice in fertilization may affect pest control requirements. Similarly,
changes in crops may require additional labor and equipment. See also
Control of Water Pollution from Cropland; Volume I; A Manual for Guideline
Development, EPA-600/2-75-026a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1975; University of Illinois, Alternative Policies for
Controlling Non-Point Agricultural Sources, prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1978.
2. The agricultural producer's farm income will be affected by crop yield
changes resulting from alternative practices and by changes in market
prices. Alternative production methods may reduce or increase crop yields.
For example, reductions in fertilizer use may reduce expected crop yields.
Similarly, loss of acreage will affect crop yields.
Market price may also affect crop revenues. Crop prices are affected,
obviously, by the demand and structure of the market for outputs — that is,
the ability of farmers to pass cost increases along to consumers. Certain
farmers may not be able to implement water quality controls as efficiently
as other producers. In these cases market price increases may not be suffi-
cient to offset increased production costs.
3. Increased production costs may be offset by federal cost sharing pro-
grams and by federal and state tax provisions. Not all control measures may
be eligible for cost sharing depending on local Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service (ASCS) policies.
370
-------
LJ
•g
Exhibit A-12 AGRICULTURAL SOURCE CONTROLS: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOHIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Agricultural Producer
Costs/Revenues
(1) Changes In production
costsl
(2) Changes In crop Income2
Public Fiscal
(1) Increases In regulatory
and administrative
costs
(2) Increases In economic
subsidy costs
Indirect Impacts
Agricultural Producer
Costs/Revenues
(1) Changes In land values
Land Use
(1) Conversion of agricul-
tural acreage to devel-
oped uses
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management
Practice Characteristics
(1),(Z) Amount, type, size, and
mixture of required facili-
ties; extent to which new pro-
duction practices or required
activities decrease crop
yields
(2)Non-structural controls will
involve less economic sub-
sidies
Impact Stimulant
(1) Changes In production costs;
changes In crop Income
(1) Increase In agricultural
costs; reductions In crop
yield
Implementation
Measures
(1) Extent of regulatory proce-
dures
!1) Amount and type of subsidy 3
1).(2) Extent of technical assis-
tance available*
(1) Extent of regulatory and
technical assistance activi-
ties
(2) Amount of economic subsidies
Institutional
Arrangements
(1) The numbers of agencies in-
volved In regulating the
agricultural producer
(1) Distribution of regulatory
and administrative respon-
sibilities among public
agencies; source of public
financings
Discussion
(1) The Interaction between actions taken by affected and non-affected
fanners may have significant Implications for land values. For
example, agricultural land that Is highly credible will result In
higher production costs and/or less crop yield. Within a particu-
lar region, less erodlble land may be expected to Increase in
value relative to more erodtble land.
(1) Water quality controls may stimulate or reinforce a farmer1! de-
sire to sell all of his agricultural land—depends on the farmer's
long-term view of his land. Even for some producers who desire to
maintain long-term agricultural Interests, It may be necessary to
maintain economic viability by selling small parcels of land to
developers.
-------
Exhibit A-12 (continued)
AGRICULTURAL SOURCE CONTROLS
Indirect Impacts
Impact Stimulant
Discussion
Employment
(1) Reduction In direct
farm employment
(2) Reduction In farm sup-
port employment through
multiplier effects
(1),(2) Agricultural producer
costs/revenues
(1) The response to additional costs associated with water quality
controls may be to simply go out of business. Such a response
will produce a loss of farm employment.
(2) Modified agricultural production methods or reduction in farm
acreage will have a ripple effect through the business that sup-
ply farms with materials and equipment. This may result in In-
direct losses of employment for an area.
u>
-j
to
-------
4. Technical assistance may enable the producer to comply in the cheapest
possible manner at the highest crop yield.
5. Public costs for agricultural water quality controls — both
regulatory/administrative and economic subsidy payments — are largely
absorbed by federal and state programs. Certain additional technical assis-
tance and administrative costs will be incurred by the Soil and Water Con-
servation District which generally derives a portion of its funding from
local sources.
The use of mandatory versus voluntary plans will significantly affect
public regulatory costs. For example, mandatory erosion control plans would
require increased staffing at the local level to deal with technical assis-
tance, plan review, and enforcement.
373
-------
A-13 GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONTROLS
One of the principal focal points of water quality planning is the
relationship between land use and water quality. The types of activities
and their spatial distribution have some readily apparent impacts on the
quality of water in an area. At the same time, strategies developed to
improve and manage water quality may have significant effects on an area's
traditional pattern of development. This section outlines generic
approaches available to the planner for managing growth to promote improved
water quality, and presents potential socioeconomic impacts that may result
from the implementation of these strategies.
A variety of factors produce a land use pattern in a community. This
pattern is characterized by four elements, each of which can in turn affect
the social and economic fabric of the community:
• Amount of growth
• Location of growth
• Character of growth
• Timing of growth
Each of these land use elements can be controlled by growth management
strategies, as they alter traditional development patterns and forces.
Changes in these four elements in turn have the potential to alter the
area's economic and social structure, as residents, businessmen, industrial
workers and other members of the community bear costs and reap the benefits
of various strategies.
1.0 Control Strategies
1.1 Descriptions of Local Jurisdictional Controls
ZONING CONTROLS
Since the early part of this century, zoning has been the basic tool
for controlling the type, amount and location of new development in a
community. Community ordinances typically specify the height, bulk, and
density of new buildings. Zoning can be used to control the availability of
land for various uses, and may impose specific limits on acceptable charac-
teristics of these uses. These restrictions may prohibit a use from the
community entirely, or may confine it to narrowly specified alternative
locations.
Minimum lot sizes and other development standards aimed at limiting
construction have also been incorporated into most zoning ordinances. A
refusal to sewer may be used to justify zoning requirements for large (i.e.,
greater than one acre) lots in areas where on-site systems cannot perform
adequately on smaller lots.
374
-------
Several additional provisions of a modern zoning ordinance nay also be
employed as part of a water quality management strategy, providing a com-
munity with a flexibility not afforded by a reliance on minimum lot sizes to
preserve environmental quality. These include:
• Cluster zoning, which establishes a minimum average quantity of
land required for each dwelling unit in a development but does not
limit specific lot sizes. Land that is not actually used for the
construction of dwelling units is frequently used for conservation
or recreation. This technique is often used to concentrate deve-
lopment on land that is capable of supporting it and to encourage
the preservation of open space, while providing for at least as
many dwelling units as would be permitted under traditional zoning.
• Planned unit developments (PUDs), which provide for the development
of large tracts of land usually with a mix of residential types as
well as commercial and/or industrial uses. Zoning ordinances
enabling this type of development usually require a developer to
submit detailed plans for a proposed development, and often require
estimates of impacts. This is the most flexible type of zoning
provision in that it establishes a negotiation process between the
developer and a municipality, and permits the community to be very
specific about appropriate uses in a particular development.
• Sensitive area zoning is directed at the preservation or conser-
vation of land that is susceptible to environmental damage. Types
of sensitive areas commonly include wetlands, floodplains, hill-
sides and areas susceptible to erosion, etc. This type of control
is frequently implemented through the use of an overlay district
which is not included on the community's zoning map but takes pre-
cedence in areas which meet certain criteria: for example, all
land within 100 feet of a stream may be incorporated into an over-
lay floodplain district.
• Impact or performance zoning specifies standards for new develop-
ment based upon its expected impacts on the community's public
facilities, environment, etc. The most comprehensive of this type
of control bases the standards upon an assessment of the carrying
capacity of the community's land and infrastructure. A permit pro-
cedure may be established which allows a reviewing agency to
monitor each step of the development process. Flexibility is pro-
vided by allowing bonuses (e.g., in density) where the developer
provides benefits to the community. Less complex controls esta-
blish performance criteria for various uses, and may specify loca-
tions (as defined on a community's zoning map). These standards
may deal with issues such as permissable emissions to air or water,
traffic generation, etc.
375
-------
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
Two types of charges are commonly used by communities as a check on
growth. Cash charges include building and other permit fees, connection
charges for tap-ins to community water or sewer lines, and taxes on con-
struction. Charges payable in-kind include subdivision requirements for the
dedication of land and/or completed tangible improvements such as roads,
parks, and the like.
DELINEATION OF URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARIES
This approach defines a maximum service area for the provision of
facilities. Within this "urban service boundary," all urban development is
allowed to locate where public facilities can be economically provided.
Development at moderate and high densities is discouraged outside of the
service area. Traditional land use tools are used both within and without
the urban service boundary. Within the boundary, these are augmented by
policies staging the provision of public facilities.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
Although in a broad sense all strategies in this section fall into this
category, techniques of concern here are those that emphasize controls on
the timing of development. Many schemes also designate quantitative systems
to aid the reviewing agency in evaluating specific development proposals.
There are several types of techniques in this group:
• Wastewater Moratoria. These are usually of finite duration, and
are often imposed as the result of emergency conditions in an
existing sewerage system. Several types of moratoria are commonly
found, including bans on permits for sewer taps, bans on new
building permits, bans on permits for sewer extensions, and limits
on subdivision approvals. These are often limited to residential
construction. Moratoria are usually lifted as the required capa-
city becomes available in the area's sewerage system.
• Periodic Quotas. These are limits on the number of dwelling units
for which building permits will be granted during a specified time
period (e.g., Petaluma's ordinance limited residential construction
to 500 dwelling units per year). At the end of the time period,
the quota is reimposed (presumably, it may be reevaluated at this
time). To limit growth, the quota must be set at a lower level
than that reached by "natural" development pressures.
• Blanket Quotas. These are the outright ceilings on population
established by referendum in Boca Raton, Florida and attempted in
Boulder, Colorado. Once the permanent population level is reached,
the number of dwelling units built will be equal to the number
demolished during a given period. While this measure is usually
discussed in terms of population ceilings, it probably can also be
formulated in terms of the maximum number of dwelling units in a
given area.
376
-------
« Use of Capital Programming for Phased or Sequential Development.
There are several tools available to ensure that growth follows the
availability of public services. The more sophisticated approaches
have used the point-based permit system developed in Ramapo, New
York. In this system, development proposals are awarded points
based upon their compliance with the town's goals, and objectives
for the amount and location of growth, including the availability
of public water and/or sewer services. Where services either do
not exist or will not be in place by the completion of the develop-
ment, Ramapo allows developers to provide these services. In other
communities where similar plans have been adopted, the lack of
public services means that developers cannot accrue enough points
for a permit, as the private construction of these facilities is
not allowed (e.g., Fairfax County, VA). In these communities, the
capacity of the necessary public facilities acts as a ceiling on
development. In other communities, development proposals are
reviewed for their conformance with short-term capital plans as
part of routine subdivision reviews; only development to be served
by facilities included in an adopted capital improvement programis
eligible for subdivision approval. Another approach requires con-
sideration of staging development: under a "land withhold" clause,
the developer agrees to leave specified parcels undeveloped until
water and sewerage services are available or for five years
(whichever comes first).
PUBLIC ACQUISITION OF LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
This is probably the surest method by which land can be protected from
development. In general, these techniques provide a community with more
latitude than traditional land use regulations. A community can use public
acquisition to deny all economic development of the land, or to specify the
exact types and timing of development that will be permitted. There are
several methods that can be used to acquire land:
• Fee simple, in which a parcel is purchased outright by the com-
munity. Due to the high costs of land, it has primarily been used
to acquire public park/conservation land and for urban renewal.
Both purposes are heavily subsidized by the federal government.
• Land banking, where a community or non-profit group can purchase
and develop land for a variety of future uses:
• Compensable regulation and/or purchase of development rights, which
distinguish ownership of the land from ownership of the right to .
develop this land; and
• Acquisition by less than fee simple, particularly through the pur-
chase or donation of conservation easements and restrictions, and
other types of rights of way. These restrictions take the form of
a legal agreement between a property owner and either a community
or a non-profit organization specifying that a parcel will remain
377
-------
in its natural state foe a specific period of time (which may be in
perpetuity). This method of foregoing rights to development pro-
vides tax benefits to the property owner and conservation benefits
to the community. While not all restrictions or easements allow
public access, in some cases the use of a parcel for a right-of-way
may be included as part of the agreement.
1.2 Measures Imposed by States and Regions
REGIONAL OR STATE CRITICAL AREAS PROTECTION
Several states have enabled the designation of critical areas for pro-
tection. Florida, California and Hawaii are examples. Environmentally sen-
sitive areas — such a coastal zone areas, large wetland areas, aquifer
recharge areas — are formally designated as critical areas. There are a
variety of ways that have been used thus far to regulate development in
these areas. In some cases, only certain uses are regulated. Generally, a
regional or state body has review of local development decisions in the cri-
tical area and in some cases veto power. This type of approach is attrac-
tive because water quality sensitive areas often extend beyond the boun-
daries of municipalities.
PREFERENTIAL TAX ASSESSMENT
Several states have enacted legislation that allows land used for spe-
cific purposes to be taxed according to its current use, rather than
according to the use for which it is zoned. For example, farmland is fre-
quently zoned for residential uses (originally this was done as a favor to
farmers who could then obtain a higher price for their property when it was
sold) and fanners pay higher taxes based on this more "intensive* use clas-
sification than they would if the land were zoned for agriculture. With
preferential assessments, the farmer pays taxes on the land's fair market
value as farmland; the farmer theoretically will not be as tempted to sell
off his land for house lots if his costs are lower. Generally, preferential
tax assessment programs include some type of penalty if the land is sold for
another use; the landowner may be required to pay the differential between
the taxes paid at the preferred rate and what would have been paid if the
land were in the new use. This approach has been used to encourage the pre-
servation of land being actively farmed, and forests that are being actively
managed. In addition, preferential tax assessments are now being developed
for land that is not actively used (i.e., privately owned conservation land)
and for land that is currently used for recreation. These assessments are
usually administered through the local tax assessor's office, and generally
involve some indication from the landowner of income (or wood or other pro-
ducts) generated by the parcel or current non-income producing use (in the
case of conservation land) to be eligible for the preferential assessment.
378
-------
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
While growth management controls cut across all of the socioeconomic
impact categories developed in this guidebook, the most significant issues
center around land use effects — particularly housing — and secondary tax
base and public service effects. Both potential direct and indirect impacts
are listed in Exhibit A-13.
379
-------
U)
oo
o
Exhibit A-13 GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONTROLS: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES
"^v.
CrowtliV- Impllct8
Managpinent^^.
Control ^NNX^^
a
8
E
8
§
Restrictions
On Uses
Minimum Lot
Sizes, Etc.
Cluster
Zoning
PUD
Ordinances
Sensitive
Area Zoning
Impact/
Performance
Zoning
Pub) ic
Revenues/
Expenditures
e may limit
sources of
public revenue*
(e.g., property
sales taxes)
e (revenues)
more costly
housing may
increase tsx
base
e exclusion of
groups needing
services may
reduce
expenditures
e may increase
public
revenues
through
addition to
tax base
• can decrease
community's
ratahlea
e increase In
expenditures to
administer
review process
Employment/
Economic
Growth
e where economic
development is
limited, future
employment will
also be limited
• where residen-
tial development
Is limited.
construction
sector will bo
Effected
• not usually
affected, except
as construction
industry is
affected
• not usually
affected except
as construction
Industry is
affected
e where non-
residential
uses are
Included,
employment
opportunities
will increase
s not usually
affected except
as construction
industry is
affected
s not usually
affected except
for potential
short-term
delays in
[irocosslng
applications
Costs To
Firms/
Developers
e restrictions
may make
development
more expensive
s restrictions
on economic
development may
limit expansion
opportunities
for existing
firms
• development
costs sliould
increase
(higher land)
acquisition 4
Improvement
costs
• increase in
planning coats
(time i money)
to developers
• increases in
planning costs
(time t money)
to developers
• increases in
planning coats
(time I money)
to developers
Costs/Benefits
To
Individuals
e where
residential
development Is
limited, value
of older
housing should
rise
e may increase
tax burden (or
current
residents
e value of
land increases
• increase in
total public
costs/house-
hold
• value of
land near
designated
area increases
Land Use/
Housing
.
e restricted
activities will
have to locate
elsewhere
• change In
traditional
patterns of
development
e decreases
density
• may decrease
number of new
housing units
built
• spread
population
increase over
wider area
• allows for
concentration
of now housing
where land can
support it
e encourage
diversification
>f housing types
e allows a more
efficient use
of land
• may encourage
live rslficat Ion
of housing
typos
• will reduce
supply of
vacant land
acceptable for
housing
• may reduce
supply of land
available for
intensive USDS
(residential.
commercial.
industrial) c
Increase land
available for
Public
Services
• expansion
of pertinent
facilities
(sowers, water.
transportation
schools, etc.)
may not be
necessary
• costs per
household may
Increase as
population
density
decreases
• may allow
for more
efficient
services
• say allow
for more
efficient
provision of
services
• may allow
for more
efficient
provision of
services
Recreat Ion
e may open
land for
recreation
• different
types of
facilities may
be needed as
larger lota
allow for some
types of
recreation to
take place at
home
• should .
preserve open
space for
recreation
. community
can Insist on
provision of
open space and
facilities
e may provide
land for
passlvo
recreation
e may prevent
over
burdening of
existing
facilities
Historic/
Cultural
Resources
.
• does not
necessarily
allow for
preservation
of existing
resources
• should allow
for
preservstlon
of existing
resources
• should allow
(or
preservation
of existing
resources
• csn allow foi
preservation
of existing
resources
e should allow
for
preservation
of existing
resources
Sensory
Quality
• where uses
currently found
In community are
restricted.
visual impacts
can result
• reduced density
may alter visual
Identity of
community
• may encoursgo
preservation of
natural features
that are visually
Important
• same as above
• architectural
fit can be
negotiated
e may allow for
control of noise.
odors from non-
residential uses
• may encourage
preservation of
natural features
that are visually
Important
-------
Ul
oo
Exhibit A-13 (continued) GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONTROLS
\.
Growth ^^^^
Management^^^
Development
Charges
Urban Service
Boundaries
a
g
|
fc
0
o
5
jj
_.
5
§
Horatorla
Periodic
Quotas
Blanket
Quotas
Public
Revenues/
Expenditures
e increase in
publ ic
revenues
• potential
increase In
administrative
expenditures
to implement
charges
• allows for
more efficient
expenditures
for public
services
e may reduce
total public
expenditures
• postpone
changes in debt
characteristic?
debt valuation
ratio
• decrease
coat of
administering
land use
controls
e Increase
costs of
administering
development
process
Bnploymcnt/
Economic
Growth
e where
building rates
decrease.
construction
trades will be
affected
• may limit
economic
activltica in
fringe areas
• where
limited to
residential
development.
impacts
limited to
construction
sec tor (employ-
ment losses)
• multiplier
effect should
decrease
• not usually
affected.
except as
construction
industry is
affected
e not usually
affected.
except as
construction
industry is
affected
Costs To
Firms/
Developers
e increase
costs of
development
e (developers)
carrying costs
for land
• opportunity
costs for
capital
Invested in
land
• (developers)
carrying costs
for land while
waiting for
permit
e opportunity
costs
e (developers)
carrying costs
while waiting
for pcrnit
e opportunity
costs
Costs/Benefits
To
Individuals
e price of
new housing
will increase
• value of
old housing
may increase
slightly
• increase
real estate
values in
service area.
decrease
values at
fringe
e may raise
price of new
housing in
service area
• may increase
value of old
housing
• price of
new housing
will rise
e may Increase
value of
older housing
• increase
price of new
fi used housing
e increase
taxes as costs
of government
rise
Land Use/
Housing
• if charges
are greater
for one type
of 'development
over another,
•ay alter
housing
characteristics
or discourage
some uses
e should
reduce develop-
ment pressure
on fringe areas
• should reduce
potential for
leapfrogging
• may increase
densities
within service
area
• increase
demand for old
housing
• new housing
production
Increases
before
moratorium is
imposed fi after
it is lifted
• increases in
growth before
quota takes
effect
• increases in
growth before
it takes effect
e number of
dwelling units
built will
equal number
demolished
Public
Services
e should allow
for more
efficient
provision of
services
• should
prevent
emergency
overload of
existing
systems
• should
eliminate necc
for expansion
of existing
systems except
where per
capita
consumption of
services rises
Recreation
• miy increase
land
available for
recreation In
fringe areas
• decrease
land
available
within service
area
e may prevent
short-term
overload of
facilities
Historic/
Cultural
Resources
• may
encroach upon
resources in
service area
where demand
Is high
• may relieve
pressure on
fringe areas
• should
allow for
preservation
of existing
resources
over short-
term
f
e existing
resources can
be preserved
Sensory
Quality
e if charges
encourage
increase in
density, may
radically alter
community identity
• temporary
impacts will
reduce nuisances
over short-term
e may preserve
community identity
or allow for
gradual changes
• may act to
preserve existing
visual identity
of community
-------
LJ
CD
M
Exhibit A-13 (continued) T.ROWTM MANAGEMENT CONTROLS
\.
Cro«i>^"c"
Manogement>'x~
ConlrolB ^Sv\
e
n
Q
i *3
i§
E
E 8
6
*
§
E
in
B
8
0
§
Capital
Progranmlng
For Phased
Development
Fee Simple
Acquisition
Land
Banking
Transfer Of
Development
Rights
Conservation
Easenents
Limits On
Demand
Public
Revenues/
Expenditures
• Increased
expenditures
to set up
budgeting
system
• funds
required to
purchase land
• where under-
taken by a
public entity.
expenditures
should
Increase
• adminis-
tration costs
of Implement-
ing and
maintaining
the program
• potential
loss of tax
revenues on
parcels
• public funds
If purchased
Enployracnt/
Economic
Growth
• fluctuations
In constructlai
trade should
even out
• not usually
affected except
where all
demand Is
limited
Costs To
Firms/
Developers
• (developers)
carrying costs
for land that
cannot be
developed
1 mediately
• private
developers
would compete
with public
or non-profit
entity
Costs/Benefllii
To
Individuals
• may check
rate of
Increase In
tax burden/
household
• Increase In
taxes frost
Increased
public
expenditures
• value of
houses
adjacent to
purchased
area say
Increase
• nay
increase
value of
housing near
restricted
areas
• price of
new housing
for specific
groups can
Increase
• price of old
housing can
rise
Land Use/
Housing
• change In
rate of
growth
• will reduce
supply of
land available
for develop-
ment
e can reduce
supply of land
available for
private
development
• can be used
to further
community
housing goals
• may shift
location of
new dovelop-
siont
• will reduce
supply of
land
available for
development
e may create
segmented
housing market.
o.g , elderly In
new housing.
everyone else
In old housing
Public
Services
• should
prevent
emergency
overloads
• should allow
for ef f Iclent
expansion of
existing
systems
.
Recreation
• say provide
additional
land
• can be used
to provide
additional
land
• asy provide
additional
land
e different
typos of
facilities
may have to
bo provided
for special
groupe
Historic/
Cultural
Resources
• allows for
planning to
enhance those
resources
• existing
resources
can be
preserved
• existing
resources can
be preserved
• can bo used
to protect
land around
resources
Sensory
Quality
• can maintain
existing community
Identity
• may bo used
to maintain
cossunity identity
-------
u>
CO
U)
Exhibit" A-13 (continued) GROWTH HANAGENENT CONTROLS
^X.
Cr«thVl*"c"
Managoment^v^
Controls ^X^
Protection Of
Critical Areas
Preferential
Assessments
Public
Revenues/
Expenditures
• costs of
administering
a permit or
plan review
program
• nay
increase state
expenditures
• loss of tax
revenues
• costs of
administering
piuyram
Employment/
Economic
Growth
• not usually
affected.
except aa land
for economic
activities is
limited
• not usually
affected.
except as
supply of land
for economic
development is
constrained
Costs To
Firms/
Developers
• increases
developer's
coats aa
permit
procedures
become more
burdensome
• increased
tax burden
on firms to
compensate
for service
loss
Costs/Benefits
To
Individuals
• increases
value of real
eitato
adjacent to
critical area
• increases
price of now
housing as
supply of land
constricts
• may increase
state tax
burden where
implementation
costs Bra high
• increased
tax burden on
individuals to
compensate for
revenue loss
Land Use/
Housing
• restriction
of land
available for
some or all
uses, at some
or all
densities
• restricts
supply of
land
available for
development
Public
Services
Recreation
e where
recreation
land or
facilities are
eligible, may
encourage
preservation
of facilities
Historic/
Cultural
Resources
e existing
resources may
be protected
e may
encourage
preservation
Sensory
Quality
e can preserve
natural resources
that are visually
Important to
state/community
• can preserve
Important views.
vistas
e can preserve
existing
community Identity
-------
A-14 HYDROGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS
This category of controls may supplement other categories. In essence,
this type of control category represents the last line of defense in
managing wastes. Rather than relying on waste generation reduction methods
or treatment alternatives that modify a waste, this alternative is concerned
with modifications in the assimilative capacity of the receiving water.
These types of controls are highly desirable in situations where low
stream flows or extremely high waste loads make it impossible to achieve
desired water quality goals even with the best practicable waste treatment
technology. Through carefully planned hydrographic modifications, it may be
possible to increase the assimilative capacity of a water body and, thereby,
achieve desired water quality levels.
1.0 Control Strategies
It should be apparent by looking at the list of structural controls
below that hydrographic controls primarily deal with dissolved oxygen water
quality problems. There are three major ways of increasing the assimilative
capacity for oxygen demanding wastes — flow augmentation, artificial aera-
tion techniques, and structural or channel modifications of the waterway.
Artificial aeration techniques are primarily used in water impoundments,
such as lakes and ponds.
• Augment flow, particularly in low-flow periods through inter-basin
and intra-basin surface water transfers, groundwater pumping, or
reservoir releases.
• Install mechanical in-stream aeration devices.
• Develop small dams/spillways in selected areas to achieve aeration.
• Realign channels to increase stream velocities where needed.
• Modify channels to increase hydraulic efficiency through channel
lining or removal of natural obstructions.
• Install grade control measures, such as energy dissipaters, to
decrease stream velocities where needed to minimize streambank
erosion.
• Widen channels to decrease water depth to achieve better aeration.
• Harvest aquatic growth through compatible herbicides or by
mechanical means.
384
-------
2.0 Socioeconomic Impacts
The principal impacts associated with this control category include
public costs and changes in recreation opportunities. As in the case of
urban stormwater flow attenuation controls, the nature and magnitude of
these socioeconomic impacts is highly influenced by the size and location of
the structural controls. See Bchibit A-14 for a summary of the impacts.
3.0 Exhibit References
1. This is clearly a situation where the existing site characteristics
will heavily influence the nature of the impact. In general, man-made
alterations are more acceptable in urban, built environments and less
enhancing in rural areas. Site specific conditions will dictate whether the
man-made alteration is compatible with the surrounding landscape.
2. The diversion of water from one basin to another, unless carefully
limited to certain amounts, could also result in profound effects. The loss
of flows in one basin could lead, for example, to changes in recreational
opportunities and sensory impacts (visual and odor).
3. Of particular concern are historic canals and archaeological remains
adjacent to streambeds.
4. The magnitude of this impact will generally be small.
385
-------
Exhibit A-14
HYUROGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS: POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ISSUES
Direct Impacts
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management Prac-
tice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Public Services
(1) Changes In the avail-
ability of water supply
resources
(1) Extent to which Inter- and
Intra-basln transfers of water
resources are used
Public Fiscal
(1) Increases In capital and
operational costs asso-
ciated with facilities
(1) Size and extent of alterations
1) Extent of federal and state cost
sharing will affect local public
costs
1) Distribution of construction ant
operation costs will affect
local, state, and federal costs
U)
oo
Sensory
(1) Change In visual
qualities of natural
areas
(1) Extent to which man-made Intru-
sions enhance or negatively.
alter the natural landscape
Recreation
(1) Increased recreational
opportunities wherewatei
Impoundments are created
by dams;(2) Decreased
recreational opportun-
ities for fishing,
swindling, and boating
due to such structural
controls as )n-stream
aeration devices, dams.
grade control measures2
(1) Size of the Impoundment; (2)
Extent to which alterations and
modifications prevent or de-
tract from existing recreation-
al uses.
Public Health/Safety
(1) Increased flood protec-
tion benefits; (2) Im-
provement In conditions
contributing to mosquito
breeding
(1) Extent to which Impoundments
are used and reduce downstream
flooding problems; (2) Extent
to which flows velocities are
Increased by channel modifica-
tions
-------
Exhibit A-14 (continued)
HYDROGRAPHIC MODiriCATIONS
Direct Impact
Characteristics Affecting Impact
Structural Control/Management Prac-
tice Characteristics
Implementation
Measures
Institutional
Arrangements
Historic Resources
(1) Changes In the number,
type, use, or character
of historic, archaeo-
logical, or architectural
resources
(1) Sensitive to location and
construction alterations^
(1) The use of federal funds will
require adequate pre-constrac-
tion assessment of historic
resources
Employment
(1) Increase In construction
related employment'
(1) Size and extent of alterations
w
oo
Indirect Impact
Impact Stimulant
Discussion
Individual Costs/Benefits
(1) Changes In property
values; (2) Increases In
property taxes
(1) Sensory Impacts; (1) Flood
benefit Impacts; (3) Public
fiscal
(1) Property values for properties adjacent to hydrographlc modifica-
tions may be adversely or beneficially affected depending on the
sensory Impacts associated with the alterations. If modifications
relieve downstream flooding, affected downstream properties may
benefit by Increased values (see discussion for Urban Stormwater
Flow Attenuation Controls). (2) The amount of local Individual
cost Incidence will be affected by the type of financial mechanism
used by the public agency to finance local costs (See Sections ).
-------
APPENDIX B
Implementation Feasibility
B.I INTRODUCTION
One of the important steps in strategy development is management or
institutional planning. Essentially, management planning is the process of
matching structural control needs with implementation measures and insti-
tutional arrangements. Choices have to be made concerning:
• The number of institutions to be involved;
• Their geographic and jurisdictional scope;
• The range of services to be coordinated;
• The allocation of functional responsibilities between the private
and public sector and among levels of the public sector.
This process may be viewed as a step in institutional design, i.e., asses-
sing the adequacy of existing institutions and measures and determing their
"insitutional fit" or "compatibility" with water quality control needs.
Compatibility has many dimensions, however, and this appendix attempts to
define its components. For the purposes of this discussion, compatibility
issues will be more explicitly discussed under the umbrella of implementa-
tion feasibility.
This guidebook has demonstrated that there are a number of distinct
socioeconomic impacts associated with implementation measures and institu-
tional arrangements. In particular, public revenue/expenditures impacts,
cost incidence to firms, cost incidence to individuals, and public service
impacts are prominent impacts. The guidebook has suggested that those
socioeconomic impacts be considered along with the socioeconomic impacts of
the structural aspects in the overall socioeconomic evaluation of a strat-
egy. It is crucial to distinguish these "implementation impacts" from
"implementation feasibility." Implementation impacts are the consequences
388
-------
of a water quality strategy; implementation feasibility, on the other hand,
is a judgement of the likelihood of a water quality strategy being imple-
mented. This judgement process or feasibility assessment is obviously a
crucial one if water quality strategies are to be implemented. Attractive
strategies may be designed that are cost effective and that minimize socio-
economic and environmental impacts, but if the solutions do not meet feasi-
bility criteria, then there is a strong possibility that the strategy will
not be implemented.
Implementation feasibility in water quality planning is not a well-
researched concept with numerous studies that provide accepted definitional
boundaries.1 There is agreement, however, on implementation requirements
for any particular planning strategy.
In general, the planner or planning agency has to examine the criteria
listed below:
IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY
CRITERIA ISSUES
• Legal Authority Whether or not the implementation
issues or institutional arrangements
are legal.
• Administrative Capability Whether there exists an agency or
agencies capable of performing
administrative responsibilities.
• Political Acceptability Whether there is public support for
the implementation scheme.
Each of the alternative water quality strategies should be assessed in
light of these considerations. Section B.2 below discusses the legal
authority. Administrative capability is reviewed in B.3. Political accep-
tability is discussed in Section B.4. Section B.5 suggests how these cri-
teria may be used in the planning process.
B.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY
In proposing implementation measures and institutional arrangements for
water quality strategies, two basic approaches may be used: the creation of
new measures and agencies, or the alteration of existing implementation
measures and institutions. For political acceptability reasons, as dis-
cussed below, the latter course has been a particularly attractive approach
389
-------
in existing areawide water quality management planning. There are legal
principles that shape the ability of the planning agency to adopt existing
implementation measures and institutions to serve new purposes. These
should be considered as "legal tests" in the modification of existing pro-
grams and in the creation of new ones. Some basic legal tests or legal
authority criteria are briefly discussed below.2
Existence of adequate statutory authority or power
State, local and substate agencies are granted powers—either expli-
citly or implicitly—by enabling statutes, state constitutional provisions,
or "home rule" authorizations. Implementation measures or additional res-
ponsibilities that exceed these powers do not meet this criteria and may be
held to be invalid under judicial scrutiny. For water quality planning
agencies, a legal opinion or careful review of case law may be required when
matching powers with agencies. This issue is raised in water quality plan-
ning when new powers or functions are considered for grafting on to existing
agencies. For example, other implementation considerations may clearly
indicate the desirability of incorporating erosion control provisions in the
local building code. A review of the state law enabling the local building
code may indicate, however, this attempt to be beyond the authority of the
local building code.
A more common legal authority problem in water quality planning is that
encountered by the states in regulating nonpoint sources of pollution. The
language of a state comprehensive water pollution control law may be couched
in traditional point source pollution terns.3 Without explicit authority
for nonpoint pollution control, many state and areawide water quality agen-
cies have reverted to the use of legislation specifically designed to regu-
late critical areas, such as flood plains, wetlands, or the coastal zone.
A third type of problem facing areawide water quality planners under
this criterion is the pre-emption of local authority by state powers. Cer-
tain local authority, such as setting stream standards, is clearly pre-
empted by long-standing state powers in this area. As states begin to
legislatively enter the nonpoint source field in areas such as statewide
sediment and erosion control, local authority in nonpoint matters may be
circumscribed. For example, very few states with erosion control statutes
delegate enforcement powers to local soil conservation districts. Planning
agencies considering such an institutional arrangement may not only face
strong political acceptability problems, but may be stymied by legal
authority problems.
Legitimacy of purpose intended or served by implementation measure
Closely related to the above criteria is the problem of using tradi-
tional non-water quality measures to serve water quality goals. In water
quality planning, two examples that fall into this category are requirements
for water conserving toilets in local buildng codes and the use of local
growth control measures for water quality purposes. In the latter case, for
390
-------
B.4 POLITICAL ACCEPTABILITY
It would be highly presumptuous to set forth a checklist of absolute
political criteria that could be considered universal in any water quality
planning situation. Political acceptability is clearly a value-laden con-
cept which cannot be as rigorously analyzed as legal and administratively
feasibility issues. Often political acceptability criteria are inconsis-
tent—they reflect conflicting perceptions of what is politically accep-
table. Despite the inability to rigorously define a set of political cri-
teria to be used in a given planning situation, there remains the need to
incorporate political acceptability considerations into the decision making
process. By examining the set of criteria discussed below, the water qua-
lity planner can reduce some of the uncertainty associated with speculative
judgements about political acceptability. The criteria discussed below deal
with issues above and beyond the political considerations tied to cost,
effectiveness, and socioeconomic impacts. In general, those issues will
dominate political acceptability concerns in the evaluation of water quality
strategies. The issues described below, however, may be just as influential
in certain areas and should be given consideration in plan evaluation.
Perceived Public Need
This criterion concerns the degree to which the problem being addressed
is perceived as an important public need relative to other community or
environmental needs. An urban soil erosion control strategy, for example,
may involve a technically-sound approach for controlling sediment from new
development in a community with little or no public fiscal costs. Unless
the water quality impact of sediment, however, has been sufficiently
dramatized, there may be no perceived need by the local implementing agency
for such controls. In another type of situation, there may be a perceived
need for a proposed water quality control involving the expenditures of
public resources. In comparison, however, to a more pressing local need—a
new water supply source, for example—the relative need may simply not be
sufficient to make the water quality control politically acceptable.
Traditional Government Role
The extent to which the proposed implementation measures and institu-
tional arrangements conform to local traditions and attitudes concerning
government role may affect political acceptability. Innovative land use
controls, such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's); public ownership
of local septage pumping operations; restrictions on outside storage of
materials—all may represent unacceptable extensions of local government in
some communities.
Institutional Change
If proposed water quality control strategies require a substantial
amount of institutional change within an agency or in relationships between
393
-------
agencies, then political acceptability problems may be encountered in the
affected agencies. These changes may involve changed responsibilities for
an agency (e.g., placing urban soil erosion control enforcement responsibi-
lities under the jurisdiction of the building inspector) or they may shift
the balance of power among agencies for a certain issue.
Expectation of Success
The political acceptability of a water quality strategy may be directly
related to expectations on the likelihood of implementation. If the outcome
of a strategy is uncertain or if the required implementation time is
lengthy, agencies or the public may view the strategy as questionable. Less
ambitious strategies but with more guarantees of success may be preferred to
strategies that are untried or that have complex implementation procedures.
Decision-Making
The extent to which affected groups have access to and decision-making
autonomy in institutional arrangements will influence the political accepta-
bility of a strategy. One of the implications of this issue is the accepta-
bility of regional sewerage arrangements and special districts. These
arrangements may represent a loss of local power or create an additional
hurdle for a local government in attempting to influence decision-making.
B.5 EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY
Exhibit B-l summarizes the three feasibility issues discussed and the
criteria within each of three categories.
There are several ways of approaching the implementation feasibility
issue. One approach would be to treat each of the criterion as attributes,
similar to the socioeconomic impact categories, and to seek the "most
feasible" alternative. This seems to be an inappropriate approach since the
legal and administrative feasibility criteria have certain minimum standards
that have to be met. The principal goal of the implementation feasibility
analysis in this guidebook is to determine the feasible alternatives that
should be considered in the final evaluation along with cost, socioeconomic
impacts, and environmental impacts. Essentially the planner is required to
screen out alternatives that are unacceptable in terms of implementation
feasibility. The overall screening approach as perceived in this guidebook
is to determine feasible and infeasible alternatives.
Because the political acceptability criteria are more judgemental than
some of the other administrative capability criteria and the legal authority
criteria, different types of screening tests would appear to be appro-
priate. It may be appropriate for example, to use a conjunctive screening
method for the legal authority category. In this screening method, outcomes
for each criterion for an alternative would be categorized as acceptable/
unacceptable. The alternative would only pass the legal authority feasi-
bility test if all of the outcomes registered acceptable.
394
-------
Example B-l EVALUATION OP IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY
BACKGROUND:
FEASIBILITY CATEGORY
FEASIBILITY TEST
REQUIREMENTS
INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA RESULTS
(Y=accep table, N=imacce^t-
able for criteria tltat us,
categorisation .judgements;
0-5 interval measures use.i
for criteria that requii\-
scoring measures, with J
being least aaaeptiibl. ;
HA=not applicable)
CATEGORY RESULTS
DISCUSSION:
Voter quality planning agency is proposing that water conservation strategies be used ae one means
to reduce seaage flows in the local municipal sewage treatment plant and thereby obviate the need
for costly expansion. Speoifioally, the agency proposes an increasing block rate pricing scheme
for all water users. After performing required research on the feasibility issue, the agency's
evaluation of implementation feasibility ie shovn belou.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
All criteria must be categorized
as acceptable.
LA-1: Adequate Statutory (r)
Power
LA-2: Legitimacy of Purpose (Y)
LA- 3: Equal Protection (Y)
LA-4: Confiscation (Y)
Acceptable
ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY
Criteria AC- 5 and AC-6 must be
categorised as acceptable; aggre-
gate sum of other criteria must
total IS.
AC-1: Coordination (S)
AC-2: Clarity of Responsibil- (S)
itiee
AC- 3: Voluntary Compliance (3)
AC-4: Flexibility (4)
AC-S: Adequate Resources (Y)
AC-6: Jurisdictional Adequacy (Y)
AC-?: Duplication (S)
Acceptable
POLITICAL ACCEPTABILITY
Aggregate sum of criteria must
total 12.
PA-1: Perceived Public Heed (2)
PA- 2: Government Role (2)
PA-3: Inaititutional Change (4)
PA-4: Expectation of Success (2)
PA- 5: Access to Decision- (HA)
making
Unacceptable
Because all of the feasibility categories must be acceptable, the alternative is rejected as
infeasible and other water conservation alternatives are suggested for evaluation.
V0
Ul
-------
A variation on the conjunctive screening test might be appropriate for
the administrative capability category. Alternatives would have to pass
acceptability tests for certain specific criteria based on acceptable/
unacceptable categorization. For the remaining criteria, judgements of
feasibility would be assigned according to interval measures. The aggregate
scores of the remaining criteria would be required to meet a certain minimum
amount. FOr example, in order for an alternative to pass the administrative
capability feasibility category, it may be required to be judged feasible on
the resources and jurisdictional criteria and have an aggregate score of 15
on the remaining criteria (where feasibility scores of 0-5 are assigned to
each of the criteria).
Because the political acceptability criteria are more difficult to
measure, it may be appropriate to assign a feasibility score to each cri-
terion and require a minimum aggregate sum for the category. A variation on
this would be to weigh the individual criteria as well as to score them.
Example B-l presents an application of these techniques.
In order to measure or assess the feasibility of the respective cri-
teria, several sources of information will be required. For the legal
authority criteria, legal opinions may be solicited from the local soli-
citor, state attorney general's office, or the EPA regional counsel. This
may be supplemented where possible by case law analysis. For the adminis-
trative capability criteria, interviews with the proposed institutions
should be used by the water quality planner to assess each of the criteria.
Political acceptability judgements may require much more extensive
research. There are essentially three types of approaches for making poli-
tical feasibility assessments. The first approach requires a review of
secondary sources, such as those listed below:
• Newspaper articles concerning water quality issues in the area, or
previous related attempts to alter regulatory powers or institu-
tional arrangements
• Election results or referenda concerning specific related issues or
alterations in institutions in the area
• Public hearing records for similar proposals
• Public agency meeting records when similar proposals were on the
agenda
• Miscellaneous local government records such as annual reports and
budget profiles
While these types of retrospective inference techniques might be use-
ful, they may not be indicative of current political feelings. It may be
appropriate, therefore, to conduct key informant interviews. Key informants
may include elected officials, public agency personnel, media representa-
396
-------
Exhibit B-l
IMRj EMENTATION FEASIBILITY EVALUATION CRITERIA
Legal Authority
• Existence of adequate statutory authority or power
• Legitimacy of purpose intended to be served by implementation
measure
• Potential of the measure to violate equal protection rights, i.e.,
to be discriminatory, arbitrary, or unreasonable
• Extent to which water quality measures are confiscatory—involving
a taking or a diminishing of private property values without just
compensation
Administrative Capability
Coordination with related services/institutions
Clarity of responsibilities and relationships
Potential for voluntary compliance
Flexibility
Adequate financial, manpower, and informational resources
Jurisdictional adequacy
Overlapping/fragmented responsibilities
Political Acceptability
• The degree to which the problem being addressed is perceived as an
important public need relative to other community or environmental
needs
• The extent to which the implementation measures and institutions
conform to local traditions and attitudes concerning government role
• Expectation of success—certainty of outcome; implementation time
required; availability of outside funding
• The extent to which affected groups or local governments have
access to decision-making and autonomy in institutional arrangements
397
-------
tives, special interest groups, and business leaders. These individuals
represent important sources of attitudinal data about political accepta-
bility. Identification of key informants will vary with the water quality
alternative. The citizens advisory group and the technical advisory group
can be used to initially identify individuals. These individuals, in turn,
can be asked to identify additional people to contact. Newspaper articles
will also be an important source.
Finally, a more ambitious approach might involve the use of a public
opinion survey. This approach could be done to randomly-selected households
in an area where a strategy is to be implemented; or it might be done for a
specific potential user group, such as households with on-site wastewater
systems or households in a lake watershed area. Structured surveys have not
been used to a great extent in the water quality planning under Section 201
or 208. While surveys can be viewed as an expensive means for gauging atti-
tudes and public opinion, they may also be one of the best ways of getting
opinions from the public at-large.8 Surveys that are short and focus on
specific issues and/or water quality strategies will have a higher response
rate than broad, general surveys about water quality. In order to reduce
one of the largest expenses associated with surveys, namely the distribution
of them, several low-cost techniques are listed below:
SURVEY DISTRIBUTION
TECHNIQUES
COMMENTS
Mail out with water bill or
sewer bill
low cost technique; can be geared to
specific zip codes; difficult to
enclose a return franked envelope,
however, which enhances response rate
• Newspaper advertisements
Can be geared to local or areawide
paper which will determine cost;
require respondent to assume return
postage
• Door-to-door distribution
Using volunteer labor can be very
inexpensive; best suited for specific
neighborhoods or areas around a water
body; easy to include a return franked
envelope
Phone survey
Can be time-consuming; good sampling
design required; volunteer labor can
reduce cost
393
-------
B.6 REFERENCES
1. See, however, the following: Allen Rneese and Blair Bower, Managing
Water Quality; Economics, Technology, and Institutions, Johns Hopkins
Press, 1968; Marc Roberts, "Organizing Hater Pollution Control: The Scope
and Structure of River Basin Authorities,' Public Policy. Winter 1971; Paul
Hughes, An Analysis of Alternative Institutional Arrangements for
Implementing an Integral Water Supply and Waste Management Program in he
Washington Metropolitan Area, Institute for Defense Analyses, March 1971;
David Ranney, Water Quality Management; An Analysis of Institutional
Patterns. University of Wisconsin Press, 1972. For a more recent guidebook
on institutional issues for selective areawide water quality issues, see
Edward I. Selig and Eve Endicott, "Legal and Institutional Approaches to
Water Quality Planning and Implementation," prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, 1977.
2. See Selig et al. for a more thorough discussion of the legal issues
raised by water quality strategies.
3. See Aspen Systems Corporation, Compilation of Federal, State, and local
Laws Controlling Nonpoint Pollutants, prepared for EPA, 1975.
4. See for example, A. Strong and J. Keene, Environmental Protection
through Public and Private Development Controls, prepared for EPA, 1974.
5. See Selig, et al., p. III-6.
6. See Selig, et al., p. 11-15.
7. See Selig, et al., p. 11-17.
8. According to a recent GAD report, "Water Quality Management Planning Is
Not Comprehensive and May Not Be Effective For Many Years," CED-78-167,
December 11, 1978, the lack of input from the public-at-large is one of the
problems in implementing 208 plans. According to the report, "EPA's sug-
gested methods for public participation—newsletters, briefings, media
coverage, and questionnaires—only guarantee that those special interest
groups or a few citizens who are interested would participate during formu-
lation of the plan." (p. 29)
399
-------
APPENDIX C
Financial Screening Procedure
400
-------
Worksheets and Instructions
for a
Screening Procedure
for
Water Pollution Control Projects
DETERMINATION OF DEBT
CAPACITY OF COMMUNITIES
AND CITIES
prepared bv
The Municipal Finance Officers Association
and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. €gg£
..EPA Contract No. 68-01-4343
401
5/7/79
-------
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE SCREENING PROCEDURE
In recent yean several communities in the United States have initiated water pollution control projects that have
resulted in excessive cons to its residents. In some communities the increased sewage charges have resulted in resi-
dents leaving the community, refusing to pay sewage charges, or being unable to pay the charges. This creates hard-
ships and in some cases leaves municipalities with insufficient funds to cover operating expenses and debt service
payments.
The purpose of this screening procedure is to give the community and reviewing authorities a tool for analyzing a
proposed project in its development stage to determine if the community can afford the proposed project.
Many 201 water pollution control projects are managed by special sanitary districts and authorities which include
several communities. Because of overlapping boundaries, it is often difficult to identify a community's share of the
project's debt and operating expenses. However, if a community identifies its share of the project early in the
project's development (during step 1 of the EPA grant process) it can perform an analysis to determine if it can
afford its share of the project's cost.
The attached worksheets are intended to give community officials and reviewing authorities a basis •for reviewing
the financial impact of the project on the community.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE SCREENING FORM
The form is divided into three parts:
Part I: Identification of the community's share of the proposed project.
Pan II: Development of the community's financial characteristics and capacity Iwrth and without the
project).
Pan III: Analysis of the ability of the community to support the proposed project given the community's
financial characteristics and capacity.
Completion of each part of the worksheets may require data from the project engineer, the managing pollution-
control agency, the community's finance director, local bankers, and financial advisors to the community. (See
Attachment "A" lor a description of Sources of Information.)
402
-------
PARTI
IDENTIFICATION OF THE COMMUNITY'S
SHARE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT "
INSTRUCTIONS
Part I provides a worksheet for determining the total capital and annual costs for the proposed project. Sections 1
and 2 provide an analysis of capital costs with the new project and item 2i converts the local share of capital costs
into an annual debt service charge (the repayment of principal and payment of interest).
Section 3 allows you to calculate total annual costs for the project, combining the amounts needed for operations.
debt service, and any needed reserves. It should be calculated on the basis of when the proposed project starts full
operations.
Section 4 is provided to help determine the community's share of annual total projea costs if it is part of an over-
lapping district or authority. This will be based on a percentage allocation of costs agreement between the managing
agency and your community.
Section 5 calculates the community's sewer charge for residential units with the proposed system.
Section 6 provides the same information with the existing system (without the proposed project). Be careful to show
changes in the industrial share of costs and the number of residential unit served if thesa are to change with the pro-
posed project. Try to use the most recent data available for the present system to reduce the error due to different
time periods, since projects may take two to three yean or longer to complete.
403
-------
PARTI
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Identification of a community'* share of the proposed protect (to be completed by the community or the sewage
managing agency).
TOTAL
1. Total Capital Con of Proposed Project
a. treatment plant or individual systems ___^__
b. interceptor ^__^__
c. collection synem __^___^
d. total cost (a •*• b + c) ^_____
2. Capital Cost Analysis for Proposed Protect
a. total cost
b. cost* ineligible for EPA construction grant funds
c costs eligible for EPA grant funds
d. EPA share (@ %)
e. state share (@ %)
f. local share of eligible cons
g. local share of ineligible costs
h. total local share If + g)
i. ton! annual local share of capital costs (use a 20-year
period for loan or bond maturity at estimated interest)
3. Annual Protect Costs (when protect starts operation)
a. operating and maintenance cost
b. debt service (2i above)
c. any required reserves(xuch as for industrial cost recovery)
d. total annual costs (a •*• b •*• c)
4. Community'» Share of Annual Costs of New Protect
(if a multi-community protect)'
a. annual O& M costs (@ % of 3a)
b. annual debt service (@__% of 3b)
c. annual reserves requirement (§>___% of 3c)
d. total (4a + 4b + 4c)
5. Community's Sewer Charges for Proposed Protect
a. total annual cost for the protect (Ad)
b. industry share of annual con
c residential share of annual cons
d. number of users served
e. annual charge per user (5c/5d)
6. Community's Present Sewer Charges
a. present total annual con
b. industry share of present annual COR
c. residential share of annual cons
d. number of users served
e. annual charge per user (6c/6d)
7. Community's Total Sewer Charges (present plus proposed project)
a. total annual con I5c + 6c)
b. total annual charge per user (5e + 6e)
1 For single community projects the percentages in this Section would alt be 100%.
404
-------
f-AKI II
DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY'S FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
INSTRUCTIONS
Part II provides a format for calculating key ratios that you can use to measure the community's ability to pay for
the proposed sewer project.'it is largely based on the types of measures used by credit analysts to determine a com-
munity's ability to repay debt. It is useful here because most communities borrow their share of sewer project costs
and because the ability to pay for a project is of major concern to lenders.
The table is set up so that two major types of local financing can be analyzed: use of the tax-supported (general
obligation) bond of the user-charge (revenue) bond. If the community plans to borrow for its share using a general
obligation bond, fill out Part II G.O. (page 5). If the community will use a revenue bond, fill out Part II REV, (page
6). If you are uncertain as to which type of debt will be used to finance the local share, check with the finance offi-
cer or local financial adviser. You should enter the appropriate numbers for the most recent year, both without the
project and assuming the project goes ahead. For example, were the community to do the project, the added debt
and other costs you incur will be included in the figures in the column labeled "With the Project"
Several sources of information may be needed to get the figures used in Part II. (See Attachment "A" Sources of
Information.) Figures relating to debt, taxable property value, current expenditures, property taxes and collections,
and sewer operations and charges (where relevant) should be obtainable from the municipal finance officer and/or
the sewer department or sanitary district. Information on population and income may DC gotten from the municipal
planning department, engineering consultant preparing the project, local economic development agency, or the U.S.
Census. In all eases, attempt to use the most recent numbers available. Be prepared to make estimates of some recent
values so that all numbers are for the same period, if at all possible.
405
-------
PART II GENERAL OBLIGATION
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Development of the Community's Financial Characteristics (with and without the project)
Financial Characteristics'
I. Population Change (annual rate of growth for the Ian
5-10 yean) % change
II. Net Direct Debt/Full Taxable Market Value
A. Net Direct Debt
1. general obligation (tax supported) debt
2. other direct (non-tax-tupported) debt
3. gross direct debt (1+2)
4. offsets and deductions (self-supporting)
5. net direct debt (3-4)
B. Full Taxable Market Value of Real Estate
III. Overall Local Debt/Full Taxable Market Value
A. Overall Local Debt
1. net direct debt (from above)
2. overlapping (net) debt
3. overall local debt (1+2)
B. Full Taxable Market Value of Real Estate
IV. Net Direct Debt/Personal Income
A. Net Direct Debt (from above)
B. Total Personal Income of Community
V. Overall Local Debt/Personal Income
A. Overall Local Debt (from above)
B. Total Personal Income of Community
VI. Surplus/Total Current Expenditures
A. Operating Surplus
1. total current revenue
2. total current expenditures
3. operating surplus (1-2)
B. Total Current Expenditures
VII. Overall Local Property Tax/Full Market Value
A. Overall Local Property Tax (current year)
B. Full Taxable Market Value (from above)
VIII. Property Tax Collection Rate
A. Property Tax Collections (current year)
B. Property Tax Levy (current year)
IX. Annual Sewer Charge/Median Household Income
A. Annual Sewage Charge (from section 6e and 7b of
Part I Worksheet)
B. Median Household Income
X. Bond Rating (outstanding bonds of jurisdiction)
XI. Percent of Long-Term Debt Due in Five Years
A. Debt Due in Five Years
B. Outstanding Direct Debt
Without the Project
Value Ratio
With the Project
Value Ratio
' Typical sources of data and a glossary of terms are appended to these worksheets as Attachment "A" and "B"
406
-------
PART II REVENUE BOND
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Development of the Community's Financial Charactaristia (with and without the project)
Without the Project With the Project
Financial Characteristics' Value Ratio Value Ratio
I. Population Change (annual rate of growth for the last
5-10 yean) % change
II. Overall Local Debt/Personal Income
A. Overall Local Debt (from above)
R. Total Personal Income of Community
III. Overall Local Debt/Full Taxable Market Value
A. Overall Local Debt
1. net direct debt
2. overlapping (net) debt
3. overall local debt (1+2)
3. Full Taxable Market Value of Real Estate
IV. Annual Sewer Charge/Median Household Income
A. Annual Sewage Charge (from section 6e and 7b of
Part I Worksheet)
B. Median Household Income
V. Net Sewer Operating Fund Income/Debt Service
A. Net Operating Income
1. operating revenue
2. operating and maintenance expenses
3. net operating income (1-2)
B. Debt Service
VI. Rating (outstanding bonds of jurisdiction)
VII. Percent of Long-Term Debt Due in Five Years
A. Debt Due in Five Years
B. Outstanding Direct Debt
' Typical sources of data and a glossary of terms are appended to these worksheets as Attachments "A" and "B."
407
-------
PART III
ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNITY'S ABILITY TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT
INSTRUCTIONS
Pan III presents the key items that lend themselves TO quantification and the establishment of general characteristics
of the strength and weakness of a eommumry'i financial ability. The analysis is constructed so as to indicate the
values tnat will tend to be associated with strong credit quality and weak credit quality.
The worksheet in Pan III is designed to help you compare a community's key ratio values as calculated on Part II
with the "weak" and "strong" values for that characteristic. You should enter the ratios as calculated in the with
the project column of Part II, in order to see how the project will affect the community's ratios if the project is
done. (However, it may also be helpful to review the ratio values without the project in order to determine the
degree to which the ratios are influenced by doing the project.)
Depending on the characteristic in question, values for the with the project analysis rying to the left of the "strong"
value (or the right of the "weak" value) given will be considered as strong or weak in that characteristic. Values
lying between the two values will be seen as not being necessarily strong or weak, but noon likely "average".
408
-------
PART III
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONOS
QUALITY
RATIO: CHARACTERISTICS
I Population Change (annual rate
for next 5 to 10 yean)
II Net Direct Debt/Full Market
Value of Taxable Property
III Overall Local Debt/Full Market
Value of Taxable Property
IV Net Direct Debt/Personal
Income
V Overall Local Detn/Penonal
Income
VI Operating Surplus/Total Current
Expenditures1
VII Overall Local Property Tax
Rate/Full Market Value
VIII Property Tax Collection Rate
IX Annual Sewer Charge/Median
Family Income
X Rating (Outstanding Bonds of
Jurisdiction)
XI Percent of Debt Due in 5 Years
TOTAL CHECKS
COMMUNITY'S CHECK WHERE YOUR VALUE FALLS:3
RATIO OR
VALUE1 STRONG IN BETWEEN WEAK
Above 1%
Below 2%
Below 4%
Below 5%
Below 10%
Above 5%
_____ Below 2%
_____ Above 98%___
Below 1%
Aa or
Aluw.
Above 30%
s
1 to-1%
2 to 6%
4 to 8%
5 to 15%
10 to 20%
StoOX
2 to 5%
98 to 96%
1 to 2%
A
30 to 10%
Below -1%
Above 6%
Above 8%
Above 15%
Above 20%
Below 0%
Above 5%
Below 96%
Above 2%
Baa or
R.IA»
Below 10%
1 Ratios and Values with the project from page 5 for General Obligation.
: Please indicate if there is a liability for payments to a pension program and the current status of those payments.
3 The values shown form extreme parameters beyond which a particular credit characteristic value would in most
eases be seen as "weak" or "rtrong." These values are subject to high degrees of local and regional variation.
409
-------
PART III
REVENUE BONOS
QUALITY
RATIO: CHARACTERISTICS
I Population Change
II Overall Local Debt/Personal
Income
III Overall Local Debt/Full
Taxable Market Value
IV Annual Sewer Charge/Median
Family Income
V Net Sewer Fund Operating
Income/Debt Service
VI Rating — (Outstanding Bonds
of Jurisdiction)
VII Percent of Long-term Debt
Due in Five Years
TOTAL CHECKS
COMMUNITY'S
RATIO OR
VALUE1
CHECK WHERE YOUR VALUE FALLS:2
STRONG IN BETWEEN WEAK
Below 1%
Above
, « 700% ..•• • . «
Aa or
1 to 2%
200 to
lime.
_ Above 2% — __
Below
IICMt
Baa or
Above 30%.
30% to 10%.
Below 10%.
1 Ratios and Values with the project from page 6.
: The values shown form extreme parameters beyond which a particular credit characteristic value would in most
cases be seen as "weak" or "strong". These values are subject to high degrees of loea* and regional variation.
410
-------
Three important considerations must be underscored:
(1) The velues of characteristics shown are subject to regional variations. Certain characteristic values that
might have been seen as "average" in some areas would be considered as "strong" or "weak" in other settings. The
intervals between the two benchmarks are broad enough to overcame man of this problem, bur attention must be
given to local and regional situations.
(2) Weakness in some characteristics may be offset by strengths in others, or there may be special circum-
stances. What must be looked for is a systematic pattern — a syndrome — of weaknesses or strengths.
(3) The quantitative analysis is no better than the basic data used to develop the ratios. Collection of reliable
and up-to-date data can be difficult and estimates may have to be used to fill in the gaps.
Reviewing the twelve items in part II, 11 characteristics relate to general obligation debt analysis avid 7 are typically
of use in revenue bond analysis. Of these, when any three or more exhibit a "weak" value, evidence trends toward
"weak" values, or where several cluster in the vicinity of "weak" values, the community can be expected to have or
to anticipate difficulties in supporting the proposed project. Of course, many additional problem areas might surface
in the course of an examination and these need to be weighed in consideration.
Communities that determine that a proposed project will result in excessive burden to ha residents should:
• Review the adequacy and accuracy of the cost-effective analysis, particularly noting whether all the
feasible alternatives have been considered and if the con estimates are reasonable.
• Review the method of financing the local share and whether all the sources of supplemental funding such
as the following had been sought out.
Farmers Home Admininration
Assistance funds from the State
Other grant sources (HUO. EDA. CSA. ARC, etc.)
• Review effluent requirements with state ind EPA representatives to determine if a discharge variance
could be obtained.
-------
Attachment A
TYPE OF INFORMATION
SOURCES Or INFORMATION
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TYPICAL PUBLICATIONS
Population, personal income, family
income
Information on existing end prooowd
sewer system protect (capital costs.
future operating cpsts)
Local government financial information
(property values, revenues, expenditures.
daet. etc.)
Local, county, or state planning depart-
ments; economic & community develop-
ment districs: U.S. Census Bureau: state
department of community affairs
Local or regional protect management
agency, local sewer departments, dis-
tricts, or autnonties
Local or county finance officars,treasur-
ers, town accountant! or clerks Local
bankers or financial advisers
Sub-ctatc currant population and in-
come reports, local economic planning
oocuincf 11^ end STHMDCW
Sewer eynsn'ieiui. engineer feasibility
studies, or financial analyses of protects
Local gomrnmai
statements, or annual reports
i. financial
412
-------
Attachment 8
GLOSSARY OF FINANCIAL TERMS
Assets: Property owned by a goverment which has monetary value.
Balane* Sheet: A statement presenting the financial position of an entity by disclosing the value of its assets, liabili-
ties, ana equities as of a specified date.
Bone- A written promise to pay (debt) a specified sum of money (called principal) at a specified future date (called
the maturity date(s)) along with periodic payments at a specified percentage of the principal (interest rate).
Bond Rating: Letter designations used by credit rating agencies (Moody's and Standard & Poor's) to indicate relative
creait quality of security (Moody's ratings from highest quality to lowest (Aaa. Aa. A. Baa. B (highly speculative).
and C (default)).
Budget: A plan of financial operation giving an estimate of proposed expenditures for a given period (typically a
fiscal year) and the proposed means of financing them (revenue estimates).
Capital Assets: Assets of significant value and having a useful life of several years. Capital assets are also fixed assets.
Caaital Budget: A plan of proposed capital expenditures and the means of financing them. The capital budget is
usually enacted as part of the complete annual budget which includes both operating and capital outlays.
Debt Service: Payment of interest and repayment of principal to holders of a government's debt instruments.
Deficit: (1) The excess of an entity's liabilities over its assets (See Fund Balance). (2) The excess of expenditures or
expenses over revenues during a single accounting period.
Direct Debt: Debt which a government has incurred in its own name and relying on its own tax or other resources for
repayment.
Expenditures: Depending on the type of accounting system used, either cash payments for goods received or services
renoered. or the cost of such goods and services, whether cash payments have been made or not.
General Obligation Bonds: When a government pledges its full faith and credit and taxing power. Informally, to the
repayment of the bonds it issues, the term is also to refer to bonds which are tax-supported, being repaid from taxes
and other general revenues.
Household' As defined by the U.S. Census, a household consists of all the persons who occupy a housing unit.
It includes related family members, unreined persons such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who snare
the housing unit, a person living alone, or a group of unrelated persons sharing a housing unit as partners. (House-
holds include families.)
Liability. Debt or other legal obligations arising out of past transactions.
Long-Term Debt' Debt that is due with a maturity of more than 1 year.
Maturities: The dates on which the principal of debt obligations come due for payment.
Median Household Income: As defined by the U.S. Census, the total money income of a household that lies in the
middle of the distribution of all household incomes (half of the households receive more and half receive less).
Net Direct Debt: General obligation (tax-supported debt) minus debt that is self-supporting (non-tax supported
debt).
413
-------
Attachment B-2
Non-Tax-suooorted Debt: Debt that is repaid from sources other than general taxes of a jurisdiction and are not
backed by its full taxing powers. (See revenue bond.)
Operating Surplus (or Deficit): The difference between current expenditure and current receipts during an accounting
period (usually a year).
Overlapping Direct Debt' The proportionate share of debt of local governments whose boundaries overlap the unit
in Question. Usually calculated where several governments show a common tax base, such as counties, towns, and
school districts that levy property taxes.
Personal Income: Total money income of residents as defined by U.S. Census. Total income from community is the
per capita income multiplied by the total population of the community.
Property Tax Collection Rate: The percentage of the property tax year.
Reserve. An account used to indicate that assets are legally restricted for a specific purpose.
Revenue: The term generally represents current receipts from taxes, charges, and other proceeds from current opera-
tions.
Revenue (Limned Liability) Bonds: Bonds which do not pledge the full faith credit and taxing power of the juris-
diction. Typically, pledges are made to dedicate one specific revenue source to repay these bonds. Although some
revenue Donds are based on special taxes, most are secured by fees and charges of an enterprise and. thus, are formally
called "non-tax-supported debt:'
Tax Rate* The percentage rate at which a municipality levies a tax.
True Value of Taxable Property: The market value of all real property within a jurisdiction that is subiect to an ad-
valorem property tax. Not to be confused with the assessed property value which is the legal value at which pro-
perties are assessed for tax-paying properties and often is only a fraction of the true value.
Tax-supported Debt: Debt that is repaid from the general taxes of a jurisdiction and is backed by its full taxing
power (see general obligation bond).
414
-------
APPENDIX D
STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICERS
415
-------
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS
ALABAMA
Alabama Department of Archives & History
Chairman, Alabama Historical Cormlsslon
Archives and History Building
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
205/832-6510
ALASKA
Director, Division of Parks
323 East Fourth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
206/583-0150 - (Ask for Anchorage,
274-4675)
ARIZONA
Director, State Parks Board
16B8 West Adams
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
602/271-4174
ARKANSAS
State Historical Preservation Officer
Acting Director, Deoartnent of Natural
and Cultural Heritage
The Old State House
300 West Markhan
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
501/371-1639
CALIFO°NIA
Department of Parks a Recreation
State Resources Agency
»ost Office Box 2390
Sacremento, California 95811
916/445-2358
COLORADO
State Historical Society
Colorado State Museum
200 14th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 8023
303/892-2136
COIiriECTICUT
Connecticut Historical Commission
59 South Prospect Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
203/556-3005
DELAMAPE
Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs
Hall of Records
Dover, Delaware 19901
302/678-4653
FLORIDA
Division of Archives, History a
Records Management
Department of State
401 East Games Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
904/488-1480
GEORGIA
Acting Chief, Historic Preserva-
tion Section
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., S.W.. Rm. 703 C
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
404/656-2840
HAWAII .
State Historic Preservation
Officer
P.O. Box 621
Honolulu, Hawaii 96809
415/556-0220 - Ask for Honolulu,
548-2211
IDAHO
Historic Preservation Coordinator
Idaho State Historical Society
CIO North Julia Davis Drive
Boise. Idano 83706
208/384-2120
ILLINOIS
Department of Conservation
£02 State Office Building
400 South Sorlno Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
217/782-6302
INDIANA
Department of Natural Resources
EOS State Office Building
Indianapolis, Indiana 42504
317/633-6344
IQtfA
Director, State Historical
Department
Division of Historic Preservation
B 13 McLean Hall
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
319/353-6949
KANSAS
Kansas State Historical
Society
120 West 10th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66612
913/296-3251
KENTUCKY
Kentucky Heritage Commission
104 Bridge Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40701
502/564-4476
LOUISIANA
Department of Art, Historical and
Cultural Preservation
Old State Capitol, North Boulevard
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70301
504/389-5086
Name Historical Preservation
Commission
31 Western Avenue
Augusta. Maine 04330
207/289-2133
MARYLAND
State Historic Preservation
Officer.
The John Shaw House
21 State Circle
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
301/2S7-1440
MASSACHUSETTS
Executive Director, Massachusetts
Historical Commission
294 Masnington Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
617/727-3470
MICHIGAN
Director, Michigan History Division
Department of State
Lansing, Michigan 48918
517/375-0510
416
-------
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS
MINNESOTA
Minnesota Historical Society
690 Cedtr Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612/296-2747
MISSISSIPPI
State of Mississippi
Department of Archives and
History
Post Office Box 571
Jackson. Mississippi 39205
601/354-6218
MISSOURI
Director, Missouri Department
of Natural Resources
? 0 Box 176
1204 Jefferson Building
Jefferson City. Missouri 65101
314/751-4422
MONTANA
Recreation and Parks Division
Department of Fish and Game
Mitchell Building
Helena. Montana 59601
406/449-2535
NEBRASKA
The Nebraska State Historical
Society
1500 R Street
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
402/432-2793
NEVADA
Division of State Parks
Room 221, Nye Building
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89701
702/885-4370
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Department of Resources and
Economic Development
P 0 Box 856
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
603/271-2411
NEW JERSEY
Department of Environmental
Protection
Post Office Box 1420
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
609-292-2835
NEW MEXICO
State Historic Preservation
Officer
State Capitol
403 Capitol Building
Santa Fe. New Mexico 87501
505/827-2974
NEH YORK
Parks and Recreation
Agency Building fl
Empire State Plaza
Albany. New York 12223
518/474-0468
NORTH CAROLINA
Director, Division of Archives
and History
State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
190 East Jones Street
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611
919/829-7305
RH"PE ISLAND
Rhode Island Department of Community
Affairs
150 Washington Street
Providence. Rhode Island 02903
401/277-2850
SOUTH CAROLINA
State Archives Department
1430 Senate Street
Columbia, South Carolina
803/758-5816
SOUTH DAKOTA
Director, Office of Cultural Pres-
ervation
Department of Education and
Cultural Affairs
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
605/224-3458
TENNESSEE
NORTH DAKOTA
State Historical Society of north
Liberty Memorial Building
Bismarck. North Dakota 5B501
701/224-2667
OHIO
The Ohio Historical Society
Interstate 71 at 17th Avenue
Columbus. Ohio 43211
614/466-3852
OKLAHOMA
State Historic Preservation Officer
1108 Colcord Building
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73102
405/236-3571
OREGON
State Parks and Recreation
300 State Highway Building
Salem, Oregon 97310
503/378-6305
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission
Box 1026
Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania 17108
712/787-2891
Tennessee Historical Commission
170 Second Avenue North
Dakota Suite 100
Nashville. Tennessee 37219
615/741-2371
TEXAS
Texas Historical Conmisslon
P.O. Box 12276
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
512/475-3092
UTAH
Division of State History
603 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
801/533-5755
VERMONT
Vemont Division of Historic
Sites
Pavilion Building
Montoelier, Vermont 05602
802/828-3226
VIRGINIA
Executive Director,
Virginia Historic Landmarks
Commission
221 Governor Street
Richmond. Virginia 23219
804/786-3143
417
-------
STATE HISTORIC RESERVATION OFFICES
WASHINGTON
State Conservator
P 0. Box 1128
Olympla, Washington 9B504
206/753-4011
WEST VIRGINIA
West Virginia Antiquities
Comnisslon
P.O. Box 630
Morgantown. West Virginia 26505
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
816 State Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
608/262-3266
WYOMING
Wyoming Recreation Commission
604 East 25th Street
Box 309
Cheyenn", Wyoming 32001
307/777-7695
DISTRICT OF COLUfBIA
Acting Director, Office of Housing
and Community Development
14th and I. Streets N.U., Room 112 A
Washington, D.C. 20004
202/629-5033
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Institute of Puerto Rico Culture
Apartado 4184
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00905
Commercial 9-809/723-2115 (ext 232)
418
------- |