CERCLA/SARA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MANUAL
PTepared by:
United States
Environmental Protection Agency - Region 11
Office of Policy and Management
Environmental Impacts Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
With Assistance from:
Maguifc Group Inc.
Architect»/Engineer»;PUnner»
One Court Street
New Britain, Connecticut 06051
JANUARY 1988
-------
INTRODUCTION
This Manual is intended to assist remedial project managers (RPMs)
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Region II in
ensuring that Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980/Superfund Amendments and Rea/ithorization Act of
1986 (CERCLA/SARA) remedial actions are functionally equivalent with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and comply with the
requirements of other environmental statutes. Specifically, this
Manual discusses compliance requirements of those statutes that
address the following environmental resources: wetlands/water bodies;
floodplains; endangered and threatened species/ critical habitats;
coastal zones; coastal barriers; cultural resources; wild and scenic
rivers; wilderness areas; and significant agricultural lands. EPA's
NEPA compliance staff is uniquely qualified to review CERCLA/SARA
remedial actions to ensure compliance with these statutes. Addi-
tionally, RPM's should also consult with other EPA program offices,
federal agencies, and state-agencies, as necessary, to ensure that
CERCLA/SARA remedial actions comply with all other environmental
statutes that are not covered by this Manual.
Chapter 1 discusses the concept of NEPA functional equivalency as
it applies to the CERCLA/SARA review process. In addition, it
details the history and rationale behind ensuring CERCLA/SARA
project compliance with other environmental statutes, and pre-
sents the reasoning behind involving the regional NEPA compliance
staff in the CERCLA/SARA review process.
Chapter 2 presents sections on all of the environmental resources
listed above. The respective sections present the other environ-
mental statutes (ARARs) that apply to the environmental re-
sources. Additionally, these sections present the review proced-
ures that must be followed to ensure compliance with the respec-
tive other environmental laws.
Chapter 3 describes EPA's responsibilities under the natural
resource damage assessment provisions of CERCLA/SARA and the
National Contingency Plan (NCP). These requirements are mandated
by CERCLA/SARA to ensure that risks and damages to natural
resources that would result from a release of hazardous sub-
stances are adequately assessed and compensated.
The Manual also includes several appendices that contain support-
ing documentation for the Chapters.
This Manual has been bound in a loose-leaf binder to enable easy
revisions and updates as necessary.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF ACRONYMS vi
1. Overview
1.1 Functional Equivalence with NEPA 1.1
1.2 Compliance with Other Environmental Statutes 1.2
2. Environmental Review Procedures
2.1 Wetlands/Water Resources 2.1.1
2.1.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework 2.1.1
2.1.2 Environmental Review Procedures 2.1.3
2.2 Floodplains 2.'2.1
2.2.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework 2.2.1
2.2.2 Environmental Review Procedures 2.2.3
2.3 Endangered Species 2.3.1
2.3.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework 2.3.1
2.3.2 Environmental Review Procedures 2.3.2
2.4 Cultural Resources 2.4.1
2.4.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework 2.4.1
2.4.2 Environmental Review Procedures 2.4.3
2.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers 2.5.1
2.5.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework 2.5.1
2.5.2 Environmental Review Procedures 2.5.2
ii
-------
2.6 Coastal Zones 2.6.1
2.6.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework 2,6.1
2.6.2 Environmental Review Procedures 2.6.2
2.7 Coastal Barriers 2.7.1
2.7.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework 2.7.1
2.7.2 Environmental Review Procedures 2.7.1
2.8 Wilderness Areas 2.8.1
2.8.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework 2.8.1
2.8.2 Environmental Review Procedures 2.8.1
2.9 Significant Agricultural Lands 2.9.1
2.9.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework 2.9.1
2.9.2 Environmental Review Procedures 2.9.3
3. Natural Resource Trustee Coordination
3.1 Introduction 3.1
3.2 EPA Actions 3.2
3.3 Trustee Actions 3.3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATON
A-l Memorandum of Applicability of Section 102(2) (c) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to
Response Actions Under Section 104 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980, September 1, 1982
A-2 Memorandum on CERCLA Remedial Actions and NEPA/EIS
Functional Equivalency, August 22, 1984
A-3 Memorandum on Coordination Between Regional Superfund
Staffs and OFA Regional Counterparts on CERCLA Actions,
October 29, 1984
A-4 CERCLA Environmental Issues and Requirements - EIB/ERRD
Coordination Procedure
A-5 Memorandum on CERCLA Compliance with Other Environ-
mental Statutes, October 2, 1985
iii
-------
APPENDIX B ENDANGERED SPECIES INFORMATION
B-l List of Federally Listed and Proposed Endangered and
Threatened Species
B-2 List of Critical Habitats
B-3 Guidelines for Conducting a Biological Assessment
APPENDIX C LIST OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
APPENDIX D LIST OF COASTAL BARRIERS
APPENDIX E LIST OF WILDERNESS AREAS
APPENDIX F SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS INFORMATION
F-l Significant Agricultural Lands as Defined by EPA Policy
F-2 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD 1006)
APPENDIX G NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEE INFORMATION
G-l Natural Resource Trustee Notification Form
G-2 MOU Between EPA And DOI - Preliminary Natural Resource
Surveys
APPENDIX H CONTACTS
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure #
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
Title Following Page
CERCLA/SARA and NEPA Processes
Wetland Cross Section
Procedures for Wetlands/Water Resources
Review Under CERCLA/SARA
Floodplain Cross-Section
Procedures for Floodplain Review
Under CERCLA/SARA
Sample Floodplain Delineation (FEMA Map)
Procedures for Endangered Species
Review. Under CERCLA/SARA
Procedures for Cultural Resources
Review Under CERCLA/SARA
Procedures for Wild and Scenic Rivers
Review Under CERCLA/SARA
Procedures for Coastal Zone Review
Under CERCLA/SARA
Procedures for Coastal Barrier Review
Under CERCLA/SARA
Procedures for Wilderness Area Review
Under CERCLA/SARA
Procedures for Significant Agricultural
1.2
2.1.1
2.1.3
2.2.1
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.3.2
2.4.3
2.5.2
2.6.2
2.7.1
2.8.1
2.9.3
Lands Review Under CERCLA/SARA
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979
BA Biological Assessment
BO Biological Opinion
CBRA Coastal Barrier Resource Act of 1982
CE Categorical Exclusion
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CRS Cultural Resource Survey
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DOC Department of Commerce
DOI Department of the Interior
EA Environmental Assessment
EIB Environmental Impacts Branch
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPIC Environmental Photo Interpretation Center
ERRD Emergency and Remedial Response Division
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973
FDPA Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FNSI Finding of No, Significant Impact
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981
FS Forest Service
FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958
FKS Fish and Wildlife Service
HRS Hazard Ranking System
HSA Historic Sites Act of 1935
IRL Interagency Review Letter
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NCP National Contingency Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
MFIA National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
MHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPL National Priorities List
NPS National Park Service
NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
vi
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Cont'd.)
OEA Office of External Affairs
OFA Office of Federal Activities
0PM Office of Policy and Management
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PA Preliminary Assessment
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SSCD State Soil Conservation District
USC United States Code
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
WA Wilderness Act
WRC Water Resources Council
WSRA Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
vii
-------
OVERVIEW
-------
1.1 Functional Equivalence with NEPA
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321
et seq) requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental
impacts associated with major actions that they fund, support,
permit, or implement. Generally, this is accomplished by build-
ing into the decision-making process appropriate and careful
consideration of the environmental impacts of proposed actions
and measures to avoid and minimize potential adverse effects of
the actions. Specifically, NEPA requires federal agencies to
consider five (5) issues during the planning of major actions:
1) the environmental impact of the proposed action; 2) any
adverse impacts which cannot be avoided with the proposed imple-
mentation; 3) alternatives to the proposed action; 4) the
relationship between short- and long-term effects; and 5) any
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which
would be involved in a proposed action. Further, Section 102(2)
(c) of NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS) for major actions "significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment".
Implementing regulations for NEPA have been developed and issued
by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which oversees the
NEPA process for the Executive Branch. These regulations (i.e.,
40 CFR Part 1500 - 1508) set forth the general requirements that
federal agencies must follow to ensure compliance with NEPA. In
addition to providing the regulatory basis and procedural re-
quirements for the preparation of EISs, these regulations also
provide for the preparation of Findings of No Significant Im-
pacts/Environmental Assessments (FNSI/EAs) and Categorical
Exclusions (CEs) for categories of actions that will not cause
environmental impacts. Under the CEQ's NEPA regulations, all
federal agencies are required to determine which of their activi-
ties are major actions subject to NEPA, and to develop their own
regulations for implementing NEPA. EPA's NEPA implementation
regulations are presented in 40 CFR Part 6.
Functional equivalency is a term which was coined by the District
of Columbia Circuit Court concerning EPA's role under NEPA. In
general, the Court held that EPA is exempt from preparing NEPA
documents (i.e., EISs and FNSI/EAs) for regulatory actions where
the Agency's work product constitutes the functional equivalent
of a NEPA review (e.g., RCRA permits). Although the Courts have
applied the concept of functional equivalence only to regulatory
actions, the EPA's Office of General Counsel has issued an
opinion that extends the functional equivalency concept to site
specific non-regulatory actions as well (see Appendix A-l), such
as remedial actions under CERCLA/SARA.
1.1
-------
In the case of CERCLA/SARA remedial actions, a comparison of the
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process to the
NEPA review process (see Figure 1-1) highlights the broad simi-
larities in both processes that lends support to the extension of
the NEPA functional equivalence concept to the CERCLA/SARA
program. Generally, the RI/FS process produces a document that
is very similar to a NF.PA EIS or expanded FNSI/EA. It should be
noted, however, that the processes are not identical. Moreover
only through compliance with the requirements of other environ-
mental statutes can CERCLA/SARA remedial actions be considered to
be in full compliance with NEPA.
1.2 Compliance with Other Environmental Statutes
As indicated in Section 1.1 above, there are a series of other
environmental statutes (e.g., the National Historic Preservation
Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act,
the Executive Orders on Floodplains and Wetlands, etc.; that must
be complied with to ensure that CERCLA/SARA remedial actions are
functionally equivalent with NEPA. Each of these other environ-
mental statutes has unique review procedures established that are
independent of NEPA. Accordingly, although compliance with these
statutes comprises an important subset of the NEPA process,
compliance with them is mandatory for all projects, independent
of the NEPA process.
In 1984, EPA's Office of External Affairs (OEA) and Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) recognized the need to
address compliance with other environmental statutes during the
process of planning CERCLA/SARA remedial actions. These offices
further recognized the expertise that regional NEPA compliance
staffs have in meeting the compliance requirements. Therefore,
OEA and OSWER issued joint guidance memoranda on August 22, 1984,
and October 29, 1984, recommending the establishment of close
coordination between regional CERCLA/SARA and NEPA compliance
staff to ensure full compliance of remedial actions with the
requirements of other environmental statutes (see Appendices A-2
and A-3, respectively).
Building on these guidance memoranda, EPA Region II's Emergency
and Remedial Response Division (ERRD) and Office of Policy and
Management (0PM) established procedures for coordination between
ERRD and the Environmental Impacts Branch (EIB) to ensure that
CERCLA/SARA remedial actions comply with the environmental
statutes. Under these procedures, dated April 10, 1985, (see
Appendix A-4), EIB reviews all proposed remedial actions (both
remedial and enforcement lead), and recommends to the RPMs appro-
priate actions to ensure compliance. These procedures, which
were fully implemented in FY-86, represent a significant positive
effort taken by this regional office to establish a formal
working relationship between CERCLA/SARA and NEPA compliance
staffs"
1.2
-------
CERCLA / SARA AND NEPA PROCESSES
FIGURE 1-1
r.FRCLA / SARA PROCESS
PA I
SITE
VISIT
^
-"" "' 1^
SITE
INVESTIGATION
f-l
HRS
RANKING
NPL
LISTING
NPL
ISSUE
INTERAGERCY
REVIEW LETTER
60 DAYS
CQttttENT
PREPARED//'! ISSUE
^ ^ ^PREPARE FS j
3 WK
COMMENT
ISSUE
ROD
I
NO
ACTION
NEPA PROCESS
ACTION _. SIGNIFIC
NEEDS I!S ENVIRO
ENVIRON. IMPACT
REVIEW?
N
0 Ul
ANT ISSUE N01
N. rc-L INITIATE
S? ~^ FORMAL
EIS SCOPING
4KNOUN A
30 DAYS
COMMENT
POSSIBLE
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
PREPARE
I
ISSUE
DEIS
PREPARE
EA
45 DAYS
COMMENT
NO
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS
PREPARE
t
ISSUE
FEIS
ISSUE
FNSI/EA
30 DAYS
COMMENT
30 DAYS
COMMENT
i»»
ISSUE
ROD
FORMAL
DECISION
ON
ACTION
ISSUE
CATEGORICAL
EXCLUSION
C>
IMPLEMENT
ACTION
HASUIRE SHOUP IMC,
-------
Additionally, EPA's OSWER recognized the need to issue further
guidance on ensuring that CERCLA/SARA projects comply with the
environmental statutes, and issued a policy statement addressing
this need on October 2, 1985 (see Appendix A-5). This policy
statement, which was included in the November 20, 1985 revisions
to the National Contingency Plan (NCP), identifies potentially
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) with
which CERCLA/SARA actions must comply.
Further, Section 121 of SARA reinforces and expands the OSWER
policy statement by mandating that CERCLA/SARA actions must
comply with federal, state, and local ARARs. Under SARA,
therefore, ARARs include those laws, regulations, and policies
that address the following environmental resources:
. wetlands/water resources;
. floodplains;
. endangered and threatened species/critical habitats;
. coastal zones;
. cultural resources;
. wild and scenic rivers;
. coastal barriers;
. wilderness areas; and
. significant agricultural lands.
The environmental review procedures discussed in Chapter 2 are
keyed to the four (4) principal activities of the CERCLA/SARA
remedial action process:
the Interagency Review Letter (IRL), formerly known as the
A95 clearinghouse letter, is the scoping phase of the
process;
the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is the
analysis phase of the process;
the Record of Decision (ROD) is the decision phase of the
process; and
the Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) is the
imp1ementation phase of the process.
The text and flow charts in Chapter 2 indicate in which phase
certain environmental review procedures are carried out.
1.3
-------
Although responsibility for final decisions on CERCLA/SARA
remedial activities is not delegable, some remedial activities in
EPA Region II are directed by state agencies and carried out by
responsible parties. Further, EPA views delegation of certain
environmental review functions as both feasible and desirable in
some circumstances, but is bound to retain responsibility for
final decisions regarding the impacts of remedial actions.
Accordingly, this Manual should be used as a guide to state
agencies and responsible parties as well as EPA's RPMs during
their respective CERCLA/SARA remedial activities.
1.4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROCEDURES
-------
2.1 WETLANDS /
WATER RESOURCES
-------
2.1 WETLANDS/WATER RESOURCES
Wetlands are defined by Executive Order 11990 on Protection of
Wetlands, Section 7(c) as "those areas that are inundated by
surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support
and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence
of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or season-
ally saturated soil condition? for growth and reproduction".
Wetlands include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud
flats, natural ponds, and mangrove swamps. Figure 2-1 is a cross
section diagram of a wetland.
2.1.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework (Potential ARARs)
National policy considers wetlands to be unique and vital
natural resources of critical importance; the unnecessary
destruction or alteration of wetlands should be discouraged
as contrary to the public interest. The Federal Government
has promulgated laws, executive orders, regulations and
guidelines to minimize destruction of or adverse impacts to
the nation's wetlands and water resources. Those statutes
which are relevant to wetlands/water resource protection and
to the intent of this Manual are summarized as follows:
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (FWCA) (16
USC 661)
The FWCA requires federal agencies to give wildlife
conservation equal consideration with other features
during planning and decision-making processes that may
impact water bodies (including wetlands). If the
project will impact water resources under FWCA, the
agency must consult with appropriate state and federal
wildlife agencies to determine necessary mitigative
measures.
Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA), as amended (33 USC 466)
Section 404 of the CWA established a national program
to control the discharge of dredged or fill materials
into waters of the United States. "Waters of the
United States" include all tributaries of navigable
waters up to their headwaters and landward to their
ordinary high water mark and all tidal waters up to the
high tide line, thus including wetlands. The section
established a permit program that is administered by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and overseen by
EPA for the placement of dredged and fill material into
these waters.
5?.1.1
-------
UPLAND PALUSTRINE UPLAND
PALUSTRINE
UPLAND
»
PALUSTRINE
UPLAND
Seepage Zone
WETLANDS CROSS-SECTION
a TEMPORARILY FLOODED (hj,
b SEASONALLY FLOODED
c SEMIPERMANENTLY FLOODED
d INTERMITTENTLY EXPOSED
e PERMANENTLY FLOODED
f SATURATED
HIGH WATER
AVERAGE WATER
LOW WATER
SOURCE: FWS. 1979. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS AND DEEPWATER HABITAT OF THE US
FIGURE 2-1
-------
COE - Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers (33
CFR 320-330)
These regulations describe the policies and procedures
related to applications for COE permits for various
activities altering waters of the United States. The
regulations also expand the CWA definition of waters of
the United States to specifically include wetlands.
EPA - Guidelines for Specifications of Disposal Sites
for Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR 280)
These guidelines establish procedures for reviewing
applications for permits for the placement of dredged
or fill materials in waters of the United States,
including wetlands. They emphasize restoration and
maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of these waters in accordance with the CWA.
EPA - Administrator's Statement Number 4 - February 23.
1973
This decision statement outlines the values of wetlands
and states that it is EPA's policy to give special
attention to any proposal that may damage wetlands and
to protect wetlands to the maximum extent practicable
from adverse dredging and filling practices and non-
point source pollution.
Executive Order 11990 - "Protection of Wetlands" - May
24. 1977
Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to take
actions to minimize the destruction, loss, or degrada-
tion of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the
natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying
out the agencies' responsibilities. In addition, this
Executive Order requires the agencies to consider
factors relevant to a proposal's effect on the survival
and quality of the wetlands.
EPA - Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management
and Wetlands Protection - January 5. 1979
Based primarily on Executive Orders 11988 and 11990,
these procedures state EPA's policy of avoiding impacts
to wetlands in all EPA programs. The procedures
2.1.2
-------
require the determination of whether or not the pro-
posed remedy will be in or will affect wetlands. If
so, a wetlands assessment must be prepared. Refer to
Chapter 2.2 for discussion of application to flood-
plains.
COE - Regulatory Guidance Letter on Superfund Projects
- July 5, 1955
This letter was issued in response to EPA's position
that CERCLA actions need not obtain permits under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act. Specifically, the letter
directs appropriate COE personnel not to require permit
applications for actions proposed under the authority
of CERCLA.
EPA - Statement of Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands
Assessments for CERCLA Actions - August 5, 1985
This policy states that if it has been determined that
the proposed remedy will be in or will affect wetlands,
a wetlands assessment must be prepared. This assess-
ment must be incorporated into the analysis conducted
during the planning of remedial actions under the NCP
and CERCLA and should be included in the feasibility
study.
2.1.2 Environmental Review Procedures
Figure 2-2 outlines the environmental review procedures for
wetlands and water resources as they apply to CERCLA/SARA.
IRL: During the scoping of remedial actions, EPA should
identify any wetlands/water resources in the
project area that may be potentially affected by
contamination at the site or by the remedial
action.
Although in-field analysis is the best method for
identifying wetlands/water resources, such analy-
sis may be considered too detailed for this phase
of a remedial action. Accordingly, other readily
available sources may be used. A recommended
source is the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
maps developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). These maps, prepared by interpret-
ing aerial photographs, are generally transparent
overlays to the U.S. Geologic Survey's 7.5 minute
quad sheets. They are available from the appro-
priate FWS office. Additional sources for identi-
fying wetlands/water resources during this phase
of the project include: COE reports, Soil Surveys
prepared by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
2.1.3
-------
PROCEDURES FOR
WETLANDS/WATER RESOURCES REVIEW UNDER CERCLA/SARA
CERCLA/SARA FIGURE 2-2
PROJECT PHASE
IRL
RI/FS
DETERMINE IF PROPOSED
ACTION IS IN AFFECTING
WETLANDS/WATER RESOURCES
DELINEATE WETLANDS/WATER RESOURCES
IDENTIFY IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION,
CONDUCT WETLANDS/WATER RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENT FW CONSULTATION
PUBLIC NOTICE AND REVIEW
ROD
RD/RA
DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION
OF MITIGATION
NO FURTHER
WETLANDS/WATER RESOURCES
REVIEW REQUIRED
NJTE»
REFER TO TEXT FOR MORE DETAILS
NMVIRC IROUP INC.
-------
Environmental Photo Interpretation Center (EPIC)
documentation, state wetland maps, and local
sources (see Appendix H).
If no wetlands/water resources exist in the
project area, the RI/FS may proceed without
further consideration of the procedures set forth
Oelow.
RI/FS: If wetlands/water resources exist in the project
area, the impacts of the contamination and poten-
tial remedial actions on these areas must be
assessed in the RI/FS. The RI/FS workplan should
provide for completion of all required wetlands/
water resources assessment work during the prepa-
ration of the RI/FS.
The first part of a wetlands/water resources
assessment is the accurate delineation of any such
areas that could be affected by the contamination
or remedial actions. As stated above, the deline-
ation must be based on in-field analysis. The
recommended method for delineating these resources
is detailed in EPA's Wetlands Identification and
Delineation Manual (April 19, 1987 interim final).
When the wetlands/water resources are accurately
delineated, the detailed assessment work can
proceed. The wetlands/water resources assessment
includes the following:
a description of the proposed action;
a description of the wetlands/water resources
functions at and in the vicinity of the site;
a description of the effects of the proposed
action on the wetlands/water resources
functions;
a description of the alternatives considered
and their effects on wetlands/water resources
functions; and
a delineation of measures to minimize poten-
tial harm to wetlands/water resources func-
tions.
Clearly, the best method for avoiding impacts of
remedial actions on wetlands/water resources is to
avoid these features where selecting remedies.
However, this is not always possible and in some
cases (e.g., when wetlands/water resources are
contaminated) may be unavoidable. There are a
1.1.4
-------
variety of measures to mitigate unavoidable
adverse wetland/ water resources impacts. These
measures include but are not limited to:
enforcing seasonal restrictions on construc-
tion activities as practicable;
restoring surface and subsurface flow pat-
terns;
using proper erosion and sedimentation
control;
minimizing easement widths;
prohibiting dumping in wetlands/water re-
sources;
limiting size of construction equipment;
ensuring appropriate treatment levels for
effluent discharges to wetlands/water bodies;
prohibiting the use of chemicals for dust
control;
minimizing exposure of acid soils;
restoring the disturbed area so as to re-
create the area's wetlands functions; and
replacing disturbed wetland areas with newly
created wetlands.
It should be noted that mitigative measures,
particularly wetland restoration, can be very
costly remedial action alternatives. Accordingly,
when possible, those alternatives that result in
the least impacts to wetlands/water resources
should be favored if all other factors are equal.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination
In accordance with the FWCA, the appropriate state
and federal wildlife agencies (see Appendix H)
must be consulted if wetlands/water resources will
be impacted by a CERCLA/SARA project. These
2.1.5
-------
agencies will be helpful in developing out-of-wet-
land alternatives or recommending proper mitiga-
tion. Specifically, the FWCA requires the respon-
sible official to coordinate with the appropriate
state and federal wildlife agencies, whenever a
project impounds, diverts or otherwise modifies
wetlands or water resources. Results of the
coordination, including all mitigation measures,
must be documented i., writing. This information
will, in turn, be incorporated into the wetlands/
water resources assessment, which will be included
in the RI/FS.
ROD: The ROD should include a summary of EPA's activi-
ties to ensure that impacts to wetlands/water
resources are properly addressed and mitigated.
RD/RA: Unavoidable impacts to wetlands/water resources
must be mitigated during the implementation phase
of the CERCLA/SARA remedial action.
2.1.6
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
999 1 8th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405
JUNO 7 1988
Ref: SRC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joni Teter
Assistant Regional Counsel
,
FROM: Marion Yoder ) > }
Assistant Regional Counsel
Brad Miller, 8WM-SP
Water Management Division
SUBJECT: Substantive Requirements of CWA §404
The following is a distillation of the substantive
requirements of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. Part
230.10, et. seq. These guidelines were developed by EPA in
conjunction with the Corps of Engineers for the specification of
disposal sites for discharges of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States. These include all navigable waters,
territorial seas, lakes, streams, intermittent streams, wet
meadows, weltands, mudflats, sloughs, prairie potholes or other
waters whose. use could affect interstate commerce.
Section 404(b)(l) Requirements
NOTE: Questions 1 through 4 must be answered in the negative
before a determination of compliance with the 404(b)(!)
Guidelines can be made.
1 . Is there a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge
which would have less adverse impact to the aquatic
environment which could also not have other significant
adverse environmental consequences. (40 C.F.R. Part
230.10(a) ).
Yes No
This section defines the term "practicable" in terms of its
availability, cost, technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purpose. An area not presently owned which
could reasonably be obtained to fulfill the basic purpose of
the proposed discharge may, and should, be considered.
-------
Upland alternatives are presumed to be available and to have
less impact on the aquatic ecosystem. The initial and most
difficult hurdle for any applicant is overcoming the upland
alternative presumption.
2. Does the discharge of dredged or fill material cause or
contribute to violations of any applicable state water
quality standard or toxic effluent prohibition? (40 C.F.R.
Part 230.10(b)(1)).
Yes No
In addition to water quality standards within the given
state where the impacts are occurring, EPA may be required
to make a determination concerning violations of applicable
water quality standards for interstate impacts in downstream
states. This determination may be based, in part, on the
opinions of downstream states regarding compliance with
their applicable water quality standards.
3. Does the discharge jeopardize the continued existence of.
species listed as threatened or endangered? (40 C.F.R. Part
230.10(b)(3».
Yes No
Will the discharge result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat?
Yes No
EPA generally relies on the opinion of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the state fish and game agency here.
Other individuals or groups and organizations may also
submit useful and appropriate information which may be used.
to supplement that of the federal and state agencies.
4. Does the discharge contribute to significant degradation of
the waters of the United States? Human health and welfare,
aquatic and wildlife ecosystems and recreational, aesthetic
and economic values are considered here.
Yes No
Findings of significant degradation are based on the
evaluations which are "listed in Subparts B and G after
consideration of Subparts C-F." These evaluations include
determination of physical substrate, water circulation,
fluctuation of water levels, salinity determinations,
suspended particulates, contaminants, aquatic ecosystems,
-------
NOTE:
5.
disposal sites, cumulative effects, and secondary effects as
well as evaluation of the dredged or fill material and its
chemical, biological, and physical characteristics.
Question 5 must be answered in the affirmative before a
determination of compliance with the 404(b)(l)
Guidelines can be made.
Have all appropriate and practicable steps been taken which
will minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on
the aquatic ecosystem? (40 C.F.R. 230.10(d).
Yes
No
As discussed in part 1, above, alternatives which result in
minimization of the adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem
must be considered and, unless otherwise more damaging,
chosen. If no alternative is practicable which avoids
impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, alternatives which
minimize such impacts must be chosen. Compensatory
mitigation is then required to compensate for unavoidable
adverse impacts. For wetland impacts, compensatory
mitigation often includes restoration of previously damaged
wetlands or creation of replacement wetlands which will
replace the wetland functions to be lost due to the project.
In-kind mitigation measures are generally required as they
provide better replacement of lost wetland functions.
An EPA "formula" for mitigation has been devised, which
calls for replacement"of wetlands on the following bases:
hydrologic restoration
creation
vegetative restoration
additional mitigation measures
1 acre for 1 acre
2 acres for 1 acre
3 acres for 1 acre
evaluated case by case
Frequently, applicants wish to replace lost wetlands with
existing wetlands. This abrogates the idea we promote of "no net
loss" and thus is generally insufficient.
-------
2.2 FLOOOPLAINS
-------
2.2 FLOODPLAINS
Floodplains are defined by Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain
Management, Section 6(c) as "lowland and relatively flat areas
adjoining inland and coastal waters including floodprone areas of
offshore islands ..." (see Figure 2-3). These resources are
categorized as 100 year floodplains (areas subject to a 1.0%
chance of flooding in any given year) and 500 year floodplains
areas subject to a 0.2% chance of flooding in any given year).
CERCLA/SARA actions require consideration of the 500 y
floodplain. JT
2.2.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework (Potential ARARs)
National policy recognizes the need to minimize adverse
economic impacts to the public caused by flooding. The
federal government has promulgated laws, executive orders,
regulations and guidelines to reduce these impacts. Those
statutes which are relevant to floodplain management and to
the intent of this Manual are summarized as follows:
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA) (42 USC.
The NFIA authorized the National Flood Insurance
Program. This is a federally subsidized program to
protect property owners who previously had not been
able to obtain coverage through the private insurance
industry. In return for the federal subsidy, states
and local governments must adopt minimum management
strategies to avoid future flood damage within their
floodplain areas.
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (FDPA) (42 USC
4401)
The NFIA was amended in 1973 by the FDPA, which expand-
ed the available limits of flood insurance coverage and
imposed additional requirements on property owners and
communities. The FDPA required the purchase of flood
insurance on or after March 2, 1974, as a condition of
receiving any federal assistance for projects in
special flood hazard areas located within any community
in which the sale of flood insurance has been author-
ized under the program. In other words, no federal
financial assistance can be legally approved for
projects located in floodplains if the community is not
participating in the flood insurance program.
2.2.1
-------
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
FLOODWAY
FRINGE
FLOODWAY
FLDOD ELEVATION WHEN
CONFINED WITHIN FLOODWAY
STREAM
CHANNEL
FLOODWAY
FRINGE
AREA OF FLOOD PLAIN THAT COULD
BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT BY
RAISING GROUND
FLOOD ELEVATION
BEFORE ENCROACHMENT
ON FLOOD PLAIN
LINE A-B IS THE FLOOD ELEVATION BEFORE ENCROACHMENT
UNEC-D IS THE FLOOD ELEVATION AFTER ENCROACHMENT
» SURCHARGE NOT TO EXCEED I.OFOOT(FEMA REQUIREMENT) OR LESSER AMOUNT IF SPECIFIED BY STATE.
FLOODPLAIN CROSS-SECTION
SOURCE: FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE STUDIES
FIGURE 2-3
-------
Executive Order 11988 - "Floodplain Management" - May
24, 1977
Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to avoid
long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with
the occupancy and modification of floodplains. In
addition, the executive order requires the avoidance of
direct and indirect support of floodplain development
wherever there are practicable i"iernatives. Agencies
responsible for providing federal assistance for .
construction and improvements and for conducting
programs affecting land use should take actions:
to reduce risk of flood loss;
to minimize the impacts of floods on human safety,
health, and welfare; and
to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial
values served by floodplains.
Water Resources Council (WRC) - Floodplain Management
Guidelines - February 10, 19/8
These guidelines, issued to aid other federal agencies
in amending their regulations and procedures to comply
with Executive Order 11988, outline an eight (8) step
decision-making process required by section 2(a) of the
Executive Order 11988. The steps are:
1. determine if the proposed action is in the base
floodplain (500 year floodplain for CERCLA/SARA
projects);
2. conduct early public review;
3. identify and evaluate alternatives to locating in
the base floodplain;
4. identify impacts of the proposed action;
5. minimize, restore and preserve;
6. reevaluate alternatives;
7. present findings and public explanation; and
8. implement action.
This process relies heavily on public review of the
proposed action and all alternatives.
2.2.2
-------
The guidelines hold that certain projects or portions
may be designated as a critical action, which is any
activity for which even a slight chance of flooding
would be too great. In the case of critical actions,
the area requiring consideration is expanded from the
100 year to the 500 year floodpl?ir. All CERCLA/SARA
actions are to be considered critical actions and,
therefore, the 500 year floodjjlain is considered.
EPA - Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management
and Wetlands Protection - January 5, 1979
In addition to requiring the preparation of wetlands
assessments (as indicated in Section 2.1.1), these
procedures also mandate the preparation of a flood-
plains assessment when appropriate.
EPA - Statement of Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands
Assessments for CERCLA Actions - August 5, 19185
In addition to requiring the preparation of wetlands
assessments (as indicated in Section 2.1.1), this
policy also mandates the preparation of floodplains
assessments as appropriate for the CERCLA program.
2.2.2 Environmental Review Procedures
Figure 2-4 outlines the environmental review procedures for
floodplains as they apply to CERCLA/SARA.
IRL: During the scoping of remedial response actions,
EPA should identify any floodplains in the project
area that could be affected by the remedial
action. If no floodplains exit in the project
area, the RI/FS may proceed without further
consideration of the procedures set forth below.
RI/FS: If floodplains are identified, the impacts of
potential remedial actions on these areas must be
assessed in the RI/FS. As indicated above, the
area of concern for CERCLA/SARA actions includes
both the 100 and 500 year floodplains. The RI/FS
workplan should provide for completion of flood-
plains assessment during the preparation of the
RI/FS.
The first phase of a floodplains assessment is the
accurate delineation of the floodplains in the
project area. If the project area is predominant-
ly privately owned, EPA should consult with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which
maintains maps that delineate floodplains. These
maps show the boundaries and elevations of the 100
and 500 year floodplains (i.e., Zones A and B,
2.2.3
-------
PROCEDURES FOR FLOQDPLAIN REVIEW UNDER CERCLA / SARA
FIGURE 2-4
CERCLA/SARA
RRQJECT PHASE
IRL
RI/FS
DETERMINE IF PROPOSED ACTION
IS IN FLODDPLAINS *
DELINEATE FLOOOPLAINS
IDENTIFY IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
AND CONDUCT FLOODPLAINS ASSESSMENT
FINDINGS AND PUBLIC EXPLANATION
ROD
RD/RA
DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION
OF MITIGATION
NO FURTHER FLOODPLAINS
REVIEW REQUESTED
FOR CRITICAL ACTIONS (CERCLA ACTIONSI/'FLOQOPLAINS" ARE DEFINED AS THE 500 YEAR
FLOODPLAINS ADAPTED FROM FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43. NO. 29-FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 10. 1978
MIIIU IMflP IK.
-------
respectively) (see Figure 2-5). A copy of a flood
insurance rate map can be obtained by calling
FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program at
1-800-638-6620. For areas predominantly state or
federally owned, consult with the controlling
agency.
Following delineation of floodplains in the
project area, preparation of the floodplains
assessment can proceed. The assessment must
include:
a description of the proposed action;
a description of its effects on the flood-
plains;
a description of all alternatives to the
proposed action and their effects on the
floodplains; and
a delineation of measures to minimize poten-
tial adverse effects on the floodpalins.
If no practicable remedial action alternatives
exist outside the floodplains, EPA shall develop
measures to minimize adverse effects to the flood-
plains. The following list presents some possible
(but not all) measures for minimizing adverse
floodplains impacts:
protecting treatment units/equipment from
flooding and flood damage through proper
design considerations;
using minimum grading requirements;
returning the site to natural contours;
maintaining floodplain vegetation to reduce
sedimentation;
regulating methods used for grading, filling,
soil removal and replacement to reduce
sedimentation;
requiring a topsoil protection program;
minimizing easement widths;
implementing appropriate erosion control
measures;
minimizing the use of fill; and
2.2.4
-------
V
SAMPLE FLOODPLAIN DELINEATION
SOURCE: FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
FIGURE 2-5
-------
restricting the operation of construction
equipment and the placement of spoil storage
areas in floodplains.
The benefits of preserving floodplains in their
natural or relatively undisturbed state include
not only reduction of flood hazards, but mainte-
nance of water quality standards, replenishment of
ground water, soil conservation, the fostering of
fish, wildlife and plant resources, and the
provision of recreational areas.
As stated previously, the floodplains assessment
must be presented in the project's RI/FS.
ROD: The ROD should include a summary of EPA's activi-
ties to ensure that impacts to floodplains are
properly addressed and mitigated.
RD/RA: Unavoidable impacts to floodpalins must be miti-
gated during the implementation phase of the
CERCLA/SARA remedial action.
2.2.5
-------
2.3 ENDANGERED
SPECIES
-------
2.3 ENDANGERED SPECIES
The Endangered Species Act provides a means whereby various
species of fish, wildlife, and plants which are threatened with
extinction may be conserved. The ESA defines an endangered
species as "any species which is in danger of extinction through-
out all or a significant portion of its range...". In addition,
the ESA defines a threatened species &* "any species that is
likely to become an endangered species withii: «.ne foreseeable
future...". Further, the ESA provides for the designation of
critical habitats, which are "specific areas within the geogra-
phical area occupied by the (endangered or threatened) species...
on which are found those physical or biological features essen-
tial to the conservation of the species...".
2.3.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework (Potential ARARs)
Endangered Species Act of 1973JESA), as amended
(16 U§C 1531J
Section 7(a) of the ESA requires federal agencies to
ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
endangered/threatened species or adversely modify or
destroy the critical habitats of such species. Actions
which might jeopardize listed species have been inter-
preted to include direct and indirect effects, together
with the cumulative effects of other actions which are
interrelated or interdependent with the proposed
action.
If listed species or their habitats are to be affected
by a proposed project, consultation between the agency
acting on the project and the appropriate wildlife
agency (i.e., the FWS for terrestrial and freshwater
species and the National Marine Fisheries Service
[NMFS] for marine species) must be undertaken. Con-
sultation is required to determine whether or not the
project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any endangered/threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of a critical
habitat. Section 7 of ESA requires that specific
procedures be followed in order to make this determina-
tion.
2.3.1
-------
2.3.2 Environmental Review Procedures
Figure 2-6 outlines the environmental review procedures for
endangered/threatened species as they apply to CERCLA/SARA.
IRL: Early in the planning phases of a CERCLA/SARA
remedial action, EPA must determine whether the
contamination at the site or potential remedial
actions will have an impact on endangered/threat-
ened species or critical habitats. In some cases,
knowledge of potential remedial action and refer-
ence to Appendices B-l and B-2 will satisfy the
requirements for making this determination.
However, where doubt exists, EPA must initiate the
informal consultation process that follows.
If EPA is unable to make a determination concern-
ing the site's/project's impacts on endanger-
ed/threatened species and critical habitats using
available resources, EPA should prepare a written
request to the appropriate office(s) of the FWS or
the NMFS requesting a determination of whether
there are listed or proposed species or critical
habitats present in the study area. A written
request for information initiates informal con-
sultation. The location and type of project and a
map of the planning area for each project should
be included with the letters to the FWS or NMFS,
as appropriate.
The FWS and NMFS are required to respond within 30
days of the receipt of such a request. If the FWS
and NMFS as appropriate determine that no listed
or proposed species are present in the study area,
no further consultation with these agencies is
required. Results of the informal consultation
process should be presented in the RI/FS.
RI/FS: A determination during informal consultation that
an endangered/threatened species or critical
habitat is present and may be impacted will
necessitate preparation of a Biological Assessment
(BA). The RI/FS workplan should provide for
completion of endangered/threatened species
assessment work plan during the preparation of the
RI/FS.
The intent of the BA is to examine any possible
impacts of a proposed action upon the affected
species or critical habitats in the project area.
The BA, prepared following the format in Appendix
B, should include:
. interviews with wildlife experts;
2.3.2
-------
PROCEDURES FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES REVIEW UNDER CERCLA/SARA
FIGURE 2-6
____,.,_..
CERCLA/SARA
PROJECT PHASE
IRL
YESJO-
RI/FS
REQUEST DETERMINATION FROM FWS I
NHFS OF WHETHER THERE ARE FEDERAL
ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA
BIOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT (BAH
PROJECT MAY ADVERSELY
AFFECT LISTED SPECIES
1
PROJECT IS NOT LIKELY TO
ADVERSELY AFFECT SPECIES
INITIATE SECTION 7
FORMAL CONSULTATION
W/ FWS & NMFS (BO)
SUPPLY FWS t NMFS
WITH BA AND
DETERMINATION
PROJECT IS LIKELY
TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT SPECIES
1
PROJECT IS NOT
LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT SPECIES
RESOLVE THROUGH
NEGOTIATIONS
WITH FWS, NMFS
ROD
RD/RA
IMPLEMENT SPECIFIED,
MITIGATION
NO FURTHER
ENDANGERED SPECIES
REVIEW REQUIRED
HMUim f UVMffC,
-------
. a review of literature and field data to
determine likely locations of critical
habitat;
. an on-site inspection of the total area
affected (conducted in accordance with the
site's Health and Safety Plan) to deter-
mine the presence or absence of affected
species and/or critical habitat;
. an analysis of the likely effects of the
proposed project on the species in terms
of individuals (short-term impacts) and
populations (long-term impact);
. an analysis of alternative actions to
protect the species; and
. a description of the study methodology.
Prior to the implementation of any of the tasks
outlined above, it is recommended that the speci-
fic scope of the BA be approved by the appropriate
FWS or NMFS office(s).
The BA must be completed within 180 days after the
date on which initiated unless an extension is
granted. Based upon the BA conclusions, EPA, in
consultation with the FWS or NMFS, must determine
what the next appropriate action is.
If EPA determines the project is not likely
to adversely affect any listed or proposed
species, EPA will supply the appropriate area
manager or regional director of the FWS or
NMFS with that determination and the complet-
ed BA. Unless FWS or NMFS disagrees with
EPA's determination of no effect, EPA's
responsibilities under Section 7 of the ESA
have been met. . Results of the EPA's determi-
nation of no effect and documentation of
appropriate coordination must be presented in
the RI/FS.
If EPA anticipates that the project may
adversely affect a listed or proposed spe-
cies, EPA must request a biological opinion
(BO) by initiating the formal consultation
process with the appropriate regional of-
fice(s) of FWS or NMFS. If a BO is required,
no action can be approved until the formal
consultation process is completed and docu-
mented in an RI/FS.
2.3.3
-------
EPA initiates formal consultation by requesting a
(BO) from the appropriate wildlife agency. The
requests must include a copy of the BA with any
information on the proposed project and project
alternatives. The FWS or NMFS is required to
render the BO within a 90 day period that can only
be extended by mutual consent of the federal
agencies involved.
If the proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize or adversely a'ffect the species or
criticalhabitat.No further action is
required and the proposed project can pro-
ceed. It should be noted that this type of
determination may include conservation
measures that should be implemented. The
results of the formal consultation must be
included in the RI/FS.
If the proposed action is likely to jeopard-
ize or adversely affect an endangered/threat-
ened species or critical habitat. In this
case, the project must be stopped unless
alternatives to avoid or mitigate any impact
to the species or critical habitat can be
found, or an exemption is granted by the
Endangered Species Committee through formal
consultation procedures.
It should be noted that exemptions are extremely
rare (to date only one has been granted nation-
wide) and are intended only as a last resort.
Issues of potential impact on species should be
resolved through consulation and coordination with
FWS or NMFS. For assistance in resolving these
issues, the NEPA compliance staff should be
consulted.
ROD: The ROD should include a summary of EPA's activi-
ties to ensure that impacts to endangered/threat-
ened species and critical habitats are properly
addressed and mitigated, and that the ESA con-
sultation process was followed.
RD/RA: Unavoidable project impacts to endangered/threat-
ened species and critical habitats must be mitiga-
ted during the implementation phase of the CERCLA/
SARA remedial action.
2.3.4
-------
2.4 CULTURAL
RESOURCES
-------
2.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Under the National Historic Preservation Act\ federal agencies
must take into account possible effects of t,heir actions o
properties on or eligible for inclusion in the* National Regis
of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP is a listing of buildings,
archaeological sites, districts and objects of national, state
or local significance. These properties are commonly referred to
as cultural resources and the criteria of significance for their
inclusion in the NRHP provides a conceptual framework for the I
evaluation of these resources.
2.4.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework (Potential ARARs)
Historic Sites Act of 1935 (HSA) (16 USC 461 et seq)
HSA authorizes the establishment of National Historic
Sites and otherwise authorizes the preservation of
properties of national historical or archaeological
significance; the designation of National Historic
Landmarks; criminal sanctions for violation of
regulations pursuant to the HSA; interagency, inter-
governmental, and interdisciplinary efforts for the
preservation of historic and cultural properties; and
other provisions.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as
mended, [16 USC 4707
The NHPA establishes a positive national policy for the
preservation of the cultural environment, and sets
forth a mandate for protection in Section 106. The
purpose of Section 106 is to protect properties listed
in or eligible for listing in the NRHP through review
and comment by the Advisory Council on Historic Pre-
servation (ACHP) of federal undertakings that affect
such properties. Properties listed in the NRHP are
declared eligible for listing by the Secretary of the
Interior. Through Section 106 of the ACHP's regula-
tions, a public interest process is- established in
which the federal agency proposing an undertaking
participates along with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), the ACHP, interested organizations and
individuals. The process is designed to ensure that
properties, the impacts on them, and the effects to
them are identified, and that alternatives to avoid or
mitigate an adverse effect on property eligible for the
NRHP are adequately considered in the planning process.
2.4.1
-------
Executive Order 11593 - "Protection of and Enhancement
of the Cultural Environment" - May 13, 1971
Executive Order 11593 gives the Federal Government
responsibility for stewardship of our Nation's historic
and cultural properties by charging each federal agency
with the task of identifying and nominating all histo-
ric and cultural properties under i.s jurisdiction or
control, and exercising caution to ensure Inat such
properties are not inadvertently transferred, sold,
demolished, or substantially altered.
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974
(AHPA) (16 USC 469 et s"eqT
The AHPA amends the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 to
extend its provisions beyond the construction of dams
to any alteration of the terrain caused as a result of
any federal construction project or federally-licensed
activity or program. In addition, the AHPA provides a
mechanism for funding the protection of historical and
archaeological data.
Presidential Memorandum - "Environmental Quality and
Water Resources Management" - July 12, 1978
This memorandum directs the ACHP to publish final
regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA, and
further directs each agency with consultative responsi-
bilities under the NHPA to publish procedures imple-
menting those regulations.
ACHP - Regulations for the Protection of Historic and
Cultural Properties (36 CFR 800)
These regulations establish procedures for the imple-
mentation of Section 106 of the NHPA, and direct
publication of agency implementing procedures.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA)
(16 USC 470")
The purpose of the ARPA is to provide protection for
archaeological resources found on public lands and
Indian lands of the United States. The ARPA provides
this protection by prohibiting the removal of archaeo-
logical resources on public lands and Indian lands
without first obtaining a permit from the affected
federal land managing agency or Indian tribe and by
providing for civil and criminal penalties for those
who remove or damage archaeological resources in
violation of the ARPA.
2.4.2
-------
Department of the Interior (DPI) - Criteria for Inclu-
?ion in the National Register of Historic Places (36
CFR 60.4)
These criteria are used to evaluate whether cultural
resources will be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
The evaluation is based upon the quality of signifi-
can.e in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering, and culture which is present in districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, association, and:
. that are associated with events that
have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of our history;
or
. that are associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past; or
. that embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or
that possess high artistic values, or
that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual
distinction; or
. that have yielded, or may be likely
to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
2.4.2 Environmental Review Procedures
Substantive compliance with cultural resource requirements
means that cultural resources included on (or eligible for
inclusion on) the NRHP that are located on or in close
proximity to the site are identified. Also identified are
the possible effects of proposed remedial activities on such
resources. If the activity is likely to have an effect then
feasible alternatives to avoid such effects must be examin-
ed. If an effect cannot reasonably be avoided, then meas-
ures shall be taken to minimize or mitigate the potential
effects.
Figure 2-7 outlines the cultural resources environmental
review procedures as they apply to CERCLA/SARA.
!.4.3
-------
PROCEDURES FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW UNDER CERCLA / SARA
FIGURE 2-7
CERCLA/SARA
111.!. ^ ^ ^-,Q ^
&«£"'
. i nnr
IRL
OWsA-v
RI/FS
ROD
RD/RA
YE
i
*T rl_.
i
STAGE IA
SURVEY
i
i
STAGE IB
SURVEY
1
F.-U
Jlr\u
1
STAGE II
SURVEY
1
»
DETER
NATIONAL
1
I
YES
1
r
EVALUATE
1
i
UtlbKHINt Ih LULIUKAL KtbUUKLti JT^,
SURVEY IS NECESSARY HJL
3 U-rir«->-y
ftr&r« FURTHER INVESTIGATION Mn b
j^siiwiK RECOMMENDED ?
Q
1 1
d YES
\ *| FURTHER INVESTIGATION 1 j-rpn J
«^&a^w^ RECOMMENDED ?
1 1
a lYES
<^""Mn \ 1^^-^^^
^ , **V'KeJ~
Q,Y\C| £ 0-2>sJljjJ53uus^
MINE IF THERE IS Mn
REGISTER ELIGIBILITY , ",.
I^I^B^
IMPACTS
-
NO FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION CULTURAL RESOURCE
OF MITIGATION . REVIEW NECESSARY
-------
IRL: At this level of project definition, EPA will
document the need for a cultural resource survey
(CRS) and prepare a preliminary funding estimate.
Additional information concerning the proposed
project should be studied in determining the need
for, and scope of, a CRS. This information should
include, but not necessarily be limited to:
the type and scope of activity under consi-
deration;
the nature and extent of the physical disrup-
tion associated with the undertaking;
the environmental characteristics of the
planning area;
the type of direct and indirect impacts
anticipated in the planning area;
the data gathered from a field inspection of
the proposed planning area, including photo-
documentation of any potential cultural
resources that may be directly or indirectly
impacted; and
the recommendations of the SHPO and other
appropriate state agencies, and state and
local historic preservation groups.
If a CRS is deemed to be necessary, the scope and
work schedule should be incorporated into the work
assignment contract to be made part of the RI/FS
Work Plan.
RI/FS: A CRS means the category of activities necessary
to identify cultural resources within the project
area and, where necessary, to develop the informa-
tion required to apply the NRHP's criteria for
inclusion. The objective of the CRS is to develop
adequate information to make the substantive
determinations required by the NHPA. The CRS is
carried out in a staged fashion appropriate to the
focus of the investigation. The RI/FS workplan
should include, as appropriate, the scope for
Stage I (A&B) Site Recognition Survey and if an
additional survey (Stage II) is necessary, it
should be carried out before the completion of the
RI/FS. The Stage II survey results will provide
EPA with sufficient information to determine both
the potential impacts and the need for mitigation.
The data from the CRS will be incorporated into
the RI/FS environmental analysis and the reports
will be appended to the document.
2.4.4
-------
Stage I Survey: Site Recognition The Stage I
survey is designed to determine the presence or
absence of cultural resources in the project's
potential impact area. The Stage I survey should
be conducted early during the planning activities
for each project. This allows the information
derived from this survey to be used in developing
and screening al:ernatives to minimize direct and
indirect impacts on hi-tjric and archaeological
properties. For the purpose of this survey, the
study area is the planning area of the proposed
project. To facilitate planning, the Stage I
survey is divided into two logically progressive
units of study:
Stage IA; Literature Search and Sensitivity
Study
The Stage IA is the initial level of survey
and requires comprehensive documentary
research designed to identify any known or
potential historical, architectural, and/or
archaeological resources within a project
area. A primary objective of the study is to
evaluate the differential sensitivity of the
project area for the presence of cultural
resources; this information will be used to
guide the field investigation that follows
(Stage IB). In carrying out the literature
search, sources at the SHPO, universities,
local libraries, museums, historical socie-
ties, etc., are consulted. In addition, the
nature and extent of the proposed project is
evaluated, an initial walk-over reconnais-
sance and surface inspection is completed,
and the effect of prior ground disturbance on
the probability of identifying cultural
resources is assessed.
The final report should focus on the project
area and minimally include: a brief project
description; a description of the environ-
mental setting as it pertains to actual or
potential cultural resource locations; a
synthesis of prehistoric and historic cultu-
ral development and land use patterns; and a
definition of sensitivity zones with explicit
criteria for ranking. This report must
include information about identified sites
within, or in close proximity to, the project
area. This information must include all
properties that are eligible, listed, or
being considered for inclusion in the NRHP.
Areas where substantial land modification is
2.4.5
-------
evident should be clearly identified. It is
also appropriate to include materials (e.g.,
maps, photos, soil boring logs) which support
conclusions presented in the text. Further,
the Stage IA report will contain recommenda-
tions for any subsequent Stage IB survey
process.
Stage IB; Field Investigation -- Subsurface
testing is the major component of this level
of survey and is required unless the presence
or absence of resources can be determined by
direct observation or by examination of
specific documented references. The areas to
be subjected to a survey are selected on the
basis of the proposed remedial actions.
Although detailed evaluation of specific
resources is not carried out at this level,
it is necessary to record and describe the
sites as fully as possible to aid in the
formulation of recommendations for avoidance
or further evaluation. The location of
identified resources with respect to areas of
impact of the proposed project must be
determined carefully.
The Stage IB report presents the results of
the field investigation, including: a
description of the survey design and methodo-
logy (based on results of the Stage IA);
complete records of soil stratigraphy; and an
artifact catalogue including identification,
estimated date range, and quantity or weight,
as appropriate. The locations of all field
test units must be accurately plotted on a
project area map, with locations of identi-
fied resources clearly defined. Photographs
which illustrate salient points of the survey
are a necessary component of the final
report. Detailed recommendations and support-
ing rationale for any additional investiga-
tion must be incorporated into the conclu-
sions of the Stage IB report.
If all cultural resources identified through the
Stage IA and/or Stage IB surveys will not be
impacted by the proposed project, the survey
process is complete. If cultural resources
identified by these studies are within the pro-
posed impact area, further evaluation may be
required to determine the potential eligibility of
the resource for inclusion in the NRHP. The
extent of additional cultural resource study may
be reduced by project modifications which avoid or
minimize potential impacts.
2.4.6
-------
Stage II Survey: Site Definition and Evaluation
The Stage II survey is a detailed evaluation of
identified cultural resources that may be affected
by the remedial alternatives being considered.
Research is carried out on each identified re-
source to provide adequate data to allow a deter-
mination of the resource's eligibility for listing
in the NRHP. The Stage II report should include,
at a minimum, information on boundaries, integrity
and significance of the resources, and evaluation
of the impact of the proposed project, as well as
any additional data necessary to evaluate eligibi-
lity for the NRHP.
The Stage II survey results will provide EPA with
sufficient information to determine both impacts
and the need for mitigation. The data from the
CRS should be incorporated into the RI/FS environ-
mental analysis and the reports should be appended
to the document.
Determination of Eligibility
When a cultural resource appears to meet the
criteria for listing on the NRHP, EPA in consulta-
tion with SHPO will apply the criteria for inclu-
sion to the resource. EPA will prepare appro-
priate documentation according to DOI guidelines
for eligibility. As part of the documentation,
EPA will solicit a written opinion from the SHPO
concerning the resource's eligibility. If both
the EPA and SHPO agree on eligibility, EPA will
transmit the documentation to the Keeper of the
National Register. If a question exists or EPA
and SHPO cannot agree on eligibility, the docu-
mentation will be forwarded to the Keeper for a
determination.
Impact Evaluation
After the appropriate CRS studies have been
accomplished, one of the following determinations
of the effect of the proposed remedial activities
on all NRHP listed and eligible resources identi-
fied in the project area shall be made by EPA in
consultation with the SHPO. An effect occurs when
an undertaking changes the integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling
or association of a cultural resource eligible for
listing. Both direct and indirect effects shall
be considered.
2.4.7
-------
Determination of no effect -- This determina-
tion shall be made in consultation with the
SHPO. Both direct and indirect effects shall
be considered. If EPA in consultation with
the SHPO determines that there shall be no
effect, then no further review is necessary.
Determination of no adverse erFect If
there will be an effect on a resource wnich
is listed or eligible for listing on the
NRHP, EPA in consultation with the SHPO,
shall determine the nature of the effect by
applying the "Criteria of Adverse Effect"
(see next section). If a determination of no
adverse effect is made, EPA shall prepare
adequate documentation for this determination
for submittal to the ACHP.
Effects of an undertaking that would other-
wise be found to be adverse may be considered
to be not adverse when both the nature of the
impactTslimited and appropriate data
recovery is implemented. For example, a data
recovery program may be applied to an archaeo-
logical site whose primary significance lies
in its ability to yield information important
to history or prehistory. This data recovery
can take the form of preserving the signifi-
cant information by professional excavation,
reporting and curation of archaeological
materials. If the ACHP concurs or does not
object within 30 calendar days of the submis-
sion, data recovery may proceed.
Determination of adverse effect -- An adverse
effect is an alteration to a NRHP or eligible
property which detracts from those characte-
ristics of that resource by which it was
determined eligible. The criteria of adverse
effect (36 CFR 800.9(b)) include, but are not
limited to the following:
destruction or alteration of part or all
of the property;
isolation from or alteration of the
property's surrounding environment;
introduction of elements which are out
of character with the resource or alter
its setting;
neglect of a resource which results in
its deterioration; and
2.4.8
-------
transfer or sale of a property without
adequate conditions regarding preserva-
tion maintenance or use.
If it is determined that a remedial activity
has the potential to adversely affect a NRHP
or eligible resource or if the ACHP objects
to a determination of no adverse effect, the
EPA shall prepare the required documentation
(36 CFR 800.8).
This documentation will contain the proposals
to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of a
project upon a NRHP or eligible resource and
shall be submitted to the ACHP. The ACHP
will consult with EPA, the SHPO, and other
interested parties in examining all feasible
alternatives which would avoid adverse
effects on NRHP or eligible resources.
Generally, the formal consultation should
result in a resolution of any adverse ef-
fects.
When agreement is reached regarding an action
or an alternative, the ACHP will prepare a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) reflecting such
concurrence. EPA shall not take or authorize
any action having an adverse effect on such
cultural resources until all reasonable
alternatives have been examined and the ACHP
has accepted a MOA or has commented on the
EPA's report.
Mitigation - Where EPA determines that the alterna-
tive to avoid an effect on a NRHP or eligible
resource is not feasible, measures to minimize the
potential effects shall be developed in consulta-
tion with the SHPO, the ACHP and, where appro-
priate, other parties. Mitigation may take the
form of avoidance through cost-effective redesign,
reduction of the direct impact on the resource,
and/or data recovery prior to construction.
Should the effects be adverse, this mitigation
plan, outlining these measures, shall be included
in an MOA signed by the consulting parties.
The mitigation plan shall be based on engineering,
environmental, economic, and resource preservation
concerns. Mitigation shall be commensurate with
the nature and importance of the cultural proper-
ties and the extent to which they are affected by
the project.
2.4.9
-------
ROD: The ROD should include a summary of EPA's
activities to ensure that impacts to cultural
resources are properly addressed and mitigated,
and that the ACHP's consultation process was
followed.
RD/RA: The remedial design process should provide for the
scheduling and funding of the development and
implementation of a cultural resources mitigation
plan. EPA will be responsible for obtaining final
SHPO and ACHP approval of any mitigation plan that
involves alteration or destruction of identified
NRHP properties. In general, it will be advant-
ageous to complete on-site data recovery activi-
ties prior to construction; however, provisions
may occasionally be necessary to schedule such
work to occur during construction.
2.4.10
-------
Z5 WILD & SCENIC
RIVERS
-------
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In addition to establishing liability for the cost of cleaning up
hazardous waste sites, CERCLA/SARA also establishes liability for
"damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural
resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing such
injury, destruction, or loss" (Section 107(a)(c)). Under CERCLA/
SARA, natural resources are defined -s "land, fish, wildlife,
biota, air, water, ground water, drinking w-Ldr supplies, and
other such resources".
CERCLA/SARA requires the President to designate federal trustees
(i.e., selected federal agencies) to act "on behalf of the
public". Similarly, States are also required to designate an
official to represent the interests of the public for those
natural resources under State trusteeship. Through executive
orders and the NCR, the President has designated the federal
agencies who will act as trustees for those resources under
federal jurisdiction (see Table 3-1). Because natural resources
fall under many jurisdictions, there may be federal, state,
local, and foreign government or Indian tribes as trustees.
If the trustee determines there is a threat to natural resources
under their trusteeship, it is the responsibility of the trustee
to conduct a natural resources damage assessment (NRDA) document-
ing those injuries. In order for a trustee to conduct an NRDA,
they must have access to all the pertinent information related to
contamination and the site and the proposed remedial actions.
The trustee may not make a claim for damages until a remedial
action has been selected. The federal natural resource trustees
are constrained by CERCLA/SARA and may not grant a release unless
"the potentially responsible party agrees to undertake appro-
priate actions necessary to protect and restore the natural
resources damaged" (Section 122(j)(2)). The NRDA regulations are
found in 43 CFR II.
Theoretically, Superfund can be used to pay for natural resource
damages (section III(b)). However, the funding provision (Super-
fund Revenue Act of 1986) effectively prohibits such use of the
fund.
Although it is true that the EPA is not responsible for conduc-
tion the NRDA and recovering the claim for natural resource
damages, the EPA can and should provide the data necessary for
the trustees to perform these responsibilities. In fact, because
the RI/FS must address impacts to the public health and the
environment, and natural resources by definition are part of the
environment, the EPA is required to address natural resource
issues in its RI/FS. Accordingly, coordination between EPA and
the trustees must take place throughout the RI/FS process to
enable the trustees and EPA to meet their statutory responsibili-
ties.
3.1
-------
3.2 EPA ACTIONS
As stated in Section 3.1, EPA is not responsible for conducting
the NRDA; however, much of the data that the trustees need to
perform its responsibilities is developed during the RI/FS.
Specifically, CERCLA/SARA requires the EPA to:
notify trustees of potential damages to natural resources
resulting from releases under investigation;
coordinate EPA's assessments, investigations and planning
with trustees; and
notify and encourage trustees to participate in negotiations
of settlements at sites where there is the potential for
damages to natural resources.
In order to properly notify the respective trustees, EPA must
determine which ones may be responsible for natural resources in
the vicinity of a specific site (see Table 3-1). When the
appropriate trustees are identified, they should be formally
notified about the major phases of EPA activities for the CERCLA/
SARA remedial action process. The trustees must be notified (see
Notification Form in Appendix 6-1) of:
potential damages to natural resources from a release or
threatened release of hazardous substances (Section 104(b));
and
initiation of formal negotiations with responsible parties
(Section 122(j)).
Following notification of trustees, EPA should coordinate with
them throughout the CERCLA/SARA remedial action process to ensure
that the concerns of the trustees are addressed. Although
coordination can be informal, it is recommended that it be
conducted formally for major decision points.
Although many of the procedures that are followed to ensure
compliance with other environmental statutes are similar to the
procedures for coordination with the trustees, the procedures
cannot substitute for natural resource trustee coordination.
Similarly, coordination with the trustees cannot substitute for
EPA's activities to ensure compliance with the environmental
statutes.
Trustees often assume other roles which result in coordination
with EPA. For example, the DOI has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with EPA providing for the conduct of
preliminary natural resource surveys (PNRSs) for enforcement
sites (see Appendix G-2). The primary purpose of the MOU is to
ensure timely requests from EPA and timely responses from DOI so
that a determination can be made whether or not to grant a
3.2
-------
release from claims for damages to natural resources as part of a
settlement agreement with responsible parties at NPL sites. By
mutual agreement, a list of specific sites will be developed for
which DOI will conduct these PNRSs. EPA will, upon request,
provide DOI's regional environmental officers with information
and assistance on preliminary surveys, including all relevant
technical documents, draft and final endangerment assessments,
RI/FSs, anc! remedial designs for sites on which a PNRS is to be
prepared.
In addition, a technical advisory group on biological resource
concerns has been established in Region II (the Bioassessment
Work Group). This group is available to provide advice concern-
ing potential impacts on biological resources at the request of
RPMs.
3.3 TRUSTEE ACTIONS
The following is a brief synopsis of the NRDA process as present-
ed in the August 1, 1986 NRDA regulations (Final Rule). It is
intended to foster EPA's understanding of the NRDA process and to
shed light on the trustees data needs for conducting NRDSs.
Preassessment Screen - The NRDA process begins with a Preassess-
ment Screen to determine whether the hazardous substance release
justifies a NRDA. This screen is viewed as a "desk top" review
of existing data with a minimal amount of field work and should
only take a few days for the trustee(s) to complete.
A determination is required upon completion of this screen. The
decision to proceed beyond this screen must be based upon preli-
minary findings that: the discharge or release was covered by
CERCLA/SARA, it could have resulted in some injury to the re-
source, the resource potentially injured and the extent of poten-
tial injury are of concern to the trustee, and the trustee has
reason to believe that the potential benefits outweigh the
potential costs of performing an assessment.
If the preassessment screen results in a determination that a
NRDA is appropriate, the next phase is to prepare an Assessment
Plan. However, if the preassessment screen results in a determi-
nation that a NRDA is not appropriate, no further assessment
actions are to be taken.
Assessment Plan - An Assessment Plan must be prepared for any
remedial action requiring a NRDA. The plan should include
documentation of all decisions made regarding the selection of
the methodology to be used for the NRDA. Methodologies are
discussed in subparts D and E of the Final Rule. The cost
methodology used may be an estimation of restoration/replacement
costs or diminution in use values. The Plan should ensure that
the costs incurred in conducting the NRDA are reasonable and that
3.3
-------
TABLE 3-1
NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEESHIPS FOR EPA REGION 2
Department of the Interior
0 Fish and Wildlife Service
- Migratory birds
- Anadromous fish
- Endangered/threatened Species
- Critical habitats
- National wildlife refuges
- National fish hatcheries
0 National Park Service
All units of the national park system, including but not limited
to:
- National parks
- National seashores
- National recreation areas
- National historic sites
- National battlefields
- National scenic and recreational rivers
Department of Commerce
- Coastal environments and habitats
- Habitats (rivers and tributaries) of anadromous and
catadromous fish
- Endangered/threatened species
- Tidal wetlands
- Marine sanctuaries
- Commercial and recreational marine fishery resources
Department of Agriculture
- National forests
Department of Defense
- Department of Defense installations
Department of Energy
- Department of Energy installations
States
The responsibilities of the states are state specific to be
decided by each state Governor. Similarly, the Governor also
designates the appropriate state agency to act as the Trustee.
Contact should be made with the respective state environmental
department or attorney general's office for the. information
regarding trustee designations and responsibilities.
Indian Tribes
- Tribal lands
Note: Some of the natural resources are under co-trusteeships and
activities must be coordinated accordingly. For example, both DOI and
DOC have trustee responsibilities for certain endangered/threatened
species.
3.4
-------
the Assessment is conducted in a cost-effective manner. The
trustee should refer to the definitions stated in the Final Rule
for "reasonable costs" and "cost-effectiveness" when preparing
the Assessment Plan.
A confirmation of exposure must be conducted as part of the
Assessment Plan phase of this process. The confirmation of
exposure is the second sr-een in the assessment process. It is
intended to ensure that the trus*^ has confirmed that the oil or
hazardous substance has actually come into contact with the re-
source. If the trustee cannot confirm that the oil or hazardous
substance has actually come into contact with the resource, no
further assessment actions are taken.
Injury Determination - An injury determination must be made as
the third screen of the NRDA process. To assert a natural
resource damage claim, the trustee must establish that an injury
occurred and must link that injury to the discharge or release.
Otherwise, no further assessment actions are to be taken and no
assessment costs will be recovered.
In addition to satisfying the injury determination, the pathway
of the discharged or released substance from the source to the
resource must be demonstrated. For example, biological resources
can carry the substance away from the site by either direct
physical contact or by exposing other organisms through the food
chain. Oil or hazardous substances contained in ground water
resources may move to a lake or stream, thereby exposing biolo-
gical resources. The use of transport and fate modeling in media
such as air or water may be useful in many situations for demon-
strating the pathway. In other situations, sampling may be
required. The Final Rule provides guidance o.n selecting, testing
and sampling methodologies for injury and pathway determinations.
EPA should coordinate its RI/FS with the trustee regarding the
injury and pathway determination as the required investigations
will be useful for both the RI/FS and NRDA.
Review of the Assessment Plan - Upon completion of the Injury
Determination phase, the trustee must review the methodologies
selected in the Assessment Plan. This step allows the trustee to
refine the restoration or replacement alternatives and cost
estimates initially identified in the Assessment Plan phase in
order to select a cost-effective, feasible restoration or re-
placement alternative for comparison with diminution of use. The
distinction between restoration and replacement alternatives
will, in most cases, depend on the nature of the lost or dis-
rupted services previously provided by the resource.
3.5
-------
Termination of Assessment or Selection of Further Methods - If an
injury, as defined in the Final Rule, cannot be determined or
confirmed or cannot be linked to the discharge or release,
further assessment efforts should be terminated and the results
of the Injury Determination phase documented in the Assessment
Plan. If an injury determination has been made, methodologies
for the next two steps must be selected that are consistent with
the findings of the Injury C-etermi nation. If the decision was
;';jt previously made, the trustee must decide whether restoration
or replacement costs or a diminution of use values will form the
basis of the damage determination. The Final Rule provides that
when significant modifications occur to the Assessment Plan,
these modifications shall be made available for public review and
comment.
Quantification of Effects - Having established that the resource
was injured by the discharge or release, the next step in the
NRDA process is to quantify the effects on the injured resource.
Because the purpose of the NRDA is to determine compensation for
injuries rather than a decision on the level of cleanup, this
step requires ascertaining the baseline level of the services
provided by the resource prior to the discharge or release. The
baseline level of services is then compared to the existing level
of services, or the anticipated level of services upon the
completion of any response actions, to determine the residual
change resulting from the discharge or release. Services include
such ecological services as flood and erosion control, habitat,
and food chains as well as such human uses as recreation.
Again, coordination between EPA and the trustee at this phase in
the process will be useful for both the RI/FS and NRDA.
Damage Determination - The next step of the process is applying
the method of estimating the damages, using the costs of restora-
tion/replacement or the diminution of use values that were
determined in the Assessment Plan. It is important to distin-
guish "damages" from "injuries" in the NRDA process. Injuries
are situations of harm to natural resources, and damages are
financial compensations made to the trustees of these natural
resources for such harm. The final rule provides guidance on
applying these methods.
Report of Assessment - At the conclusion of either a Type A or a
Type B assessment, the trustee must document the results of the
process in a Report of Assessment. This documentation includes
the Preassessment Screen Determination and the Assessment Plan,
with all comments and responses. This document must be filed as
the Report of Assessment with a court or an administrative body
in case further legal action is necessary.
3.6
-------
Post-Assessment - The final step of the NRDA process involves the
establishment of an account into which all monies awarded pur-
suant to section 107 of CERCLA/ SARA for compensation for injur-
ies must be placed. SARA requires that funds recovered for
injuries must be retained by the trustee only for restoration,
rehabilitation, replacement, or the acquisition of the equivalent
of the injured resource.
3.7
-------
2.5 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Wild and scenic rivers are defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act as "selected rivers in the Nation which, with their immediate
environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recrea-
tional, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other
similar values".
2.5.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework (Potential /^'..is)
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (WSRA) (16 USC 1274)
The WSRA which is jointly administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and DOI establishes a
system of classification of rivers as wild scenic, or
recreational. Rivers are proposed for protection and
are added to a national inventory by state or federal
legislation by approval of the Secretary of Interior.
The inventory focuses on those rivers nominated by
government agencies, private groups and/or individuals,
which are significant for their recreational, cultural
and natural values. Each of these rivers must meet the
criteria of the WSRA, which specifies that an eligible
river must:
be five miles or more in length;
be a free-flowing river or stream (rivers may have
undergone some impoundment or diversion in the
past);
be generally undeveloped (river may be developed
for the full range of agricultural uses and can
include small communities as well as dispersed or
cluster residential housing);
may be accessible by road or railroad or be
largely undeveloped; and
be adjacent to or within a related land area that
possesses an outstandingly remarkable geologic,
cultural, historic, scenic, botanical, recreation-
al or other similar value (interpreted to mean an
area of multistate or national significance).
It should be noted that rivers in the inventory fall
into three (3) categories (i.e., listed, under study,
and eligible). Under the WRSA the categories are
afforded different levels of protection.
2.5.1
-------
Under the WRSA, federal actions on water resources
projects are prohibited if they result in a direct
adverse effect on those characteristics which results
in the river's classification. For the purposes of the
WSRA, water resources projects are defined as any
project (or action) that could affect the free-flowing
characteristics of the particular river (e.g., place-
ment of riprap, dredge/fill operations, wastewater
discharges, etc.). Additionally, the DOT has deter-
mined that actions within one-quarter mile or within
the visual field of the river could have a direct
impact.
Presidential Environmental Message - August 2, 1979
This message extends the requirements of the WSRA by
directing federal agencies to avoid or mitigate any
adverse impacts on rivers identified in the inventory.
In effect, this message affords equal protection to
rivers in the inventory, regardless of their specific
category.
2.5.2 Environmental Review Procedures
Figure 2-8 outlines the environmental review procedures for
wild and scenic rivers as they apply to CERCLA/SARA.
IRL: As early as possible in the planning process, EPA
should determine if there are any wild and scenic
rivers on the national inventory in the project
area (see Appendix C). .If no such rivers are
present in the project area, the analysis is
complete.
RI/FS: If the project area contains a wild and scenic
river in the inventory, it must be determined
whether the CERCLA/SARA remedial action alterna-
tives will impact the river. The RI/FS workplan
should provide for completion of wild and scenic
river assessment work during the preparation of
the RI/FS.
In particular, the impacts on the specific quali-
ties of the river as well as possible mitigating
measures should be evaluated and presented in the
project's RI/FS.
If any alternative plan under consideration will
result in conditions inconsistent with the charac-
ter of the designated segment, it must be elimi-
nated from consideration as unacceptable. It must
be noted that the classification of the particular
2.5.2
-------
PROCEDURES FOR WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS REVIEW UNDER CERCLA/SARA
FIGURE 2-8
CERCLA/SARA
PROJECT PHASE
IRL
RI/FS
DETERMINE IF PROPOSED ACTION
MAY IMPACT ANY WILD. SCENIC
OR RECREATIONAL RIVER AREA
DETERMINE IF PROPOSED ACTION
INVOLVES WATER RESOURCES ACTIONS
YES
EVALUATE PRIMARY IMPACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT
DETERMINE IF PROPOSED ACTION WILL
RESULT IN CONDITIONS CONSISTENT
WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE RIVER
NO
I
ROD
RD/RA
MITIGATE OR MODIFY THE PROJECT
1
i
DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION
OF MITIGATION
NO FURTHER
WILD & SCENIC RIVERS
REVIEW REQUIRED
inc.
-------
river has a bearing on what is considered an
acceptable impact. For example, any alteration of
a wild river is unacceptable although some impacts
upon recreational rivers are permitted. Further,
consultation with the USDA or DOI is recommended
to ensure that impacts to wild and scenic rivers
are adequately assessed and mitigated.
ROD: The ROD should include a summary of EPA's activi-
ties to ensure that impacts to wild and scenic
rivers are properly addressed and mitigated or the
project is modified.
RD/RA: Unavoidable project impacts on wild and scenic
rivers and conditions inconsistent with a desig-
nated segment must be mitigated during the imple-
mentation phase of the CERCLA/SARA remedial
action.
2.5.3
-------
2.6 COASTAL ZONES
-------
2.6 COASTAL ZONES
Coastal zones as defined by the Coastal Zone Management Act are
"the coastal waters (including the lands therein and thereunder)
and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and
thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and in proximity
to the shorelines of the several coastal states, and includes
islands- transitional and interti'lal areas, salt marshes, wet-
lands, and beaches".
2.6.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework (Potential ARARs)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 USC 1451)
The CZMA states that a federal agency conducting work
that will affect a designated coastal zone shall do so
in a manner that is, to the maximum extent practicable,
consistent with approved state coastal zone management
programs. The CZMA encourages each coastal state to
develop a coastal zone management plan which provides
for "increased specificity in protecting significant
natural resources, reasonable coastal-dependent econo-
mic growth, improved protection of life and property in
hazardous areas, and improved predictability in govern-
mental decision-making" (section 303(3)). To date,
twenty eight (28) of the thirty five (35) coastal
states have approved such plans, including New Jersey,
New York, Puerto. Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In
effect, these plans regulate land and water use speci-
fically for the coastal zones. Federal agencies may
not approve proposed projects which are judged to be
inconsistent with a state's approved management plan,
unless this judgement is overridden by the Secretary of
Commerce, who has principal authority over the federal
coastal zone management program.
The procedures for ensuring that federal projects are
consistent with approved coastal zone management plans
are addressed in the following sections of the CZMA.
Sections 307(c)(l) and (2) address projects which
do not require permits or licenses. For these
projects, the lead federal agency makes the
determination of consistency. Most CERCLA/SARA
actions fall into this category.
Section 307(c)(3) addresses projects which do
require permits or licenses. For these projects,
the appropriate state coastal zone management
program authority makes the determination. The
certification of consistency must be presented in
the permit or license applications.
2.6.1
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- Regulations on Federal Consistency with Approved
Coastal Management Programs (15 CFR 930)
These regulations describe the obligations of all
agencies and other parties involved who are required to
comply with the provisions of the CZMA and implementa-
tion of federal consistency provisions. The regula- v
tions also provide several procedural processes involv-
ing coordination of consistency decisions with coastal
management programs, Secretarial review of federal
license or permit activities, and notification and
reporting of inconsistencies. Procedures for perform-
ance review of state implementation and federal con-
sistency provisions are also included.
1.6.2 Environmental Review Procedures
Figure 2-9 outlines the environmental review procedures for
coastal zones as they apply to CERCLA/SARA.
IRL: As early as possible during the planning process,
EPA should consult with the state office of
coastal zone management (or equivalent) in order
to determine whether or not the proposed CERCLA/
SARA action affects a coastal zone for which an
approved management plan exists. If not, no
further analysis for coastal zone consistency is
required.
RI/FS: If the proposed action affects a coastal zone, EPA
shall assess the impact of the proposed action and
each alternative to the proposed action on the
coastal zone. The RI/FS workplan should provide
for completion of coastal zone assessment work
during the preparation of the RI/FS.
The great majority of CERCLA/SARA projects will
not require a consistency determination by the
state coastal zone management office because
specific permits or licenses will not be required.
In these cases, EPA will make a determination of
consistency with the approved state coastal zone
management plan.
However, if the proposed action may affect the
coastal zone for which there is an approved
management plan and the project requires permits
or licenses, then EPA must seek a consistency
determination (i.e., a certification of the
action's consistency with the approved management
plan) from the state coastal zone management
2.6.2
-------
PROCEDURES FOR COASTAL ZONE REVIEW UNDER CERCLA / SARA
FIGURE 2-9
CERCLA/SARA
PROJECT PHASE
IRL
RI/FS
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE
PROPOSED ACTION MAY DIRFCTLY
AFFECT A COASTAL ZONE
NO
DETERMINE WHETHER PERMITS OR
LICENSES WILL BE REQUIRED
I
T
EPA MAKES CONSISTENCY
DETERMINATION UNDER
301 (cl(l) OR (21
EPA SEEKS CONSISTENCY
DETERMINATION WITH
APPROVED STATE COASTAL
ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN
UNDER 301 (c)(3l
T
INCONSISTENT
DETERMINE WHETHER
CONSISTENT OR
INCONSISTENT
CONSISTENT
MITIGATE OR MODIFY THE PROJECT
ROD
RD/RA
DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION
OF MITIGATION
NO FURTHER COASTAL ZONE
REVIEW REQUIRED
IUWtK.|MHIP IVC.
-------
office or equivalent. This consistency determina-
tion must be sought in accordance with procedures
promulgated by NOAA in 15 CFR 930.
If the CERCLA/SARA action is judged to be incon-
sistent with the management plan by either EPA or
the state coastal zone management office, EPA may
not approve or fund the action unless the project
can be modified or its impacts properly mitigated
to ensure consistency. Results of the consistency
determination made by the EPA or state coastal
zone management office should be documented and
presented in the RI/FS.
ROD: The ROD should include a summary of EPA's activi-
ties to ensure that impacts to the coastal zone
are properly assessed and mitigated as well as an
appropriate statement of consistency with the
coastal zone management plan.
RD/RA: Unavoidable project impacts on coastal zones
should be mitigated during the implementation
phase of the CERCLA/SARA remedial action.
2.6.3
-------
2.7 COASTAL BARRIERS
-------
2.7 COASTAL BARRIERS
Coastal barriers are long, narrow landforms made of sand which
protect other coastal features from the open ocean.
2.7.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework (Potential ARARs)
Coastal Barrier Resource Act of 1982 (CBRA) (16 USC 3501)
The CBRA recognizes the importance of the coastal barriers
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and the adjacent wet-
lands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters. It
established the Coastal Barriers Resources System consisting
of the undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts of the United States. In addition, it estab-
lished certain limitations on federal expenditures affecting
the system.
DOI/FWS - Coastal Barrier Act Advisory Guidelines - October
6. 1983
FWS issued Advisory Guidelines to provide background oh what
the CBRA requires of projects that may affect these re-
sources. The guidance specifies the requirement for coordi-
nation with the FWS if a project is supported by federal
funds and affects coastal barriers.
2.7.2 Environmental Review Procedures
Figure 2-10 outlines the environmental review procedures for
coastal barriers as they apply to CERCLA/SARA.
IRL: At the outset of the CERCLA/SARA process, EPA
should determine whether or not the project may
affect a designated coastal barrier resource area.
(see Appendix D).
RI/FS: If the CERCLA/SARA action may affect a designated
coastal barrier, EPA must notify and consult with
the FWS. The report and recommendations of this
consultation should be documented in the RI/FS.
The RI/FS workplan should provide for completion
of coastal barrier assessment work during the
preparation of the RI/FS. The RI/FS must also
evaluate the impacts of the proposed remedial
action and alternatives on the coastal barrier.
Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to the
maximum extent practicable.
ROD: The ROD should include a summary of EPA's activi-
ties to ensure that impacts to coastal barriers
are properly assessed and mitigated as well as the
results of consultation with FWS.
2.7.1
-------
PROCEDURES FOR COASTAL BARRIER REVIEW UNDER CERCLA / SARA
FIGURE 2-10
CERCLA/SARA
PROJECT PHASE
IRL
RI/FS
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE
PROPOSED ACTION MAY AFFECT
A COASIAL BARRIER
CONSULT WITH FWS
EVALUATE IMPACT OF PROPOSED
ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ON
THE COASTAL BARRIER
MITIGATE OR MODIFY THE PROJECT
ROD
RD/RA
DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION
OF MITIGATION
NO FURTHER
COASTAL BARRIER
REVIEW REQUIRED
nMUIRE IUHIP INC.
-------
RD/RA: Unavoidable impacts to coastal barriers must be
mitigated during the implementation phase of the
CF.RCLA/SARA remedial action.
2.7.2
-------
2.8 WILDERNESS AREAS
-------
2.8 WILDERNESS AREAS
A wilderness area is defined by th'e Wilderness Act as "an area of
undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and
influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation,
which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
conditions...". Wilderness areas (1) are substantially unaf-
fected by human activities, (2) have outstanding opportunities
for solitude, (3) generally are at least 5,000 acres in are- *nd
(4) generally have features of ecological, geological, scienti-
fic, educational, scenic or historic value.
2.8.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework (Potential ARARs)
Wilderness Act (WA) of 1964 16 USC 1131-1132
The WA establishes the national system of wilderness
areas including a policy for protecting and managing
these areas. The USDA and DOT are directed by the WA
to recommend appropriate wilderness areas to the
President.
The WA prohibits certain activities within wilderness
areas. Permanent or temporary roads, commercial
enterprise and structures or installations are prohi-
bited, except as necessary to properly administer the
area and protect public health and safety. The use of
motorized vehicles or motorized equipment is also
prohibited except as noted.
The WA establishes restrictions on mining activities in
wilderness areas, but allows the President to authorize
prospecting for certain studies or actions that are
beneficial to the public interest. States or private
individuals owning land surrounded by a wilderness area
are given either the rights necessary to provide access
to their land or the right to exchange the land for
comparable federal land in the same state.
2.8.2 Environmental Review Procedures
Figure 2-11 outlines the environmental review procedures for
wilderness areas as they apply to CERCLA/SARA.
IRL: At the outset of the CERCLA/SARA process, EPA
should determine whether or not the project may
affect a designated wilderness area (see Appendix
2.8.1
-------
PROCEDURES FOR WILDERNESS AREA REVIEW UNDER CERCLA/SARA
FIGURE 2-11
CERCLA/SARA
PROJECT PHASE
IRL
RI/FS
ROD
YES
RD/RA
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE
PROPOSED ACTION MAY AFFECT
A WILDERNESS AREA
CONSULT WITH DOI OR USDA
EVALUATE IMPACT OF PROPOSED
ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ON
THE WILDERNESS AREA
MITIGATE OR MODIFY THE PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION
OF MITIGATION
NO FURTHER
WILDERNESS AREA
REVIEW REQUIRED
NMUiaC SROUP IKG
-------
RI/FS: If the CERCLA/SARA action may affect a wilderness
area, EPA should consult with the appropriate
agency that has jurisdiction over the area. These
contacts (see Appendix H) will be helpful in
determining the most appropriate means of minimiz-
ing adverse impacts on the wilderness area.
In developing the proposed remedial action, EPA
should consider its impact on the wilderness area.
The RI/FS workplan should provide for completion
of wilderness area assessment work during the
preparation of the RI/FS. The construction of
permanent roads and structures should be avoided
to the extent practicable and the use of motorized
equipment should be minimized to the extent
practicable. Coordination with the appropriate
DOI or USDA office will help determine the most
appropriate means of remediation with regard to
the wilderness area restrictions.
ROD: The ROD should include a summary of EPA's activi-
ties to ensure that impacts to wilderness areas
are properly assessed and mitigated.
RD/RA: EPA should ensure that unavoidable impacts to a
wilderness area, including the use of otherwise
restricted roads, structures, or equipment, are
mitigated during the implementation phase of the
CERCLA/SARA remedial action.
> p ?
. . C . £.
-------
2.9 SIGNIFICANT
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
-------
2.9 SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Significant agricultural lands are defined by the USDA as "land
that has the best combination of physical and chemical character-
istics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed
crops, and is also available for these uses (the land could be
cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or other land, but
not developed land or land under water) It has the soil quali-
ty, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically
produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed".
The land need not be actively farmed to be considered significant
agricultural lands.
2.9.1 Legislative/Regulatory Framework (Potential ARARs)
USDA - Secretary's Memorandum No. 1827. Supplement 1,
Statement of Prime Farmland, Range, and Forest Land~
June 21, 19~75
This memorandum outlines USDA's concern for the conver-
sion of prime agricultural lands to other irretrievable
uses and sets forth six policy recommendations to guide
the agency's actions. These policies place the USDA in
an advocacy position concerning preservation of prime
farmland; make the agency responsible for assuring that
EISs (or functionally equivalent documents) and reviews
adequately address the issue of prime farmlands; and
place emphasis on both cooperative programs and agency
programs to increase concern and interest for the
retention of prime farmlands.
EPA - Statement of Policy to Protect Environmentally
Significant Agricultural Lands - September 8, 1978.
This statement presents EPA's policy "to protect the
nation's 'environmentally significant' agricultural
lands from irreversible conversion to uses which result
in its loss as an environmental or essential food
production resource".
The policy lists three (3) specific directives for EPA
action.
1. Consider impacts on agricultural land during the
process of developing new or revised EPA regula-
tions, standards, or guidance.
2.9.1
-------
2. Evaluate and mitigate direct and indirect impacts
on agricultural lands during the preparation and
review of EAs and EISs (or functionally equivalent
documents).
3. Consider the regional or local significance and
economic value of farmlands to communities in EPA
enforcement actions.
arm!and Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) (7
201 et seq)
The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize the extent to
which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary
and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricul-
tural uses, and to assure that federal programs are
administered in a manner that, to the extent practic-
able, will be compatible with state and local govern-
ments and private programs and policies to protect
farmland.
Specifically, the FPPA outlines several measures to
minimize the impacts of federal programs on agricul-
tural land.
The USDA, in cooperation with other departments,
agencies, and commissions, shall develop criteria
for identifying the effects of federal programs on
the conversion of farmland to other uses.
Federal agencies shall use the criteria establish-
ed to identify and take into account the adverse
effects of federal programs, consider alternate
actions and, as appropriate, lessen adverse
impacts.
Federal agencies shall develop proposals for
action to bring programs, policies and procedures
into conformity with the purpose of the FPPA
wherever it is found to be necessary.
USDA/SCS - Farm!and.Protection Policy (7 CFR 658)
These final rules and regulations implement the crite-
ria developed by the SCS in accordance with and pur-
suant to the FPPA. The established criteria are to be
used for identifying and considering the effects of
federal programs on the conversion of farmlands to
nonagriculture uses. Also, the criteria provides the
means of identifying technical assistance to agencies
of local, state, and federal governments by the SCS.
Federal agencies are to (1) use the criteria to identi-
fy and take into account the adverse effects of their
2.9.2
-------
programs on the preservation of farmlands, (2) consider
alternative actions, as appropriate, that could lessen
adverse effects, and (3) ensure that their programs, to
the extent practicable, are compatible with state and
local governments and private programs and policies to
protect farmland.
2.9.2 Environmental Review Procedures
Figure 2-12 outlines the environmental review procedures for
significant agricultural lands as they apply to CERCLA/SARA.
IRL: During the scoping portion of the RI/FS process,
EPA should identify significant agricultural lands
in the project area (see Appendix F-l). The SCS
and the local State Soil Conservation District
(SSCD) should be consulted throughout the process.
If there are no significant agricultural lands in
the project area, no further review is required.
RI/FS: If there are significant agricultural lands in the
project area, the RI/FS must evaluate impacts of
site contamination and remedial action alterna-
tives on agricultural resources. The RI/FS
workplan should provide for the completion of the
impact assessment during the preparation of the
RI/FS.
Significant agricultural lands in the project area
must be identified and mapped according to their
location and classification/significance. Follow-
ing identification of these lands, potential
direct and indirect impacts to the lands and
related agricultural resources must be assessed
and presented in the RI/FS. Additionally, meas-
ures to mitigate adverse impacts to significant
agricultural lands must be addressed in the RI/FS.
Consultation with the SCS and/or SSCD is recom-
mended to ensure that impacts to significant
agricultural lands are properly assessed and
mitigated.
Additionally, if a CERCLA/SARA remedial action
will result in the conversion of significant
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, EPA
must submit a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
Form (Form AD 1006) (see Appendix F-2) to SCS for
evaluation of the impact of the conversion. The
results of the SCS analysis should be incorporated
into the impact assessment presented in the RI/FS.
Clearly, since few CERCLA/SARA remedial actions
will require the conversion from agricultural land
to non-agricultural uses, the use of this form has
limited applicability to CERCLA/SARA.
2.9.3
-------
PROCEDURES FOR SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS REVIEW
UNDER CERCLA / SARA
FIGURE 2-12
CERCLA/SARA
PROJECT PHASE
IRL
YES
RI/F5
DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED
PROJECT MAY AFFECT SIGNIFICANT
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
IDENTIFY AND DELINEATE THESE LANDS
DETERMINE WHETHER AGRICULTURAL
LAND WILL BE CONVERTED
NO
COMPLETE/FILE FORM
AD 1006 WITH SC5
^ f&'-**^
1
EVALUATE IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND RESOURCES
MITIGATE OR MODIFY THE PROJECT
ROD
RD/RA
DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION
OF MITIGATION
NO FURTHER SIGNIFICANT
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
REVIEW REQUIRED
IIMUIM IROVP INC.
-------
ROD: The ROD should include a summary of EPA's activi-
ties to ensure that impacts to significant agri-
cultural land are properly assessed and mitigated.
RD/RA: Unavoidable impacts to significant agricultural
lands must be mitigated during the implementation
phase of the CERCLA/SARA remedial action.
2.9.4
-------
NATURAL RESOURCE
TRUSTEE COORDINATION
-------
p^f^~
)i^eA>^^
I
m
D
o
m
CO
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
A-l Memorandum of Applicability of Section 102(2) (c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to Response Actions Under
Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability »"'. of 1980, September 1, 19E2.
A-2 Memorandum on CERCLA Remedial Actions and NEPA/EIS Functional
Equivalency, August 22, 1984.
A-3 Memorandum on Coordination Between Regional Superfund Staffs and
OFA Regional Counterparts on CERCLA Actions.
A-4 CERCLA Environmental Issues and Requirements - EIB/ERRD Coordina-
tion Procedure.
A-5 Memorandum on CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Sta-
tutes, October 2, 1985.
-------
? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
~ WASHINGTON, DC 20460
1 SEP 1981
Of
UZGAUAMO CM OWCEMCNT COUf-
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of Section 102(2) (C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to Response Actions
Under Section 104 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation r and Liability Act of 1980
FROMr Robert M. Perry
Associate Administrator and GenergjC Counsel
TOr Rita H. Lavelle
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response-
This responds to. your- inquiry concerning the- applicability
of section 102(2)(C) of the- National Environmental Policy Act of
196? (NEPA), Pub. L. 91-190,. as amended,,. 42 U.S.C. §4332(2) (Or
to- removal and remedial actions supported: in whole or in part
with Hazardous Response Trust Fund monies under section 104
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,- Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) , Pub. L. 96-510, 42 U..S.C. S9604.
More specifically, you have- asked whether removal and remedial
actions are subject to the- requirement for an environmental
impact statement (EIS) imposed on federal agencies by section
102(2)(C). For the reasons stated below, it is my opinionr
1) that the need, for expedition in carrying out removal actions
exempts such actions from the EIS requirement; and 2) that an
EIS is unnecessary for remedial actions, provided the Agency-
complies with the standards for a functional equivalent exception
to the EIS requirement. To aid your understanding of the EIS
requirement r I have included in my response a background discus-
sion of section 102(2) (C) and the implementing regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
Background
NEPA establishes a national policy requiring every federal
agency to incorporate consideration of environmental factors into
Al.l
-------
-2-
if.s decision-making process. I/ To implement this policy, section
102(2)(C) of NEPA directs federal agencies "to the fullest extent
possible" to prepare a "detailed" EIS for all "major Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environ-
ment-"' As specified in section 102(2)(C)(i)-(v), an EIS must.
address the following areas:
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot
be- avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses
of man's environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments
of resources which would be involved in the
proposed action should it be implemented..
Section 102(2)(C) requires the responsible federal official,*
prior to preparing: an EISr to consult with and obtain, cannneirts
front other federal agencies having "jurisdiction by law- or special
expertise with; respect to any environmental impact involved.* lit
additionr the responsible official must secure comments on the
EZS from. federalr state,, and local agencies "which are authorized
to develop and enforce environmental standards.* These comments,
together with the EIS itself, must 'accompany the [proposed action!
through the existing agency review processes."
The CEQ has promulgated regulations implementing NEPA at 40
C.F.R. Part 1500+2/ Dnder these regulations, a federal agency
must normally prepare an environmental assessment to determine
whether a proposed action requires an EIS» 40 C.-F.R. 51501.4(c).
If the environmental assessment indicates that the project is not
a- major federal action significantly affecting the environment,
the agency must issue a finding of no significant impact which
briefly explains the reasons why an EIS is unnecessary. 40 C.F.R.
SS1501.4(e), 1508.13.
I/Section 101(a) of NEPA, 42 O.S.C. §4331(a), states that "it
Ts the continuing policy of the Federal Government .... to use all
practicable means ... to create and-maintain conditions under
which man and nature can exist in productive harmony...."
Section 101(b) of NEPAr 42 U.S.C. S4331(b), declares that "it
is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to
use all practicable means, consistent with other essential
considerations of national policy, to improve ... Federal
plans ... [and] programs" in order to achieve six specific
environmental goals.
2/ Executive Order No» 11991 (May 24, 1977) required CEO to
Tssue NEPA regulations binding on other federal agencies.
A1.2
-------
-3-
If the agency finds, based on the environmental assessment,
that the project is a major, federal action having a significant
impact on the environment, the agency must initiate the formal
EIS process by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS
in the Federal Register and by consulting with affected govern-
ment agsncias~and Indian tribes and interested persons as to the
scope of the EIS. 40 C.F.R. §51501.7, 1508.22. According to
published CEQ guidance, large projects should require about 12
months for completion of the EIS process.3/
Upon determining the scope of the EIS, the agency must
prepare- a draft EIS- 40 C.F.R. S1502.9(a). The draft EIS must
specify the purpose of and need for the project, describe the
affected environment, evaluate all reasonable alternatives,
including the no-acti6n alternative, and discuss the short and
longterm environmental consequences of the project and alterna-
tives. 40 C.F.R. SS15Q2.13-.16. The draft EIS must be circulated
for comment for at least 45 days among relevant federal agencies,
state and local environmental agencies, affected Indian tribes,
and. the public- 40 C.F.R. SS1503.1, 1506.10(c).
After considering the comments received on the draft EIS,.
the agency must issue a. final EIS. 40 C.F.R. S1502.9(b). The
agency must file the: final ELS with EPA, transmit, it ta agencies
that commented, on. the draft EIS, and. make it available to the
public. 40 C.F.R.. SS1502.19(d), 15Q6.6(f)r 1506.9. The- final
ETS must respond to the comments submitted: on the draft ETS"
and. discuss responsible opposing views that were inadequately
addressed in the draft EIS. 40 C.F.R. S$1502.9(b), 1503.4.
Generally, the agency may not make a final decision orr the project
until at least 30 days after publication by EPA of a notice of
the EIS in the Federal Register. 40 C.F.R. §1506.10(b)(2).4/
The final decision must be documented in the form of a public
record of decision that articulates the basis for the decision,
the alternatives considered, and any necessary mitigation measures.
40 C.F.R. S1505..2..
I. Issue
Whether removal actions under section 104 of CERCLA are
subject to the EIS requirement of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.
17 See Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations (46 Fed. Reg. 18037, March
23, 1981).
In accordance with 40 C.F.R. S1506.10(d) , the 30-day time
period between the notice of an EIS and the making of a final
decision, as well as the 45-day comment period for draft EISs
(40 C.F.R. S1506.10 (c) ) , may be shortened upon a showing by the
federal agency that there are compelling reasons of national
policy to reduce the prescribed periods.
A1.3
-------
-4-
Answer
Removal actions are exempt from compliance- with section
102(2)(C) of NEPA due to the fundamental conflict in statutory
purpose between the EIS requirement and EPA's removal authority.
This conflict arises from the fact that it would be virtually
impossible for EPA to follow the lengthy EIS process and at the
same time expeditiously undertake removal actions.
Discussion
Because NEPA does not repeal by implication other federal
laws, SJ the courts have recognized that a federal agency is
exempt from complying with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA if compli-
ance would result in a ""clear and unavoidable conflict" with
the purpose or procedure of. the agency's organic statute. Flint
Ridge Development Company v. Scenic River Association of
Oklahoma, 426 U.S.776, 788 (1976).This exemption has been
invoiced to bar the application of section 102(2)(C) where- it
would be impossible for an agency to adhere to the formal EIS
process and at the samer time comply with a. deadline- for decision-
making. 6/ or a directive for prompt actionr 7/ mandated by the
agency's organic statute.
United States v. Students Challenging- Regulatory Agency
Procedures, 412 U..S. 669, 694 (1973).
!/ See, e.g. f Flint Ridge Development Co- v. Scenic Rivers-
Association of Oklahoma, supra, (EIS requirement must yield to
30-day time limit prescribed by the Interstate Land Sales Full
Disclosure Act for approval or disapproval of property disclosure-
statement) r National Ass *n of Property Owners v. U.S., 499
F.Supp. 1223, 126768 (D.Minn. 1980)(EIS unnecessary due to
conflict between EIS requirement and effective date of motorized
use restrictions under Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
Act), aff'd, 660 F.2d 1240 (8th Cir. 1981); Gulf Oil Corp. v.
Simon, 373 F.Supp» 1102r 1105 (D.D.C. 1974) I conflict between
NEPA compliance and 15-day timetable for issuance of regulations
under Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act precludes preparation
of an EIS), aff'd, 502 F.2d 1154 (Em. Ct. App. 1974),
7/ Seer e.q-., Dry Color Manufacturer's Ass'n v. Dep't of Labor,
?86 F.2d 98, 107-08 (3rdCir. 1973)(EIS not a prerequisite for
the promulgation of an emergency temporary standard under
Occupational Safety and Health Act); Atlanta Gas Light Co. v.
Federal Power Comm'n, 476 F.2d 142, 150 (5th Cir. 1973) (EIS
unnecessary prior to approval by Federal Power Commission of
emergency interim curtailment plan under the Natural Gas Act);
State of Alaska v-. Carter, 462 F.Supp. 1155, 1161 (D. Alaska
1975}(emergencywithdrawal under Federal Land Policy and
Management Act did not require an EIS).
A1.4
-------
-5-
In my opinion, removal actions under section 104 of CERCLA
fall within the exemption for statutory conflict because of the
incompatability between EPA's removal authority and NEPA1s EIS
requirement-
Briefly stated, removal actions involve the implementation
of short-term cleanup measures taken in response to whe release
or threatened release of hazardous substances^ See section
101(23) of CERCLA.(42 Q.S.C. §9601(23)). The National Contingency
Plan (NCP) divides removal actions into two categories - immediate
removals and planned removals. Immediate removals are appropriate
where- action within hours or days may be- necessary to prevent
significant harm to human health or the environment (NCP, §300.65).
Planned removals, on the other hand, are appropriate where an
expedited, although not. necessarily immediate, response may be
required (NCP, §300..67) _ Both immediate and planned removals
may- not continue beyond 6 months or after the. expenditure of $1
millions unless there is a finding that an emergency exists
pursuant to the requirements of section 104(c)(l) of CERCLA*
la view of the focus of immediate and planned removals on
emergency and near emergency situations, it is evident that EPA's
removal, authority would be seriously undermined if the Agency,
as a pre-condition to initiating removal actions, were required
to complete, the formal EIS process prescribed by the CEQ regula-
tions.- Such a requirement would make it impossible for the Agency
to undertake removal actions with the requisite degree of speed
due to the time-consuming nature of the CEQ procedures, and would
raise the possibility of further delays from litigation .challeng-
ing the adequacy of EISs.8/ Under these circumstances, compliance
with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA would create an irreconcilable
conflict in statutory authority so as to relieve the agency of
any duty to file an EIS.9/
8/ see Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Nuclear
liTeoula"torv Comm' n, 647 F.2d 1345, 1385-86 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
(Robinson, J.r concurring)(EIS not required due to conflict
between the timetable for export licensing by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act
and the time necessary to prepare an EIS and defend against
possible NEPA actions). See also Portland Cement Ass'n v.
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 38(F!T (D.C. Cir» 1973) (noting
existence of a conflict between the EIS process and time
constraints of the Clean Air Act).
9/ The conclusion that the exemption for statutory conflict
"applies to planned removals is based on the assumption that planned
removals will be undertaken without extensive, prior investigative
studies such as those authorized under section 104(b) of CERCLA.
For any planned removals that are preceded by such studies, it
should be emphasized that the case for applying the exemption is
not as strong. To the degree that extensive, prior investigative
(Footnote continued)
A1.5
-------
o
This conclusion is consistent with the- legislative history
of CERCLA, which reflects a congressional awareness that the
expedited character of removal actions would justify noncorapli-
iance with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. Congress contemplated
that: removal actions would proceed without a prolonged environ-
mental review and that they would be treated for purposes of
the EIS requirement in a manner similar to cleanup actions under
section 311.of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1321, which are
explicitly exempted .rom the EIS process by section 511(c)(l)
of the Act, 33 CT.S.C. S137.U c) (1) . _LO/ As stated in the Senate
Report, accompanying S .. 1480 ; 11/
The intent of section 3(c)(l) is to authorize
removal with a minimum, of delay in order to assure
that injury to the- public health, welfare and the
environment are prevented or minimized and mitigated.
This provision is similar to section 311 of the Clean
Water Act. Section 511(c) of the Clean Water Act
defines section 311 actions of the Administrator as
not constituting a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment within
the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969. Removal actions may be emergency actions
within the meaning of. the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. S. Rep. No. 848f 96th Cong. r 2d
Sess. 61 (1980.). 12/
9_/ (Continued from previous page)
studies provide EPA with substantial lead time to evaluate
alternative courses: of action for planned removals, a court
might find that the time constraints necessary to invoke the
exemption are not present- In that event, the only argument
potentially available to EPA in support of an EIS exemption
would be that the studies constitute the "functional equivalent"
of an EIS (see infra pp. 7-11).
10/ Section 511(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act provides that
the EIS requirement does not apply to EPA actions under the
Clean Water Act, except for the issuance of new source National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under
section 402 of the Act, 33 O.S.C. S1342, and the award of
wastewater treatment construction grants under section 201 of
the Act, 33 O.S.C. S1281.
ll/ S. 1480 was the Senate version of the Superfund legislation.
TCIthough the bill was revised considerably to produce CERCLA as
enacted, it did contain a provision for response actions similar
to the response authority found in section 104 of CERCLA.
12/ The statement in the Senate Report that removal actions may
"constitute emergency actions within the meaning of NEPA is possibly
a reference to 40 C.F.R..51506.11 of the CEQ regulations, which
authorizes a federal agancy to forego NEPA review where action
is necessary to control the immediate impacts of an emergency.
A1.6
-------
-7-
Tn sum, given the antithesis between the formal SIS process
and the congressionallyrecognized need for dispatch in the
conduct of removal actions, there is little question but that
removal actions are exempt from section 102(2)(C) of NEPA on the
ground of statutory conflict.13/
II. Issue
Whether remedial actions under section 104 of CERCLA are
subject to tr.n.« EIS requirement of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.
Answer
CERCLA requires remedial actions to include a thorough
review of environmental factors. If EPA conducts .this review in
accordance with procedures set forth in the NCP and incorporates
public participation in the decision-making process, it is likely
that remedial actions will qualify for the- functional equivalent
exception to the EIS requirement,
Discussion-
Remedial actions under section- 104 of CERCLA involve-
longtentr actions consistent with a permanent remedy to prevent
or minimize- the release of hazardous substances. See- section
101(24) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. $9601(24)). In contrast to removal
actions, remedial actions normally address situations that do
not require an immediate or expedited response and therefore
allow for the time necessary to conduct detailed planning and
evaluation.
Because of" the time available for remedial actions, it
is unlikely that application of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA would
severely disrupt the remedial action process so as to justify
an EIS exemption on the ground of statutory conflict. Neverthe-
less, remedial actions potentially qualify for another exception
to the EIS requirement developed by courts for situations where
an agency achieves NEPA.'s objective of full disclosure of environ-
mental effects through means comparable to an EIS. This exemption,
TJ?Notwithstanding the applicability of the statutory conflict
exemption, the Agency has an obligation under CERCLA to assess,
short of an elaborate, ElS-type analysis, the potential environ-
mental impacts of removal actions* Clearly, an assessment of
this sort cannot be extensive for immediate removals due to
their emergency orientation. However, because planned removals
proceed on a relatively less urgent basis, it is incumbent upon
EPA to undertake such an assessment to a greater degree when
conducting planned removals.
AT.7
-------
-8-
commonly known as the "functional equivalent" exception, !_£/ has
been applied to specific regulatory activities of EPA under the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7401 et sea. , IS/ the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S..C.
§§136 et seq., 16/ the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §§1401 e_t s&£. , 17/ and the Toxic Substances
Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §§2601 et seq.l8/~
14/ As a threshold matter, it should be noted that the legisla-
tTve history of CERCLA does not bar the application of a
functional equivalent exception to remedial actions. The Senate
Report accompanying S. 1480 states that remedial actions, by
virtue of their relatively long lead time, and allowance for
planning, would require a written assessment of alternatives and
that in some circumstances, preparation of an EIS might be deemed
necessary. See S* Rep. No. 848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess 61 (1980);
note 11, supra- This statement, however, should not be viewed
as establishing a congressional intent that the formal EIS
process be the sole vehicle for analyzing the environmental
impacts of large scale remedial actions. Properly interpreted,
the statement reflects Congress1 overriding concern that the
environmental consequences of remedial actions be fully explored*
Application of the functional equivalent exception does not
violate this concern, since the exception can only be invoked
where the substance of section 102(2)(C) of. NEPA has been
fulfilled*
15/ See, e.g.,. Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA, 501 F*2d 722, 749-50 (D*C.
cTr* 1974)(issuance of fuel additive regulations); Essex Chemical
Corp* v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F*2d 427, 431 (D.C. Cir* 1973)(promu-Lga
tion of new source performance standards), cert, denied, 41S CT*S»
969 (1974); Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375,
384-87 (D.C* Cir. 1973) (promulgation of new. source performance-
standards)* In 1974r Congress enacted the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act, Pub* L. 93-319, which explicitly
exempted from section 102(2)(C) of NEPA actions taken by the
Administrator under the Clean Air Act (see 15 0*S.C* $793(c)(l))*
16/ See State of Wyoming v. Hathaway, 525 F.2d 66, 72-73 (10th
CTr. 1975)(cancellation and suspension of economic poisons), cert.
denied, 425 U.S. 906 (1976); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.
EPA, 48fr F.2d 1247r 1254-57 (D.C* Cir. 1973)(cancellation of
pesticide registration); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.
Blum, 458 F.Supp. 650, 661-62 (D.D.C. 1978)(approval of exemption
from pesticide registration).
17 / See State of Maryland v. Train, 415 F.Supp. 116, 121-22
(D. Md. 1976)(issuance of ocean dumping permit), rev'd on other
grounds, 556 F.2d 559 (4th Cir. 1977)*
18/ See Warren County v. State of North Carolina, 528 F.Supp.
276, 286-87 (E.D. N.C. 1981)(approval of PCS disposal site);
Tvitty v. State of North Carolina, 527 F.Supp* 778, 783 (E.D.
N.C. 1981)(approval of PCB disposal site).
A1.8
-------
-9-
Tn general/ under the functional equivalent exception, an
agency with expertise in environmental matters is not obligated
to comply with the formal EIS process prior to taking a particu-
lar action 19/ if two criteria are met. First, the agency's
authorising statute must provide "substantive and procedural
standards [that] ensure full and adequate consideration of
environmental issues." Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.
EPA, 489 F.2d 1247, 1257 (D.C, Cir. 1973).,20/ Second, the agency
must afford an opportunity for public participation in the-
evaluation of environmental factors prior to arriving at a final
decision.21/
19/While the courts' have traditionally applied the functional
equivalent exception to regulatory actions, there is nothing
to prevent the- exception from applying to site-specific, non-
regulatory activities such as remedial actions, absent a specific
statutory directive that the activities comply with the E.IS
requirement and provided the activities otherwise meet the
judicially formulated standards for the exception* Certainly,
an extension of the exception to remedial actions would not
constitute a radical departure from existing case law, given the
willingness of courts to invoice the exception for regulatory
actions having- sitespecific impacts. See Warren County v.
State of North Carolina,, supra note 18? Twitty v» State of .
North Carolina, supra note 18; State of Maryland xr> Train,.
supra note 17..
20/ Tn judging the adequacy of an agencyfs consideration of
environmental impacts, the courts have often focused on whether
the agency examined the five core issues of an EIS set forth in
section 102(2)(C)(i)-(v) of NEPA. See Environmental Defense
Fund, Inc. v. EPA, supra, 489 F.2d at 1256; Environmental Defense
Fund, Inc. v. Blum, supra, 458 F.Supp. at 661. They have also
indicated, howeverr that the functional equivalent exceptioa
does not necessarily require an agency to separately address
each element of an EIS analysis, especially where the agency's
authorizing statute provides for an orderly review of diverse
environmental factors. See Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus,
657 F.2d 829> 834 n.4 (6th~"Cir. 1981) ; Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA,
supra, 501 F.2d at 750? Warren County v. State of North Carolina,
supra, 528 F^Supp. at 287.
21/ See, e.g., Portland Cement Asa'n v. Ruckelshaus, supra, 486
7T2d at 386; Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA, supra, 489
F.2d at 1256; Warren County v. State of North Carolina, supra,
528 F. Supp- at 287; State of Maryland v. Train, supra, 415 F.
Supp. at 122. See also Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/
Peace Education Project-, U.S. , 102 S. Ct. 197, 201 (1981)
Titating that one objective of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA is
to inform the public that environmental concerns have been
considered).
A1.9
-------
-10-
Remedial actions appear to satisfy the first criterion for
a functional equivalent exception because of the mandate for
environmental assessment contained in section 104 of CERCLA
and the procedural safeguards developed by EPA for the remedial
planning process. In this context, section 104(a)(l) of CERCLA
specifically directs that remedial actions be "necessary to
protect public he..lch or welfare or the environment-" As suchr
it establishes a substantive standard of environmental protection
that requires remedial actions to include a thorough investigation
of environmental questions._22/ Moreover, this requirement is
iuyyl«iuenced by procedures set forth in the NCP pursuant to
section 105 of CERCLA, 42 O.S.C. S9605,_23/ which establish a
process for conducting an analysis during the planning of remedial
actions that is basically similar to the evaluation underlying
an EIS.2_4/ To the extent that these procedures are followed, it
is likely that a court would view remedial actions as embodying
the type of environmental assessment needed to qualify for the
exception.
It must be recognized, however, that CERCLA does not pre-
scribe requirements for public involvement in the remedial planning
process that would enable remedial actions to meet the public
participation- criterion for a functional equivalent exception.
227See Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA/ supra, 489 F
at 1256 (language in FIFRA requiring deregistration.of pesticides
that would be injurious to man or the environment creates- substan-
tive- standard mandating consideration of environmental effects).
23'/ Section 105(3) of CERCLA requires EPA to publish a revised
National Contingency Plan that includes methods and criteria for
determining the appropriate extent of remedial actions*
24/ Section 300.68 of the NCP contains procedures which provide
forr
1) the identification of the appropriate type of
remedy based on a consideration of factors that include
environmental effects and welfare- concerns (§300.68(e) ) ;
2) the development of feasible alternatives,
including consideration of the no-action alternative
where action may cause a greater environmental or
health danger than no action (S300.68(g)); and
3) the elimination of alternatives that would have
significant adverse environmental impacts (5300.68(h)(2)).
Ir. cr.?h seizing the consideration of alternatives and their
environmental impacts, these procedures are similar to the
analytical process mandated by the CEQ regulationsr 40 C-F.R.
$1502.14.
A1.10
-------
-11-
Such requirements are also absent from the NCP, which merely
recommends that remedial actions, to the extent practicable, be
undertaken in a manner/ sensitive to local community concerns in
accordance with applicable guidance* (NCP, §300.61(c)(3) ).
Accordingly, in order for the functional equivalent exception
to apply, it will be necessary for remedial actions to incorporate
procedures that afford the public a meaningful opportunity to
comment on environmental issues before the final selection of a
remedial alternative. While these procedures need not involve
the holding of a formal public hearing,j25/ they should at least
entail other, less formal mechanisms 'for.soliciting public input.
In conclusion, it must be stressed, that remedial actions do
not automatically qualify for the functional equivalent exception
to section 102(2)(C) of NEPA- Rather, the availability of the
exception is contingent upon structuring remedial actions to
satisfy the requirements for environmental assessment and public
participation underlying the exception* If EPA complies with the
procedures for environmental evaluation contained in the NCP and
provides for public comment during the decision-making process,
a strong argument can be made that the exception is applicable*.
However, if these precautions are not taken, there is a consider-
able; risk that a court will find remedial actions to be subject
to the EIS requirement*
cct Anne M. Gorsuch (A100)
Regional Administrators (I-X)
Regional Counsels (I-X)
Paul C* Cahill (A-104)
"2S/ Although the provision of" public hearings has undoubtedly
Influenced courts in granting functional equivalent exceptions,
e.g., Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA, supra, SOI F»2d at 750;-Environmental
Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA, supra, 489 F..2d at 1255, such hearings
should not be viewed as a critical, element of the exception. This
is because NEPA itself provides no right to a public hearing. See
Como-Falcon Community Coalition, Inc. v. United States Dept. of
of Labor, 609 F»2d 342, 344-45 (8th Cir. 1979), cert, denied,
446 U.S. 936 (1980); Cross-Sound Services, Inc. v. United States,
573 F..2d 725, 731-32 (2d Cir. 1978); State of Wyoming v. Hathaway:,
supra, 525 F.2d at 72 n»7»
Al.ll
-------
V !C
-
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CERCLA Remedial Actions and NEPA/EIS Functional Equivalency
FROM: Josephine S. Cooper, Assistant Administrator^
for External Affairs (
i ' "T*"
Lee Thomas, Assistant Administrator c^Js-AjH
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response e£p «c 1004
TO: Regional Administrators
The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 1s currently developin-f
guidance to assure that remedial actions under CERCLA fully comply with the
intent of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
as well as other related environmental statutes. This guidance will be
reflected in the Guidance Document For Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.
For background, we should Indicate that EPA is required to prepare
environmental impact statements (EISs) pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of
NEPA for only a limited number of programs. The reviews that are to be
provided for remedial actions under CERCLA are considered to be function-
ally equivalent to the EIS requirements of Section 102(2)(C), Involving as
they do a consideration of environmental consequences accompanied by public
participation.
As the national program managers for CERCLA and NEPA compliance, we
believe that functional equivalency can be achieved most efficiently and
effectively through the close working relationship between our respective
offices at Headquarters and a concomitant sharing of expertise at the
Regional level. While Regional NEPA compliance resources have historically
been directed towards EIS preparation for construction grants and new
source NPOES permits, the reviews performed have of necessity been inter-
disciplinary in nature. In addition, NEPA compliance staff are expected
to be familiar with other environmental requirements (e.g., the executive
orders on floodplains and wetlands, etc.) that apply to EPA programs.
Therefore, as reflected in OEA/OFA FY 85-86 Operating Guidance, Regional
NEPA compliance staff are expected to be available to assist other Regional
programs in assuring NEPA compliance and functional equivalency.
A2.1
-------
We urge you to utilize the experience and expertise that exists in
your Regional NEPA compliance program to assist CERCLA staff in ensuring
functional equivalency and full review concerning other environmental
statutes. We believe that such a cooperative effort will be particularly
useful in the consideration of natural resource and environmental values,
which are increasingly becoming an Issue in remedial actions.
Please address any inquiries you may have concerning this to Bill
Hedeman (OERR) or Allan Hlrsch (OFA).
A2.2
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
? WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 l-
2 0 884 QH KOV -2
OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Coordination between Regional Superfund Staffs and
OFA Regional Counterparts on CERCLA Actions
FROM: Will 1 am N. Hedeman. Director "*xAO
Office of Emergency and Remedial. Response
Allan Hlrsch. Director ' '
Office of Federal Act1
TO: See Addressees
The purpose of this memorandum 1s to encourage coordination between
ihe Regional Superfund staffs and Office of Federal Activities (OFA) Regional
counterparts 1n carrying out CERCLA actions. It 1s a follow-up to the
August 22, 1984 memorandum (attached) sent from Josephine Cooper, Assistant
Administrator for External Affairs, and Lee Thomas, Assistant Administrator
for Solid Haste and Emergency Response, to the Regional Administrators
emphasizing Headquarters support for such an arrangement*
In carrying out Superfund remedial actions, 1t 1s EPA's policy to
provide opportunity for public review and to follow procedures that are
functionally equivalent to those afforded by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). It 1s also our policy to comply substantive1y with
other environmental statutes and Executive Orders such as the Endangered
Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Floodplaln Management
Executive Order (E011988) and Protection of Wetlands Executive Order
(E011990) where feasible and appropriate. OFA's Regional counterparts
have the expertise to assist the Superfund staffs In meeting these
requirements.
Another area 1n which OFA Regional counterparts Interrelate with the
Superfund program 1s 1n the review of environmental Impact statements (EISs)
prepared by other federal agencies on proposed actions that would have an
affect on the environment. In some drcums'tances, these proposed federal
actions directly relate to remedial actions on federal facilities Involving
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, and should be reviewed
by Regional Superfund staff to ensure consistency 1n Agency positions.
These EISs also can provide a valuable source of Information to Regional
Superfund staff on certain types of remedial actions being contemplated that
relate to similar circumstances 1n the Superfund program.
A3.1
-------
We would like to encourage development of a close working relationship
between these staffs. This would be of benefit 1n Identifying sites
where compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders would apply;
In ueteruiimiiy *iidl procedures and analyses should be carried out; In
determining the Alternatives and Mitigating Measures that should be
considered; and In sharing Information developed by other federal agencies
In the EIS process.
We urge you to begin exploring mechanisms to Implement such an
arrangement. One way to begin 1s to notify OFA Regional counterparts
early 1n the fiscal year about sites In the Regions which will be targeted
for CERCLA action. This can be accomplished through three mechanisms
which are part of the framework of the Superfund planning process:
- Review of the National Prlorltes List
(NPL), which 1s a list of over 400
hazardous waste sites targeted for
clean-up by Federal and State governments
under CERCLA. Sites on the 11st are
candidates for remedial or enforcement
action.
- Review of the Site Management Plan (SMP),
which provides estimated dates on when
clean-up activities will begin on sites
listed on the NPL, proposed for Inclusion
on the NPL, or listed as Dloxln Tier 1 or 2
sites.N
-' Review of the Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment
Plan (SCAP) which 1s a suonary of all sites-related
activity 1n a Region planned for the upcoming fiscal
year. For removal activities, the annual plan sets
targets for removals at NPL and non-NPL sites. Remedial,
enforcement and community relations activities are
Identified on the plan by site name, State, activity
type, expected start date, estimated cost, designation
of the lead organization and other relevant Information.
We encourage you to support this effort. Later 1n the fiscal
year, we anticipate surveying the Regions to determine how this
coordination 1s working and methods to Improve program Implementation.
Should you have any questions on this matter please contact Anne Miller
of the Office of Federal Activities (382-7063) or Tom Sheckells of the
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (382-2339).
Attachment
A3.2
-------
CERCLA Environmental Issues and Requirements
EIB/ERRD Coordination Procedure
I. Applicability
This procedure is intended to establish general guidelines
for coordination between the Emergency and Remedial Response
Division (ERRD) and the Environmental Impacts Branch (EIB)
on environmental issues relating to CERCLA remedial actions.
Removal activities are not a subject of these procedures.
Moreover, the purpose of this coordination will be to
determine some of the federal environmental requirements
applicable to particular CERCLA projects. These requirements
can be specifically mandated, such as those contained
in the National Historic Preservation Act, Coastal Zone
Management Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Endangered
Species Act, and Executive Orders on -Wetlands and
Floodplains; or they can be generic requirements under
the National Environmental Policy Act, relating to
hydrology, geology, noise, biology, socioeconomics,
land use, and energy.
Specific federal environmental standards or criteria
such as those relating to water quality, air quality,
drinking water, and permissible chemical exposure
levels will not be a subject of this coordination.
Information on environmental standards should be obtained
by the CERCLA project officer from the appropriate
program area within EPA or an appropriate federal
agency.
II. Early Scoping of Environmental Issues
Fund - Financed Remedial Actions
EPA project managers will provide EIB with a copy of the
clearinghouse letter to the State Agency designated as
intergovernmental liaison pursuant to Executive Order
12372. This letter contains general project information,
including site location, description and history;
therefore, it should provide an adequate basis for a
preliminary determination of potential environmental
concerns. For State-lead projects, a copy of this
letter should be secured for EIB through the project
managerss counterpart in the State. Turnaround time
for review and comments: 30 days.
A4.1
-------
-2-
Responsible Party Remedial Actions
EPA project managers will provide EIB with a copy of
the Administrative Order issued to the potentially responsible
party(s) for a particular remedial action. The Order
will normally contain enough detailed information on
site characteristics for EIB to make a preliminary
determination of potential environmental concerns.
Turnaround time for review and comments: 30 days.
The purpose of early scoping of environmental issues is to
provide EIB with sufficient information in order to
identify potential conflicts with federal environ-
mental regulatory requirements (as outlined under
"Applicability") and potential negative impacts to the
environment as a result of the remedial process,
whether it is carried out by contractors to EPA, a
State, or a potentially responsible party. Identification
of these issues in the above manner will allow time
for appropriate adjustments in the final project workplan
(An EIB contact should be designated to whom the above
materials can be sent.)
III. Coordination During Remedial Investigation
CERCLA project managers will coordinate with EIB on an
as-needed basis during the performance of the remedial
investigation on significant environmental issues identified
during the scoping process. Also, project managers will
alert EIB to any new developments which may have adverse
environmental consequences in order to properly assess the
development and take whatever action that the project manager,
in consultation with EIB, believes is appropriate.
The purpose of this coordination during the remedial
investigation is to ensure that any data-gathering needs
relating to significant environmental issues are properly
attended to.
A4.2
-------
-3-
IV. Coordination Daring Feasibility Study
CERCLA project managers will coordinate with EIB on an as-
needed basis during the initial screening of alternatives,
followed by the detailed analysis of alternatives conducted
in the feasibility study. Coordination should usually
focus or. environmental issues that have surfaced during
earlier project stages. The project manager may request
EIB participation in the review of the environmental
assessment performed during the detailed analysis of alter-
natives if he feels that there are environmental issues
involved e.g. floodplains or wetlands assessments, which
require the benefit of EIB's experience and expertise.
The purpose of this coordination during the feasibility
study is to ensure that the project manager properly
assesses the environmental impacts of remedial alternatives,
develops appropriate mitigation measures to offset
environmental impacts associated with the selected
alternative, and fulfills federal environmental regu-
latory requirements specific to the project.
References: Coordination between Regional Superfund and OFA
Regional Counterparts, on CERCLA Actions (Memo from
Hedeman/Hirsch dated 10/29/84); Applicability of
Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA to Response Actions Under
Section 104 of CERCLA (Memo from OGC to Lavelle
dated 9/1/82); Appendix to revised National
Contigency Plan (Memo from L. Thomas to R.A.s);
Draft Guidance Document for Feasibililty Studies
Under CERCLA; Implementation of Procedures on the
National Environmental Policy Act (11/6/79 regulations;
A4.3
-------
EPA MEMORANDUM ON CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
(Published at 50 FR 47946, November 20, 1985)
Memorandum
Subject: CERCLA Compliance With
Other Environmental Statutes.
From: ]. Winston Porter. Assistant
Administrator.
To: Regional Administrator, Regions I-
X.
This memorandum sets forth the
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]
policy on the applicability of the
standards, criteria, advisories, and
guidance of other State and Federal
environmental and public health
statutes to actions taken pursuant to
sections 104 and 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA). This policy
addresses considerations for on-site and
off-site actions taken under CERCLA.
I. Discussion
The National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) establishes the process for
determining appropriate removal and/or
remedial actions at Superfund sites. In
th<; course of this process, EPA will give
primary consideration to the selection of
those response actions that are effective
in preventing or, where prevention is not
practicable, minimizing the release of
hazardous substances so that they do
not migrate to cause substantial danger
to present or future public health,
welfare, or the environment. As a
general rule, this can be accomplished
by pursuing remedies that attain or
exceed the requirements of applicable or
relevant and appropriate Federal public
health or environmental laws. However,
because of unique circumstances at
particular sites, there may be
alternatives that do not meet the
standards of other laws, but that still
provide protection of public health and
welfare, and the environment.
Although response actions that
prevent hazardous substances from
migrating into the environment are seen
as the most effective under CERCLA,
actions which minimize migration must
also be considered since CERCLA
primarily addresses inadequate post
disposal practices and resulting unique
site conditions. At certain sites, it may
be technically impractical,
environmentally unacceptable, or
excessively costly to implement a
response action that prevents migration
or restores the site to its original,
uncontaminated condition.
II. Policy
Section 104 of CERCLA requires that
off-site remedial actions, storage,
destruction treatment or secure
disposition, be in compliance with
subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). CERCLA is
silent, however, concerning the
requirements of other laws with regard
to all other response actions taken
pursuant to sections 104 and 106.
As a general rule, the Agency's policy
is to attain or exceed applicable or
relevant and appropriate Federal
environmental and public health
requirements in CERCLA response
actions unless one of the specifically
enumerated situations is present. Where
such a situation is present and a
requirement is not followed, the Agency
must document and explain the reasons
in the decision documents. Other
Federal criteria, advisories, guidance,
and State standards also will be
considered and may be used in
developing remedial alternatives, with
adjustments for site specific
circumstances. If EPA does not use. or
uses and adjusts any pertinent
standards in this category, EPA will
fully document the reasons why in the
decision documents.
A. On-site Response Actions
(1) For removal actions, EPA's policy
is to pursue actions that will meet
applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of other Federal
environmental and public health laws to
the maximum extent practicable,
considering the exigencies of the
situation.
(2) For remedial actions, EPA's policy
is to pursue remedies that attain or
exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements of other
Federal public health and environmental
laws, unless the specific circumstances
identified below exist.
CERCLA procedural and
administrative requirements will be
modified to provide safeguards similar
to those provided under other laws.
Application for and receipt of permits is
not required for on-site response actions
taken under the Fund-financed or
enforcement authorities of CERCLA.
B. Off-Site Response Actions
CERCLA removal and remedial '
activities that involve the removal of
hazardous substances from a CERCLA
site to off-site facilities for proper
12-6-85
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC., Washington, D.C. 20037
69
A5.1
-------
41:3132
FEDERAL LAWS
storage, treatment or disposal must be in
compliance with all applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements
of Federal environmental and public
health laws.
Off-site facilities that are used for
storage, treatment, or disposal of
Superfund wastes must have all
appropriate permits or authorizations.
If the facility or process that is being
considered for receipt of the Superfund
wastes has not been permitted or
authorized, the State or responsible
party will be required to obtain all
appropriate permits. Furthermore, as
stated in the Agency's off-site policy
memorandum, "Procedures for Planning
and Implementing Off-Site Response
Actions," May 6,1985, barring an
exeption in that memorandum, no
CERCLA hazardous substances shall be
taken off-site to a RCRA facility if the
receiving Region's Administrator
determines that the facility has
significant RCRA violations or other
environmental conditions that affect the
satisfactory operation of the facility. A
State's responsibility for obtaining any
appropriate Federal, State or local
permits (e.g., RCRA, TSCA. NPDES, U1C,
Clean Air, etc.) will be specified in a
contract or cooperative agreement wilh
the State as part of its assurances
required under section 104(c) of
CERCLA.
III. Other Laws or Guidance That May
Be Used To Determine the Appropriate
Extent of Response Actions
Federal and State environmental and
public health requirements, criteria,
guidance and advisories fall into two
categories:
Federal requirements that are
potetially applicable or relevant and
appropriate,
Other Federal criteria, advisories,
guidance, and State standards to be
considered.
An initial list of both categories is
attached.
A. Applicable orHelevant and
Appropriate Federal Requirements
"Applicable" requirements are those
Federal requirements that would be
legally applicable, whether directly, or
as incorporated by a federally
authorized State program, if the
response actions were not undertaken
pursuant to CERCLA section 104 or 106.
"Relevant and Appropriate"
requirements are those Federal
requirements that, while not
"applicable," are designed to apply to
problems sufficiently similar to those
encountered at CERCLA sites that their
application is appropriate. Requirements
may be relevant and appropriate if they
would be " ,jplicable" but for
jurisdictional restrict"""" associated
with the requirement.
For example, the RCRA 40 CFR Part
264 Subpart F Ground-Water Protection
Standards would be applicable to the
management or cleanup of hazardous
xvastes in ground water from hazardous
waste management facilities if such
actions were not taken pursuant to
CERCLA section 104 or 106. Yet RCRA
Subtitle C regulations, while not
applicable to hazardous wastes
disposed of prior to the November 19,
1980, effective date of those regulations,
could be relevant and appropriate to
CERCLA response actions regardless of
when the wastes were disposed of or
managed.
B. Other Federal Criteria, Advisories,
Guidance and State Standards To Be
Considered
This category includes other
standards, criteria, advisories and
guidance that may be useful in
developing Superfund remedies. These
criteria, advisories ard guidance were
developed by EPA, other Federal
agencies and the States. The concepts
and data underlying these requirements
may be used at Superfund sites in an
appropriate way.
IV. Implementation
A. Removal Actions
For both on- and off-site Fund-
financed removal actions, the lead
agency should consult with the Regional
Response Team within the framework of
the Regional Contingency Plan to
determine the most effective action.
(l)On-site
For on-site removal actions, the lead
agency shall, as appropriate, attempt to
attain or exceed all Federal applicable
or relevant and appropriate public
health and environmental requirements.
The lead agency also shall, as
appropriate, consider other Federal
criteria, guidance, and advisories as
well as State standards in formulating
the removal action. However, because
removal actions often involve situations
requiring expeditious action to protect
public health, welfare, or the
environment, it may not always be
feasible to fully meet them. In those
circumstances where they cannot be
attained, the decision iocuments, OSC
reports, or other documents should
specify the reasons.
(2) Off-site
Off-site facilities that are used for
storage, treatment, or disposal of
Superfund wastes must have all
appropriate permits or authorizations
and, barring an exception in the off-site
policy, no hazardous substance shall be
taken off-site to an RCRA facility if the
Region determines that the facility has
significant RCRA violations or other
environmental conditions that affect the
satisfactory operation of the facility.
B. Remedial Actions
1. Presentation and Analysis of
Alternatives
To the extent that it is both possible
and appropriate, at least one remedial
alternative shall be developed as part of
the feasibility study (FS) in each of the
following categories:
(a) Alternatives for treatment or
disposal in an off-site facility, as
appropriate;'
(b) Alternatives that attain applicable
or relevant and appropriate Federal
public health and environmental
requirements;
(c) As appropriate, alternatives that
exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate public health and
environmental requirements;2
'Thcsr alternatives must be consistent with
ETA's May 6.1965 off-site policy. "Procedures fur
Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response
Actions." In some cases, off-site disposal or
treatment may not be feasible and this alternative
may be eliminated during initial screening of
alternatives. The decision documents should reflect
this screening
*Foi instance, the Agency might choose
incineration as on alternative that exceeds what
would be required by applicable' standards because
il is a more permanent and reliable solution than
RCRA closure standards for land disposal facilities.
Environment Reporter
70
Ab.2
-------
ON-SITE/OFF-SITE CERCLA COMPLIANCE
S-754
41:3133
(d) As appropriate, alternatives that
do not attain applicable or relevant and
appropriate public health and
environmental requirements but will
reduce the likelihood of present or future
threat from the hazardous substances
and that provide significant protection
to public health and welfare and
environment. This must include an
alternative that closely approaches the
level of protection provided by the
applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements;
(e) A no action alternative.
2. Selection of Remedy
The decisionmaker will consider all of
the alternatives arrayed in the
feasibility study and will give primary
consideration to remedies that attain or
exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health and
environmental requirements. Where the
selected remedy involves an EPA
standard, criterion, or advisory, the
decisionmaker will ensure appropriate
coordination with affected EPA
programs.
In appropriate cases, the
decisionmaker may select a remedial
action that includes both on- and off-site
components.
The decisionmaker may select an
alternative that does not attain
applicable or relevant requirements in
one of the five following circumstances:
(a) Interim RemedyWhere the
selected alternative is not the final
remedy and will become part of a more
comprehensive remedy, the lead agency
may select an interim remedy;
(b) Fund-BalancingFor Fund-
financed responses only, the need for
protection of public health, welfare and
the environment at the facility under
consideration for all of the alternatives
that attain or exceed applicable or
relevant and appropriate Federal
requirements is, considering the amount
of money available in the Fund,
outweighed by the need for action at
other sites that may present a threat to
public health or welfare or the
environment. In the event of Fund
balancing, the lead agency shall select
the alternative which most closely
approaches the level of protection
provided by applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal requirements,
considering the specific Fund-balanced
sum of money available for the
immediate facility. Fund-balancing is
not a consideration in determining the
appropriate extent of remedy when the
response will be performed by a
potentially responsible party;
(c) Technical ImpracticalityWhere
no alternative that attains or exceeds
applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal public health and environmental
requirements is technically practical to
implement, the lead agency shall select
the alternative that most closely
approaches the level of protection
provided by the applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements, and
which is reasonable to implement from
an engineering perspective;
(d) Unacceptable Environmental
ImpactsWhere all the alternatives
that attain or exceed Federal public
health and environmental requirements,
if implemented, will result in significant
adverse environmental impacts, the lead
agency shall select the alternative that
most closely approaches the level of
protection provided by applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements,
without resulting in significant adverse
environmental impacts; or
(e) Overriding Public Interest Related
to EnforcementWhere the remedy is
to be carried out pursuant to CERCLA
section 106, the Fund is unavailable,
there is a strong public interest in
expedited cleanup, and the litigation
probably would not result in the desired
remedy, the lead agency will select the
alternative that most closely approaches
applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal public health and environmental
statutes in light of the need to invoke the
exception.
Where one of these situations is
present, the decisionmaker may select
an alternative which does not attain or
exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health or
environmental requirements, yet still
provides protection of the public health
and welfare and the environment. The
basis for not meeting the requirements
must be fully documented and explained
in the appropriate decision documents.
The Agency anticipates that most final
CERCLA remedial actions will attain or
exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate public health or
environmental requirements.
Other Federal criteria, advisories,
guidance, and State standards also will
be considered and may be used in
developing remedial alternatives, with
appropriate adjustments for site specific
circumstances. If EPA does not use, or
uses and adjusts any pertinent
standards in this category, EPA will
fully document the reasons why in the
decision documents.
For Fund-financed actions, where
State standards are part of the cost-
effective remedy, the Fund will pay to
attain those standards. Where the cost-
effective remedy does not include those
State standards, the State may pay the
difference to attain them.
3. Administrative and Procedural
Aspects
The following modifications will be
made to the Superfund community
relations program to ensure that it
provides a similar level of public
involvement to that provided by the
permitting programs of other
environmental laws:
A fact sheet should be included
with the public notice and feasibility
study which is provided to the public 2
weeks before the 3-week public
comment period. The fact sheet will
clearly summarize the feasibility study
response alternatives and other issues,
including which alternatives attain or
exceed Federal public health and
environmental requirements. For those
alternatives that do not attain
applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of other public health and
environmental laws, the fact sheet shall
identify how they do not attain the
requirements and explain how they
nonetheless meet the goals of CERCLA.
The public notice should include a
timetable in which a decision will be
reached, any tentative determinations
which the Agency has made, the
location where relevant documents can
be obtained, identification of community
involvement opportunities, the name of
an Agency contact, and other
appropriate information.
A public notice and updated fact
sheet should be prepared upon (1)
Agency selection of the final response
action and (2) completion of the final
12-6-85
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. Washington, D.C. 20037
71
A5.3
-------
41:3134
FEDERAL LAWS
engineering design. Prior to selecting the
final engineering design, the Agency
may hold a public meeting to inform the
public of the design alternatives and to
solicit comments.
If a remedy is identified that is
materially different from those proposed
during the feasibility study public
comment period, a new 3-week public
comment period may be required prior
to amending the Record of Decision.
taking into consideration the features of
the aitemati >es addressed in the public
comment period.
The CERCLA enforcement community
relations program will also be modified
to provide for an enhanced public
participation program for both consent
decrees and administrative orders. This
program will be substantially equivalent
to the revised program for Fund-
financed actions. Furthermore, consent
decrees and administrative orders will
incorporate administrative requirements
(i.e. recordkeeping and monitoring)
similar to those mandated by other
environmental programs.
V. Applicability of Policy
This policy applies to two situations:
A site-specific FS has not yet been
initiated; the FS must fully comply with
this policy.
The FS has been initiated, but the
remedy has not yet been selected: the
requirements of this policy shall be
incorporated into the FS and Record of
Decision (ROD) as practicable.
This policy does not apply to RODs
signed befoie February 12,1985, the date
of proposal of this policy.
If you have any questions or
comments, please contact James
Lounsbury, Director, Policy Analysis
Staff (202 332-2182) or Stephen M. Smith
of his staff (202 382-2200).
Potentially Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements
/. EPA's Office of Solid Waste
administers, inter alia, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
as amended (Pub. L 94-600. 90 Stat 95.
42 U.S.C. 6901 et set}.). Potentially
applicable or relevant requirements
pursuant to that Act are:
a. Open Dump CriteriaPursuant to
RCRA Subtitle D criteria for
classification of solid waste disposal
facilities (40 CFR Part Z57).
Note.Only relevant to nonhazardous
wastes.
b. In most situations Superfund
wastes will be handled in accordance
with RCRA Subtitle C requirements
governing standards for owners and
operators of hazardous waste tieatment.
storage, and disposal facilities: 40 CFR
Part 264, for permitted facilities, and 40
CFR Part 265, for interim status
facilities.
Ground Water Protection (40 CFR
264.90-264.109).
Ground Water Monitoring (40 CFR
265.90-265.94).
Closure and Post Closure (40 CFR
264.110-264.120, 265.110-265.112).
Containers (40 CFR 264.170-264.178,
265.170-265.177).
Tanks (40 CFR 264.190-264.200,
265.190-265.199).
Surface Impoundments (40 CFR
264.220-264.249, 265.220-265.230).
Waste Piles (40 CFR 264.250-
264.269,265.250-265.258).
Land Treatment (40 CFR 264.270-
264.299. 265.270-265.282).
Landfills (40 CFR 264.300-264.339.
265300-265.316).
Incinerators (40 CFR 264.340-
264.999. 265.340-265.369).
Dioxin-containing Wastes (50 FR
1978). Includes the final rule for the
listing of dioxin containing waste.
2. EPA's Office of Water administers
several potentially applicable or
relevant and appropriate statutes and
regulations issued thereunder
«. Section 14.2 of the Public Health
Service Act as amended by the Safe
Drinking Water Act as amended (Pub. L
93-523, 88 Stat. 1660.42 U.S.C. 300f et.
seq.}
Maximum Contaminant Levels (for
all sources of drinking water exposure).
(40 CFR 141.11-141.16).
Underground Injection Control
Regulations. (40 CFR Parts 144.145.146.
and 147).
b. Cleun Water Act as amended (Pub.
L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816.33 U.S.C. 1251 et.
seq.}
Requirements established pursuant
to sections 301. 302.303 (including Slate
water quality standards), 306. 307.
(including Federal pretreatmcnt
requirements for discharge into a
publicly owned treatment works), and
403 of the Clean Water Act. (40 CFR
Parts 131,400-469).
c. Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1401).
Incineration at sea requirements.
(40 CFR Parts 220-225, 227. 228. See also
40 CFR 125.120-125 124).
3. EPA's Office of Pesticides end Toxic
Substances
Toxic Substances Control Act (15
U.S.C. 2601).
PCD Requirements Generally: 40
CFR Part 761; Manufacturing Processing.
Distribution in Commerce, and Use of
PCDs and PCB Items (40 CFR 761.20-
701.30): Markings of PCDs and PCB
Items (40 CFR 761.40-761.45): Storage
und Disposal (40 CFR 761.60-761.79).
Records and Reports (40 CFR 761.180-
761.185). See also 40 CFR 129.105. 750.
Disposal of Waste Material
Containing TCDD. (40 CFR Parts
775.1 BO-775.197).
4. EPA's Office ofExternal Affairs
Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines for
Specification of Disposal Sites for
Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR Tart
230).
Procedures for denial or Restriction
of Disposal Sites for Dredged Material
(! 404(c) Procedures. 40 CFR Part 231).
5. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation
administers several potentially
applicable or relevant and appropriate
statutes and regulations issued
thereunder
a. The Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C.
2022).
Uranium mill tailing rulesHealth
and Environmental Protection Standards
for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings
(40 CFR Part 192).
b. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401).
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for total suspended
particulates (40 CFR Parts 50.6-50.7).
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone (40 CFR 50.9).
Standards for Protection Against
Radiationhigh and low level
radioactive waste rule. (10 CFR Part 20).
See also 10 CFR Parts 10.40,60,61, 72.
960.961.
National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos,
(40 CFR 61.140-61.156). See also 40 CFR
427.110-427.116. 763.
Environment Reporter
72
A5.4
-------
ON-SITE/OFF-SITE CERCLA COMPLIANCE
S-754
41:3135
National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Rfidionuclides (40 CFR Part 61.10 CFR
20.101-20.108).
ft Other Federal Requirements.
a. OSHA requirements for workers
engaged in response activities are
codified under the Occupational Safctv
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651)."
The relevant regulatory requirements
are included under:
Occupational Safety and Health
Standards (General Industry Standards)
(29 CFR Port 1910).
The Safety and Health Standards
for Federal Service Contracts (29 CFR
Part 1926).
The Shipyard and Longshore
Standards (29 CFR Parts 1915,1918).
Recordkceping, reporting, and
related regulations (29 CFR Part 1904).
b. Historic Sites, Buildings, and
Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461).
c. National Historic Preservation Act,
16 U.S.C. 470. Compliance with NEPA
required pursuant to 7 CFR Part 650.
Protection of Archaeological Resources:
Uniform RegulationsDepartment of
Defense (32 CFR Part 229, 229.4),
Department of the Interior (43 CFR Part
7, 7.4).
d. D.O.T. Rules for the Transportation"
of Hazardous Materials. 49 CFR Parts
107.171.1-171.500. Regulation of
activities in or affecting waters of the
United States pursuant to 33 CFR Parts
320-329. The following requirements are
also triggered by Fund-financed actions:
Endangered Species Act of 1973,16
U.S.C. 1531. (Generally, SO CFR Parts 81.
225. 402). Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 16
U.S.C. 1271.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
16 U.S.C. fibl note.
Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act
of 1978. and Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956.16 U.S.C. 742a note.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
of 1980.16 U.S.C. 2901. (Generally. 50
CFR Part 83).
Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972.16 U.S.C. 1451. (Generally. 15 CFR
Part 930 and 15 CFR 923.45 for Air and
Water Pollution Control Requirements).
Other Federal Criteria, Advisories,
Guidance, and State Standards To Be
Considered
7. Federal Criteria, Advisories and
Procedures
Health Effects Assessments (HEAs).
Recommended Maximum
Concentration Limits (RMCLs).
Federal Water Quality Criteria
(1976,1980.1984). Note: Federal Water
Quality Criteria are not legally
enforceable. State water quality
standards are legally enforceable, and
are developed using appropriate aspects
of Federal Water Quality Criteria. In
many cases, State water quality
standards d" not include specific
numerical limitations on a large number
of priority pollutants. .Viien neither
State standards nor MCLs exist for a
given pollutant, Federal Water Quality
Criteria are pertinent and therefore are
to be considered.
Pesticide registrations.
Pesticide and food additive
tolerances and action levels. Note:
Germane portions of tolerances and
action levels may be pertinent and
therefore are to be considered in certain
situations.
Waste load allocation procedures.
EPA Office of Water.
Federal sole source aquifer
requirements.
Public health basis for the decision
to list pollutants as hazardous under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
EPA's Ground-water Protection
Strategy.
New Source Performance Standards
for Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids.
TSCA health data.
Pesticide registration data.
TSCA chemical advisories (2 or 3
issued to date).
Advisories issued by FWS and
NUTS under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act.
Executive Orders related to
Floodpluins (11988) and Wetlands
(11990) as implemented by EPA's August
6,1985, Policy on Floodplains and
Wetlands Assessments for CERCLA
Actions.
. TSCA Compliance Program Policy.
OSHA health and safety standards
that may be used to protect public
health (non-workplace).
Health Advisories, EPA Office of
Water.
2. State Standards
State Requirements on Disposal and
Transport of Radioactive wastes.
State Approval of Water Supply
System Additions or Developments.
State Ground Water Withdrawal
Approvals.
Requirements of authorized
(Subtitle C of RCRA) State hazardous
waste programs.
State Implementation Plans and
Delegated Programs Under Clean Air
Act.
All other State requirements, not
delegated through EPA authority.
Approved State NPDES programs
under the Clean Water Act.
Approved State UIC programs
under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Note: Many other State and local
requirements could be pertinent.
Forthcoming guidance will include a
more comprehensive list.
3. USEPA RCRA Guidance Documents
Draft Alternate Concentration
Limits (ACL) Guidance.
A. EPA's RCRA Design Guidelines
1. Surface Impoundments, Liners
Systems, Final Cover and Freeboard
Control.
2,.Waste Pile DesignLiner Systems.
3. Land Treatment Units.
4. Landfill DesignLiner Systems and
Final Cover.
B. Permitting Guidance Manuals
1. Permit Applicant's Guidance
Manual for Hazardous Waste Land
Treatment. Storage, and Disposal
Facilities.
2. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual
for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
3. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual
for Subpart F.
4. Permit Applicant's Guidance
Manual for the General Facility
Standards.
5. Waste Analysis Plan Guidance
Manual.
6. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual
for Hazardous Waste Tanks.
7. Model Permit Application for
Existing Incinerators.
8. Guidance Manual for Evaluating
Permit Applications for the Operation of
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Units.
9. A guide for Preparing RCRA Permit
Applications for Existing Storage
Facilities.
10. Guidance Manual on Closure and
Post-Closure Interim Status Standards.
12-6-85
Published by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS. INC.. Washington, D.C. 20037
73
A5.5
-------
41:3136
FEDERAL LAWS
C. Technical Resource Documents
(TRDs)
(1) Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid
and Hazardous Waste.
(2) Hydrologic Simulation of Solid
Waste Disposal Sites.
(3) Landfill and Surface Impoundment
Performance Evaluation.
(4) Lining of Water Impoundment and
Disposal Facilities.
(5) Management of Hazardous Waste
Leachale.
(6) Guide to the Disposal of
Chemically Stabilized and Solidified
Waste.
(7) Closure of Hazardous Waste
Surface Impoundments.
(8) Hazardous Waste Land Treatment.
(9) Soil Properties, Classification, and
Hydraulic Conductivity Testing.
D. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste
(1) Solid Waste Leaching Procedure
Manual.
(2) Methods for the Prediction of
Leachate Plume Migration and Mixing.
(3) Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) Model Hydrologic
Simulation on Solid Waste Disposal
Sites.
(4) Procedures for Modeling Flow
Through Clay Liners to Determine
Required Liner Thickness.
(5) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes.
(6) A Method for Determining the
Compatibility of Hazardous Wastes.
(7) Guidance Manual on Hazardous
Waste Compatibility.
4. USEPA Office of Water Guidance
Documents
A. Pretreatment Guidance'Documents
(1) 304(g) Guidance Document Revised
Pretreatment Guidelines (3 Volumes)
B. Water Quality Guidance Documents
(1) Ecological Evaluation of Proposed
Discharge of Dredged Material into
Ocean Waters (1977)
(2) Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments
for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses (1983)
(3) Water-Related Environmental Fate
of 129 Priority Pollutants (1979)
(4) Water Quality Standards
Handbook (1983)
(5) Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control.
C. NPDES Guidance Documents
(1) NPDES Best Management Practices
Guidance Manual (June 1981)
(2) Case studies on toxicity reduction
evaluation (May 1983).
D. Ground Water/UIC Guidance
Document
(1) Designation of a USDW
(2) Elements of Aquifer Identification
(3) Interim guidance for public
participation
(4) Definition of major facilities
(5) Corrective action requirements
(6) Requirements applicable to wells
injecting into, through or above an
aquifer which has been exempted
pursuant to §146.104(b)(4).
(7) Guidance for UIC implementation
on Indian lands.
5. USEPA Manuals from the Office of
Research and Development
(1) EW 846 methodslaboratory
analytic methods.
(2) Lab protocols developed pursuant
to Clean Water Act { 304(h).
Environment Reporter
A5.6
74
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B
ENDANGERED SPECIES INFORMATION
B-l Federally listed and proposed endangered and threatened species
(current through January 1988) in EPA-Region II States (New York,
New Jersey, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands), and
B-2 Designated critical habitats (current through January 1988),
B-3 Guidelines for Conducting a Biological Assessment.
-------
NEW JERSEY
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
FISHES:
Shortnose Sturgeon
Acipenser brevirostrum
Hudson and Delaware Rivers
plus other Atlantic
Coastal Rivers
REPTILES:
Green Turtle
Hawksbill Turtle
Leatherback Turtle
Loggerhead Turtle
Atlantic Ridley
Turtle
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Dermocnelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Lepidochelys kempii
Oceanic summer visitor
coastal waters
Oceanic summer visitor
coastal waters
Oceanic summer visitor
coastal waters
Oceanic summer resident
coastal waters rarely
nests: Cape May and
Atlantic Counties
Oceanic summer resident
coastal waters
BIRDS:
BaTd Eagle
American Peregrine
Falcon
Arctic Peregrine
Falcon
piping Plover
Roseate Tern
Haliaeetus leucocephalus E
FaIco peregrinus anatun E
Falco peregrinus tundrius E
Charadrius roelodus T
Sterna dougallii dougalli E
Entire state
Entire state -
re-establishment to
former breeding range
in progress
Entire state-migratory,
no-nesting
Coastal Counties
Entire state
MAMMALS;
^astern Cougar
Blue Whale
Finback Whale
Pel is concolor cougar E
Balaenoptera musculus E
Balaenoptera physalus E
Entire state
extinct
Oceanic
Oceanic
- probably
Bl.l
-------
NEW JERSEY (Cont'd.)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
Humpback Whale
Right Whale
Sei Whale
Sperm Whale
MOLLUSKS:
None
PLANTS:
Small Worled
Pogonia
Megaptera novaeangliae E
Eubalaena glacialis E
Balaenoptera boreal is E
Physeter catodon E
Isotria medeoloides
Oceanic
Oceanic
Oceanic
Oceanic
Bergen, Hunterdon,
Monmouth, Passaic,
Sussex, Counties
B1.2
-------
NEW YORK
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
FISHES:
Shortnose Sturgeon
REPTILES:
Green Turtle
Hawksbill Turtle
Leatherback Turtle
Loggerhead Turtle
Atlantic Ridley Turtle
Acipenser brevirostrum E
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbri'cata
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Lepidochelys kempii
Hudson River and other
Atlantic Coastal rivers
Oceanic summer visitor
coastal waters
Oceanic summer visitor
coastal waters
Oceanic summer resident
coastal waters
Oceanic summer resident
coastal waters
Oceanic summer resident
coastal waters
BIRDS:
B"aTd Eagle
American Peregrine
Falcon
Arctic Peregrine
Falcon
Piping Plover
Roseate Tern
MAMMALS:
Indiana Bat
Eastern Cougar
Blue Whale
Finback Whale
Humpback Whale
Right Whale
Haliaeetus leucocephalus E
Falco peregrinus anatum E
Falco peregrinus tundrius E
Charadrius me!opus T
Sterna dougallii dougalli
Myotis soda! is
Felis concolor couguar
Balaenoptera musculus
Balaenoptera physalus
Megaptera novaeangliae
Eubalaena glacial is
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Entire state
Entire state
Entire state
extinct
Oceanic
Oceanic
Oceanic
Oceanic
Entire state - no nesting
Entire state -
re-establishment to
former breeding range in
progress
Entire state-migratory,
no-nesting
Primarily Long Island
- probably
B1.3
-------
NEW YORK (Cont'd.)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
Sei Whale
Sperm Whale
MOLLUSKS:
Chittenango Ovate Amber
Snail
PLANTS:
Northern Wild Monkshood
Small Worled Pogonia
Balaenoptera boreal is
Physeter catodon
Suiccinea oval is
chittenangoensis
Aconitum noveboracense
Isotria medeoloides
E
E
T
T
E
Oceanic
Oceanic
Madison County
Chenango, Ulster Counties
Nassau, Onondaga,
Rockland, Suffolk,
Ulster, Washington
Counties
B1.4
-------
PUERTO RICO
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
REPTILES:
Giant Anole
Mona Boa
AnoVs roosevelti
Epi crates monensis
monensis
E
T
Culebra Island
Mona Island
Virgin Islands Tree Boa
Puerto Rico Boa
Wonito Gecko
Mona Ground Iguana
Green Turtle
Hawksbill Turtle
Leatherback Turtle
Loggerhead Turtle
AMPHIBIANS;
Golden Coqui
Epicerates monensis granti E
Epicrates inornatus E
Sphaerodactylus E
micropthecus
Cyclura stejnegeri T
Chelonia mydas T
Eretmochelys imbricata E
Dermochelys coriacea E
Caretta caretta T
Cayo Diablo
Monito Island
Mona Island
Eleiitherodactylus
jaspen
Puerto Rico Crested Toad Peltophrayne lemur
T Southeast Puerto Rico
Proposed T (imminent)
BIRDS;
Peregrine Falcon, Arctic
Palco peregrinus tundrius T
Entire Island
PR Parrbtt
Brown Pelican
PR Plain Pigeon
Piping Plover
PR Nightjar
(formerly PR whipporwill)
Yellow Shouldered Blackbird
Roseate Tern
Amazona vittata
Pelecanus occidental is
Columba inornuta wetmorei
Charadrius melodus
Caprimulqus noctitherus
Agelaius anthonus
Sterna dougallii
E
E
E
T
E
E
E
Southwest Puerto Rico
dougallti
B1.5
-------
PUERTO RICO (Cont'd.)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
MAMMALS;
West Indian Manatee
Fin Whale
Humpback Whale
Sen Whale
Sperm Whale
PLANTS;
Beautiful Goetzea
Prickly Ash
Vahl's Boxwood
Wheeler's Peperomia
Palo de Ram6n
Elfon Tree Fern
Cook's Holly
Trichechus manatus E
Balaenoptera physalus E
Megaptera novaeangliae E
Balaenoptera boreal is E
Physeter catodon E
Goetzea elegans E
Zanthoxylurn thomasianum E
Boxus vahli E
Peperomia wheelerii Proposed E
Banara Vanderbiltii Proposed E
Cyathea dryopteroides Proposed E
Ilex cookii Proposed E
B1.6
-------
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Distribution
REPTILES:
VI Tree Boa
St. Croix Ground Lizard
Green Turtle
Hawksbill Turtle
Leatherback Turtle
Loggerhead Turtle
BIRDS;
Brown Pelican
Roseate Tern
MAMMALS:
Fin Whale
Humpback Whale
Sei Whale
Sperm Whale
PLANTS:
Prickly Ash
Epicarates monensir E
Ameiva polops E
Chelonia mydas T
Eretmochelys imbricata E
Dermochelys coriacea E
Caretta caretta T
Pelecanus occidental is E
Sterna dougal1i i E
dougallii
Balaenoptera physalus E
Megaptera novaeangliae E
Balaenoptera boreal is E
Physeter catodon E
Zanthoxylum thomasianum E
East side of St. Thrmas
St. Thomas, St. John
B1.7
-------
LIST OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITATS
NEW JERSEY:
NEW YORK:
PUERTO RICO:
None
None
SPECIES
Giant Anole
Mona Boa
Monito Gecko
Mona Ground Iguana
Hawksbill Turtle
Golden Coqui
Yellow Shouldered
Blackbird
CRITICAL HABITAT
Culebra Island, north side of Monte Resaca
Mona Island in its entirety
Monito Island in its entirety
Mona Island in its entirety
Mona Island, all areas of beachfront
on the west, south, and east sides of
the Island from mean high tide inland
to a point 150 meters from the shore.
Culebra Island, beachfront on Playa
Brava, Playa Resaca, and Playa Larga.
Caye Norte (off Culebra), beachfront
on South Beach.
Culebrita Island, all beachfront on
the southwest facing shore, east
facing shore, and northwest facing
shore.
Southeast Puerto Rico (inland), elevations
above 700 meters on Cerro Avispa, Monte el
Gato and Sierra de Cayey.
Mona Island, in its entirety
Southwest Puerto Rico, and Roosevelt
Roads Naval Station
B2.1
-------
VIRGIN ISLANDS:
SPECIES _ CRITICAL HABITAT
St. Croix Ground Lizard Green Cay, Protestant Cay, off the north
coast of St. Croix.
Leatherback Turtle Sandy Point Beach on +he western end of
St. Croix, beachfront from mean high tide
to .2 miles inland.
B2.2
-------
Guidelines for Conducting a Biological Assessment
(1) Conduct a scientifically sound on-site inspection of the area
affected by the action. Unless otherwise directed by the
Service, include a detailed survey of the area to determine if
listed or proposed species are present or occur seasonally and
whether suitable habitat exists within the area for either
expanding the existing population or reintroducing a new
population.
(2) Interview recognized experts on the species listed, including
those within the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, state conservation agencies, universities and
others who may have data not yet found in scientific literature.
(3) Review literature and other scientific data to determine the
species distribution, habitat needs, and other biological
requirements.
(4) Review and analyze the effects of the action on the species, in
terms of individuals and population, including consideration of
the cumulative effects of the action on the species and habitat.
(5) Analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation
measures.
(6) Conduct any studies necessary to fulfill the requirements of (1)
through (5) above.
(7) Review any other information.
Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Correspondence in Section 7
Consultations.
B3.1
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
APPENDIX C
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
This appendix contains an inventory (current through January 1988) of
rivers in the EPA - Region II which are relevant to the Wild ard
Scenic Rivers Act. (There a»e no rivers in Puerto Rico or the l.S.
Virgin Islands appearing in the inventory.) The inventory has three
categories: eligible, under study, and designated. The eligible
category contains rivers which meet the criteria for Congressional
designation for inclusion in the wild and scenic rivers system but
have not as yet been studied or designated. The under study category
contains rivers which are Congressionally mandated for further study
by the NPS. The conclusion of each study will manifest in either
Congressional designation for inclusion in the wild and scenic rivers
system or removal from the eligible category. The third category
contains the rivers which have been designated by Congress for
inclusion in the wild and scenic rivers system.
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW JERSEY
River Name
Segment Reach Description
De'aware River/Bay System
Delaware River
(including)
Salem River
Back Creek
Dividing Creek
Oranoaken Creek
Nantuxent Creek
Cedar Creek
West Creek
Dennis Creek
Stow Creek
Hope Creek
Fishing Creek
Mad Horse Creek
Hackensack River
(including)
Berrys Creek
Lamington-Black River
Passaic River
Passaic River
Passaic River
(including)
Great Brook
Delaware Bay to Salem Nuclear Power Plant
Salem to 2 miles upstream from Courses Landing
Back Creek Point to Husted Landing
Mouth to Tom's Bridge
Mouth to headwaters in Bear Swamp
Mouth to upstream from Newport
Mouth to south of Cedarville
Mouth to Pickle Factory Pond
Mouth to headwaters in the Great Cedar Swamp
Mouth to south of Pickles Mill
Mouth to headwaters
Storm Inlet to Alloway Creek Neck Road
Mouth to headwaters of Little and Turners
Fork Creeks
Penn Central R.R. crossing to south of Route 3
Confluence with the Hackensack River to south
of Route 3
Confluence with the West Branch Raritan River
to Randolph
Two Bridges to Route 80
Cook's Bridge to the Morris Turnpike
Route 78 to Osborn Mills
Confluence with the Passaic River to Silver Lake
C.I
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW JERSEY
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Pine Barrens River System
Batsto River
(including)
Penn Swamp Branch
Deep Run Brook
Springers Brook
Skit Branch
Roberts Branch
Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek
(including)
Factory Branch
Cedar Creek
(including)
Newbolds Branch
Daniels Branch
Cedar Creek
(including)
Chamberlain Branch
Webbs Mill Branch
Cohansey River
North Branch of the
Forked River
Mullica River to Hampton
Confluence with Batsto River to headwaters
Confluence with Batsto River to headwaters
Confluence with Deep Run Brook to Indian Mill Brook
Confluence with Batsto to headwaters
Confluence with Skit Branch to headwaters
Lanoka Harbor to Bamber Lake
Route 9 crossing to the dam above Double Trouble
Confluence with Cedar Creek to headwaters
Transmission line crossing above Double Trouble
Dam to Bamber Lake
Confluence with Cedar Creek to headwaters
Confluence with Cedar Creek to headwaters
Bamber Lake to headwaters
Bamber Lake to headwaters
Confluence with Chamberlain Branch to headwaters
Delaware Bay to Rogap Run
Garden State Parkway to the headwaters of the
Cave Cabin Branch
Great Egg Harbor River Great Egg Harbor Bay to south of May's Landing
Tuckahoe River
Middle River
Great Egg Harbor Bay to Tuckahoe
Great Egg Harbor Bay to north of Corbin City
C.2
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW JERSEY
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Great Egg Harbor River
Great Egg Harbor River
Mullica River
(including)
Ballanger Creek
Bass River
Nacota Creek
Landing Creek
Pine Creek
Nescochague Creek
Great Swamp Branch
Albertson Brook
Sleeper Branch
Alquatka Branch
Maurice River
(including)
Manusmuskin
Menantico Creek
E. Br. Oswego River
W. Br. Oswego River
Toms River
(including)
Long Brook
Weymouth to the Atlantic City Expressway
TLw Brooklyn Lake backwater to the Pa.-Reading
R.R. crossing
Great Bay to headwaters
Confluence with Mullica to Route 9
Confluence with Mullica for 2 miles
Confluence with Mullica to confluence with Mattix
Confluence with Mullica to Indian Cabin Road
Confluence with Mullica to reservoir below
Weekstown
Confluence with Mullica to Great Swamp Branch
and Albertson Brook Branch
Confluence with Nescochaque Creek to reservoir
at Myrtle Avenue
Confluence with Nescochaque Creek to Pa. Railroad
Confluence with Mullica to reservoir below
Route 206
Confluence with Mullica to headwaters
Town of Shell pile to 3 miles north of the Laurel
Lake area
Confluence with Maurice to Pa. Reading Seashore Lines
Entire Creek
E & W Br. to Sim Place reservoir
E & W Br. to near Route 563
Central railroad bridge to the bridge crossing
northeast of Cassville
From confluence with Toms River to headwaters
C.3
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW JERSEY
River Name
Segment Reach Description
'laple Root Branch
Dark Branch
Wading River
(including)
Beaver Run
West Branch
Tu'pehocken Creek
Hospitality Brook
Little Hanken Run
From conflue'iCe with Toms River to confluence
with Dark Branch
From confluence with Maple Root Br. to headwaters
Confluence with Mullica to E & W Branches
Confluence with Wading to headwaters
Confluence with Wading to Tulpehocken Creek
Confluence with West Branch to headwaters
Confluence with West Branch to Wallow Bogs
Confluence with West Branch to Wallow Bogs
C.4
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW YORK
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Allegheny River
Black River
(including)
Independence River
Otter Creek
Roaring Brook
Carmans River
Catskill Creek
Cattaraugus Creek
Cattaraugus Creek
Cattaraugus Creek
Chautaqua Creek
Chemung River
Claverack Creek
(including)
Taghkanic Creek
Clyde River
Conewango Creek
Chateaugay River
Chateaugay River
Connetquot River
Deer River
East Branch of the
Delaware River
Great Valley Creek to Townsend Hollow
Carthage to Lyons Falls
Confluence with the Black River to Pine Grove Rd.
Confluence with the Black River to Pine Grove Rd.
Confluence with the Black River to Martinsburg
Long Point to the Long Island Expressway
South Cairo to headwaters
South of the NY State Thruway to North Gowanda
Gowanda to Buttermilk Creek
Buttermilk Creek to Yorkshire
Route 20 Bridge in Westfield to Putnam Road
West of South Corning Road to Fitch Bridge
Stottville to Red Mills
Confluence with Claverack Creek to headwaters
West of Clyde to Creager Bridge
PA border to Clear Creek near Jamestown
Canadian border to the abandoned railroad
line near Chateaugay
Abandoned railroad line near Chateaugay
to the Forge
Johnson Ave. to south of the Sunrise Highway
Confluence with the St. Regis River to APA boundary
Harvard to Downsville
East Branch Fish Creek Taeberg to headwaters
C.5
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW YORK
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Genese River
Genese River
Genese River
Hoosic River
(including)
Tomhannock Creek
Hoosic River
(including)
Little Hoosic River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Kayaderosseras Creek
Mohawk River
Neversink River
Normans Kill
(including)
Hunger Kill
Kaikout Kill
Poesten Kill
Oswegatchie River
Salmon River
Salmon River
(including)
North Branch of the
Salmon River
NY State Thruway to Route "**> near Mount Morris
Mount Morris to Portageville
Portageville to Belmont
Confluence with the Hudson River to Schaghticoke
Confluence with the Hoosic River to the Boston-
Maine railroad bridge
Hoosic Falls to near North Pownal
Confluence with the Hoosic River to near
Petersburg
North of Barrytown to south of Maiden on Hudson
North of Hudson to south of Coxsackie
North of Coxsackie Island to above New Baltimore
One mile north of Ballston Spa to Rock City Falls
North of Route 12 to Stanwix
South of Cuddebackville to Rock Hill
NY State Thruway to Route 146
Confluence with the Normans Kill to Kydius St.
Confluence with the Hunger Kill to the headwaters
pond near the City of Albany boundary
West of Poesten Kill to Dyken Pond
Two miles south of Heuvelton to Route 87 bridge
Route 81 to Lower Reservoir
Salmon Reservoir to the headwaters of the East Branch
Salmon Reservoir to Gastor Pond
C.6
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW YORK
River Name
Segment Reach Description
River
Sandy Creek System
Sandy Creek
(including)
Gulf Stream
Shingle Gulf
Bear Gulf
Sandy Creek
(including)
South Sandy Creek
Abijah
Fox Creek
Schoharie Creek
Schoharie Creek
Schoharie Creek
(including)
Batavia Kill
Unadilla River
Wall kill River
Wappinger Creek
Confluence with the North Branch to the headwaters
near the county boundary
East of Adams to the headwaters
Confluence with Sandy Creek to the headwaters
of Jacobs Creek
Confluence with Sandy Creek to the headwaters
east of Whitesvilie Road
Confluence with Sandy Creek to headwaters north
of Woodard Road
Mouth at Lake Ontario to Route 81
Mouth at Lake Ontario to the headwaters at
the unnamed pond on the Lewis-Jefferson County
boundary
Confluence with South Sandy Creek to Leepy Rd.
Confluence with South Sandy Creek to the Lorraine
- E. Boy>ston Rd.
New York State Thruway to Esperance
Near Vroman's Nose to the Blenheim-Gil boa Pump
Storage Project dam
Prattsville to headwaters
Confluence with Schoharie to Windham
Confluence with the Susquehanna River to West
Edmeston
Hamburg, NJ to the Merritts Island, NY area
Nootemig Lake to headwaters at Thompson Pond
C.7
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW YORK (ADIRONDACK)
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Adirondack Province River System
Ampersand Brook
Ausable River
E. Branch Ausable
River
W. Branch Ausable
River
Black River
Blue Mountain Stream
Bog River
(including)
Round Lake Outlet
Boreas River
Boreas River
Bouquet River
(including)
North Branch of the
Bouquet River
North Fork of the
Bouquet River
South Fork of the
Bouquet River
East Canada Creek
West Canada Creek
(including)
South Branch of the
West Canada Creek
Stony Creek Ponds to Ampersand Lake
Mouth at Lake Champlain to confluence of East &
West Branches (Au Sable Forks)
Ausable Forks to Marcy Swamp
Ausable Forks to headwaters near Heart Lake
Kayuta Lake to North Lake
Confluence with Pleasant Lake stream to Clear
Pond
Tupper Lake to dam below Hitchins Pond
Confluence with Bog River to Round Lake
Confluence with the Hudson River to Cheney Pond
Brace Dam to Boreas Pond
Lake Champlain to the confluence with the North
Fork
Confluence with Main Branch to Trout Pond
Bridge at Rte 73 to headwaters on Dial Mt.
Bridge at Rte 73 to headwaters
Dolgeville to headwaters near Powley Place
Harvey Rd. bridge crossing to Mud Lake
Confluence with West Canada Creek to headwaters
C.8
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW YORK (ADIRONDACK)
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Cedar River
Chateaugay River
Cold River
(including)
Moose Creek
Oulaska Pass Brook
Deer River
Grasse River
North Branch of
the Grasse
Middle Branch of
the Grasse
South Branch of
the Grasse
Great Chazy River
East Stony Creek
Hudson River
Independence River
Indian River
Indian River
Indian River
Jordan River
Kunjamuk River
Long Pond Outlet
Confluence with the Hudson Ri-sr to the outlet
of Cedar Lakes
Park Boundary (Lower Chateaugay Lake) to Bluff
Point (Upper Chateaugay)
Confluence with Raquette River to Duck Hole
Confluence with Cold River to Moose Pond
Confluence with Cold River to headwaters
Park boundary to Deer River Flow
Northernmost Park boundary crossing to confluence
of Middle and South Branches
Park Boundary to Church Pond
Confluence with the South Branch to confluence
with Pleasant Lake Stream and Blue Mountain Stream
Confluence with the Middle Branch to Center Pond
Robideau Road Bridge to Chazy Lake
Great Sacandaga Lake to Lixard Pond
Confluence with the Sacandaga River to the
confluence with the Opalescent
Park Boundary to Little Diamond Pond
Confluence with the South Branch of the Moose
River to Brook Trout Lake
Confluence with the Hudson River to Indian Lake
Antwerp to headwaters
Carry Falls Reservoir to Marsh
Confluence with the Sacandaga River to South Pond
Confluence with the West Branch of the St. Regis
River to Long Pond
C.9
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW YORK (ADIRONDACKS)
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Marion River
Mill Creek
Moose River
(including)
Middle Branch of
the Moose River
North Branch of
the Moose River
South Branch of
the Moose River
Opalescent River
(including)
South Branch
Opalescent River/
Skylight Brook
Upper & Lower Twin
Brooks
Osgood River
Oswegatchie River
Oswegatchie River
(including)
Middle Branch of the
Oswegatchie River
West Branch of the
Oswegatchie River
West Branch of the
Oswegatchie River
Otter Brook
Otter Creek
Raquette Lake to Utowana Lake
Confluence with the. .uidson to Garnet Lake
Park Boundary to the confluence with the Middle
and South Branches
Confluence with the South Branch to the
confluence with the North Branch
Confluence with the Middle Branch to Bid
Moose Lake
Confluence with the Middle Branch to Little
Moose Lake
Confluence with the Hudson River to Flowed Land
Confluence with Opalescent to headwaters
Confluence with Opalescent to headwaters
Jones Pond Outlet to Meacham Lake
Route 87 bridge to Natural Dam
Wanakena to Partiow Mill Dam
Confluence with the Main Branch to the headwaters
near Walker Lake
Fullerville dam backwater to Harrisville
northern boundary
Southern boundary of Harrisville to Buck Pond
Confluence with the South Branch of the
Moose River to Lost Pond
Confluence with the Black & Big Otter Lake
C.10
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW YORK (ADIRONDACKS)
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Piseco Lake Outlet
Pleasant Lake Stream
Raquette River
Red River
Rock River
Sacandaga River
(including)
E. Branch of the
Sacandaga River
W. Branch of the
Sacandaga River
N. Branch of the
Sacandaga River
Silver Lake Outlet
St. Regis River
(including)
West Branch of the
St. Regis River
West Branch of the
St. Regis River
East Branch of
St. Regis River
Salmon River
Saranac River
(including)
North Branch of the
Saranac River
Confluence with the West Branch of the Sacandaga
to State Route 10
Confluence with the Middle Branch of the Grasse
River to Pleasant Lake
Confluence with Carry Falls Reservoir (Jamestown
Falls) to the outlet of Raquette Lake
Confluence with the South Branch of the Moose River
to headwaters
Confluence with the Cedar River to Lake Durant
Great Sacandaga Lake inlet to Lake Pleasant outlet
Confluence with the main branch to Botheration Pond
Confluence with the main branch to headwaters
near Silver Lake Mountain
Confluence with the West Branch to headwaters
(Canary Pond)
Confluence with the West Branch of the Sacandaga
to Silver Lake
Brasher Falls to Lower St. Regis Lake
Confluence with the main branch at Winthrop
to Allen Falls Reservoir
Parishville to headwaters at Little Fish Pond
Confluence with the main Branch above Santa Clara
to headwaters at Mecham Lake
Park Boundary to Elbow Ponds
Bridge crossing south of Elsinore to Upper
Saranac Lake outlet
Confluence with the main branch to Mud Pond
C.ll
-------
ELIGIBLE RIVERS
NEW YORK (ADIRONDACKS)
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Schroon River
(including)
The Branch
Thirteenth Brook
Trout Brook
West Stony Creek
Confluence with the Hudson River to the outlet
of the former Deadwater Pond
Confluence with Schroon River to Elk Lake
Confluence with Hudson River to Thirteenth Lake
Pottersville to Olmstedville
Confluence with the Sacandaga River to Peck's Lake
C.12
-------
DESIGNATED RIVERS
New Jersey
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Middle Delaware River
Northern b.jndary of the Delaware Water
Gap Recreational Area to southern
boundary (35 miles)
DESIGNATED RIVERS
New York
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Middle Delaware River
Upper Delaware River
Northern boundary of the Delaware Water
Gap Recreational Area to southern
boundary (35 miles)
Confluence of the East and West Branches
of the Delaware River, below Hancock to
the existing RR bridge immediately
downstream of Cherry Island in the
vicinity of Sparrow Bush (75.4 miles)
UNDER STUDY RIVERS
New Jersey
River Name
Segment Reach Description
Great Egg Harbor River
Maurice River
Manumuskin River
Menantico Creek
entire river
Town of Shell pile to 3 miles north of
the Laurel Lake area
Confluence of the Maurice River to State
Route 49
Confluence of the Maurice River to its
source at the Panther and Cedar
Branches.
C.13
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
APPENDIX D
LIST OF COASTAL BARRIERS IN EPA - REGION II
(current through January 1988)
-------
New Jersey; None
New York:
Fisher's Island
Asharoken
Setauket
Setauket
Shelter Island
East Hampton Town
East Hampton Town
Gardiner's Island
Amagansett
Southampton
Fire Island
Fire Island
Fisher Island Barriers
Eaton's i'ieck
Crane Neck
Old Field Beach
Shelter Island Barriers
Sammy's Beach
Acabonack Harbor
Gardiner's Island
Barriers
Napeague
Mecox
Southampton Beach
Tiana Beach
Length
(Miles)
0.9
0.8
0.7
2.2
2.3
0.8
2.1
6.9
0.9
0.6
1.4
1.4
Area
(Acres)
41
"7
148
410
218
353
172
1,600
214
100
549
793
TOTAL
Puerto Rico; None
U.S. Virgin Islands:
21
4,635
None
D.I
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
APPENDIX E
LIST OF WILDERNESS AREAS
(Current through January 1988)
-------
New Jersey:
1. Portion of the Great Swamp National
Wildlife Reguge
2. Portion of Edwin B. Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge, Brigantine Division
3. Portion of Edwin 6. Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge, Barnegat Division
Area:
3,660 acres
Location;
Basking Ridge/
Morristown
6,000 acres Oceanville
256 acres Barnegat
New York:
None
Puerto Rico: None
U.S. Virgin Islands; None
E.I
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS
INFORMATION
F-l Significant Agricultural Lands as Defined by EPA Policy.
F-2 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD 1006).
-------
SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS
As Defined by EPA Policy
1. Prime farmland is land with the best combination of characteris-
tics capable of economically proJucing sustained high yields of
when managed. While based on a variety of site characte-
ristics, the key to these lands is "high productivity."
2. Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used
for production of specific high value food or fibre crops.
Examples of such crops are cranberries, fruits, vegetables, and
tree nuts.
3. Additional land of statewide importance is land which, with
proper treatment or management, may produce crops of high yield.
These lands are individually identified by each state. Lands of
this type may produce as high a yield as "prime" lands but may
have severe limitations which reduce the choice of plants of that
require very careful management, or both.
4. Additional farmland of local importance is land not identified as
having Statewide or National importance but, due to a range of
factors, has local significance. These lands are identified by
the local agencies concerned. Examples include agricultural
lands owned by a town and leased back to fanners as a conserva-
tion district.
5. Farmlands in or continuous to environmentally sensitive areas
(CSAs) such as floodplains, wetlands, aquifer recharge zones or
natural scientific study areas; these farmlands play a crucial
environmental buffer role to prevent development encroachment on
ESAs. The lands, in many cases, are categorically included in
land types 1-4.
6. Farmlands of waste utilization importance which may serve in the
land treatment process, be used for composting activities or for
controlled beneficial application of sewage sludges or other
wastes.
7. Farmland with significant capital investments in Best Management
Practices (BMPs) which serve as elements of an area's (or state's
soil erosion and non-point source pollution control plans. These
lands are included so as not to interfere with the investments
other agencies have made in programs, such as USDA, SCS erosion
control projects or 208' area-wide management programs.
Fl.l
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
J 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
RT 1 1 (To be completed by SCS)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Federal Agency Involved
County And State
Date Request Received By SCS
Does the. site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
llf no, the FPPA does not apply do not complete additional parts of this form). D D
MejorCropW ; -. ,'.,;;.'; V .^^^V'^V '
Mime Of Lend Evaluation System Used , .-,
'^
FarmabJe Land In Govt. Jurisdiction :. . < v
Name Of Local She Atsesament System* :
RT III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
RT IV (TobtcompTetedbySCS). Unrf Evrtuatibnlnformatlon /'V?--;vrv
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland' ' : "-":. -,>.. , : -
5. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland : - : ' «. , '«:
C: Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Sam* Or Higher Relative Value
IRT V (To be completed by SCS) Land. Evaluation Criterion . , ;./.;;-
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) '
ST VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
\sse*sment Criteria (Thttf critma «/> txplfinud in 7 CFR 6S8.Slbl
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local
Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
iRT VI 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
u'te assessment/
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
te Selected:
Maximum
Points
160
100
160
260
Acres Irrigated
Average Farm Size
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
* ' ' . *A" *'''' ' ' '--- V» -r ' "»* ' -
ACTBSl -' ""'* * ' ':- *' - *-"'*.' -- 70 '*
Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
Alternetive Site Rating
Site A
:;v?W&:':-
.?;-;-.-.".,. *.-
:;-.*.', »..-.>.:;",>-^.;
' " ' "!. .. ..
. ': . - ''.'.:'>
'.'. 7v;V:/.'--t."-";
Date Of Selection
SiteB
cr&^:;^:;
-. ':;.:.; ... £
:'.- ;^..,..-.-; .. .v:
. ..-:...... . .....
.-.-.-.. ...
-::-;^^ ;".-'
SiteC
'''?*%- Xy'S'S.--
.:.- -''.' ; .-. '.;- .-.-'
. '- -;.. -.'".''* ' .'.
' '**'
SiteD
'.-":-: ;. -;': ;'
:.-,-. '-
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes D No D
i For Selection:
F2.1
r»₯»rse tidi)
Form ADO 006 ,10-83)
-------
STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Step 1 Federal agencies involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (FPPA) to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form.
Step 2 - Originator will send copies A, B and C together with maps indicating locations of site(s), to the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) local field office and retain copy 0 for their files. (Note: SCS has a field office in most counties in the U.S. The
field office is usually located in the county seat. A list of field office locations are available from the SCS State Conservationist
in each state).
Step 3 - SCS will, within 45 calendar days after receipt of form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the pro-
posed project contains prime, unique, statewide or local import: _t farmland.
Step 4 - In cases where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, SCS field offices will com-
plete Parts II, IV and V of the form.
Step 5 - SCS will return copy A and B of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project. (Copy C will be retained for
SCS records).
Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form.
Step 7 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conver-
sion is consistent with the FPPA and the agency's internal policies.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM
Part I: In completing the "County And State" questions list all. the local governments that are responsible
for local land controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.
Part III: tn completing item B (Total Acres To 3e Converted Indirectly), include the following:
1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being fanned after the conver-
sion, because ihe conversion would restrict access to them.
2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification
(e.g. highways, utilities) that will cause a direct conversion.
Part VI: Do not complete Part VI if a local site assessment is used.
Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in §658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of
corridor-type projects such as transportation, powerline and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply
and will be weighed zero, however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points, and criterion
#11 a maximum of 25 points.
individual Federal agencies at the national level, may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment
criteria other than those shown in the FPPA rule, in all cases where other weights are assigned, relative adjust-
ments must be made to maintain the maximum total weight points at 160.
In rating alternative sites, Federal agencies shall consider each of the criteria and assign points within the
limits established in the FPPA rule. Sites most suitable for protection under these criteria will receive the
highest total scores, and sites least suitable, the lowest scores.
Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points", where a State or local site assessment is used
and the total maximum number of points is other than 160, adjust the site assessment points to a base of 160.
Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points; and alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:
Total points assigned Site A = 180 x 160 = 144 points for Site "A."
Maximum points possible 200
F2.2
-------
APPENDIX G
-------
APPENDIX 6
NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEE INFORMATION
G-l Trustee Notification Form.
G-2 MOD Between EPA and DOI for the Preliminer> Katural Resource
Sirveys, December 4, 1987.
-------
S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK NEW YORK 10278
Notification of Federal Natural Resource Trustees
dtv
Count,. _ , State.Cw.Terr.
OteraMe Unit Name -
001 - Regional Environmental Officer u>v iKatimfchKt a>
C Anita niller. Mid-Atlantic Region <7K.<7 (FTS-597-537S)
200 Chestnut Street, Room 502
Philadelphia. Pa 19106
or
D Bill Patterson. Northeast Reoion (NY) (FTS-835-6856)
Poston Federal Office Building
10 Causeway Street Room 1022
Boston, Mass. 02222
or
D Jim Lee. Southeast Region (P R ,V i > (FTS-242-4524*
Pussel Federal Building. Suite 1320
75 Spring Street S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
and
DOC - NuAA Coastal Resource Coordinator
Thor Cutler. EPA Region 2 (FTS-264-6325)
26 Federal Plaza, Room 734
New York City, New York 10278
- Project Manager: Phone:
Chief: Section: Phone:_
1 ) in accordance with Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, $104 (b)(2)
ano ?122'.J), th
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 rEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278
2) 5TAOE OF ACT ION- "draft or Dfinal
G Preliminary assessment/ D site investigation or D ESI (extended site investigation)
D immediate Removal D Expedited Response Action
Q Work Plan
D Renedia1 investigation
D Endanqerment Assessment
D Feasibility Study
D POD
DRD
Q RA
ACTION REQUESTED OF TRUSTEE.
SEPARATE OPERABLE UNITS? (name + description)
3)RESPONSE CATEGORY G fund 0 enforcement PRP.
LEAD: D Federal D State D Fed Facility
4) D DOCUMENTS ATTACHED (three copies to DOI. three copies to DOC) List names of
document?'
5) if trie following information is not contained in the attached documents, please provide
LOCATION US6S quad map w/location of site and directions to site
(Quad name)
1-ITE EXPOSURE ROTENTI.ALCcopy exec, summary,EP!C,or relevant doc.)
CHEMICAL HAZARDS and history of releases'! copy appropriate table; .lists;
G1.2
-------
Memorandum of Understanding
Between
The Environmental Protection Agency
and
The Department of the Interior
PRELIMINARY NATURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS
Purpose
The Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) agree that this memorandum of
understanding is necessary to support federal enforcement actions
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42
USC Section 9601, et seg. . DOI will assist the United States
in reaching comprehensive settlements of all Federal claims under
CERCLA by conducting surveys at hazardous waste sites of natural
resources for which DOI acts as trustee.
2. Authority
CERCLA Section 104(b) and Executive Order 12580, Section 2(g),
authorize EPA to conduct investigations of releases or threats of
releases of hazardous substances into the environment and other
necessary information gathering to enforce the provisions of
CERCLA.
CERCLA section 107(f) (2) (A) authorizes the President to
designate Federal officials to act as natural resource trustees
on behalf of the public. Executive Order 12580, Section 1 (c)
(4), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), Subpart G (40 CFR Part 300), designate
the Secretary of the Interior as among those Federal officials
who shall act as trustee.
3. Related Provisions
Sections 104 and 122 of CERCLA require EPA to notify trustees of
potential damages to natural resources resulting from releases
under investigation; to coordinate EPA's assessments,
investigations and planning with trustees; and to notify., trustees
of, and to encourage trustees to participate in, negotiations of
settlements at sites where there is the potential for damages to
natural resources. EPA agrees to implement these coordination
provisions with DOI. The parties will address the coordination
provisions subsequent to the signing of this agreement.
G2.1
-------
4. Scope
Under the authority of Sections 106, 107, and 122 of CERCLA, the
United states may actively pursue the settlement of claims
against persons responsible for releases of hazardous substances
into the environment. Such settlements may include covenants
not to sue responsible paries under CERCLA with respect to the
release of a hazardous substanc** ":hat is the subject of the
settlement. The United States may provide a covenant not to sue
for damages to natural resources if the Federal trustee of the
affected resources gives written consent. DOI is responsible for
determining whether to grant responsible parties a covenant not
to sue for damages to natural resources for which it acts as
trustee or co-trustee.
Under this memorandum, DOI will conduct preliminary natural
resource surveys of sites under investigation or negotiation by
EPA and will notify EPA whether or not resources under its
trusteeship may 'e dam:, jed or threatened. The Department of
Justice (DOJ) would not include in any settlement agreement(s) a
covenant not to sue for natural resource damages unless DOI so
authorizes in writing.
EPA agrees to reimburse DOI for the EPA approved costs of
assembling data regarding potentially affected natural resources,
if any, and providing such information to EPA in a format
appropriate for the enforcement action. None of the funds
provided under this agreement shall be used to plan or conduct
natural resource damage.assessments or restorations.
5. Priorities
EPA's Office of Waste programs Enforcement (OWPE) will identify
to DOI's Office of Environmental Project Review (OEPR), as early
as possible, any sites under investigation for enforcement or
subject to negotiation/ whether planned or ongoing, where there
roay be damages to natural resources under DOI's trusteeship.
EPA's Regional project Officers (RPOs) will work with the
appropriate DOI Regional Environmental Officers (REOs) to
determine which 'hazardous waste sites so identified may require
Preliminary natural resource surveys. EPA's RPOs, working with
DOI's REOs, will establish a priority list of sites needing such
surveys. EPA's RPOs may amend the priority list of requested
surveys periodically. OEPR will plan to conduct preliminary
surveys for the sites in the order of priority identified in the
regional lists. The EPA regional contact, in consultation with
the appropriate DOI Regional Environmental Officer (RED), may
Propose changes in the priority of sites within that region.
OEPR will notify the OWPE of any proposed changes.
G2.2
-------
6. Work Plans
OEPR will submit a work plan to the appropriate EPA RPO and to
OWPE detailing the scope of activity to be performed, the
schedule for such activity, and the cost o! each survey. The
plan will be subnr^.ed no later than thirty (30) days after the
establishment of the priority list for preliminary surveys. If
the 30-day limit cannot be met, OEPR.will notify OWPE, in
writing, of the cause of delay and the estimated additional time
necessary for completion.
OEPR will not commence any activity in the work plan until the
EPA RPO has notified OEPR in writing that the work plan is
acceptable, unless an emergency arises and either party seeks
initiation as soon as feasible. EPA's notification will state a
maximum amount of reimbursement that will be allowed for each
survey included in the work plan. The EPA RPO will make this
notification within (30) days of receiving the work plan. OEPR
may propose a revised work plan on the basis of the RPO-approved
reimbursement. DOI will be entitled to reimbursement from EPA
beyond the maximum specified in the approved work plan, if an
amendment to the work plan is agreed upon/ in writing, by the EPA
RPO and OWPE.
7. Schedule
OEPR will normally complete a preliminary natural resource survey
within sixty (60) days of the scheduled starting date established
in the work plan. If the schedule cannot be met, OEPR will
notify the EPA RPO, in writing, of the cause of delay and the
estimated additional time necessary for completion. OEPR should
contact the EPA RPO at least fifteen (15) days before the end of
the initial 60-day period if additional time is necessary. By
mutual agreement, EPA may request, and DOI may conduct, a
preliminary survey on an expedited schedule.
8. Survey Procedures
OEPR will conduct preliminary natural resource surveys according
to its own procedures and the approved work plan. OWPE will
identify EPA's RPOs who will, upon request, provide DOI's REOs
with information and assistance on preliminary surveys, including
all relevant technical documents, draft and final endangerment
assessments, remedial investigations and feasibility studies
(RI/FS) and remedial designs, covering all project segments,
whether proposed by EPA or by responsible parties. Surveys will
be locally directed, whenever feasible, by DOI's REOs. OEPR may
also coordinate with other trustees in conducting preliminary
surveys when appropriate.
G2.3
-------
9. Reports and Documentation of Covenants Not to Sue
Within thirty (30) days of completion of each preliminary natural
resource survey, OEPR shall submit to the EPA RPO and to OWPE a
summary report that includes a determination of the potential for
damages to natural resources under DOI trusteeship, the basis for
that conclusion, and a clear indication of any conditions DOI
might request prior to agreeing to a covenant not to sue for
natural resource damages. OEPR will provide this information to
the extent possible based on information available at the time of
the survey. OEPR may request additional information if necessary
to enable DOI to respond to OWPE.
Information on DOI's position concerning potential natural
resource damages shall remain confidential. DOI will maintain a
file of findings of fact in support of this summary report. The
summary report shall be protected under the principles of
deliberative process, attorney-client, and work-product. DOJ or
DOI may represent DOI's position in negotiations with
responsible parties.
DOI may agree to a written covenant not to sue for natural
resource damages, when requested. DOI may propose modifications
of the proposed remedial measure or Record of Decision as a term
or condition before agreeing to a covenant not to sue.
Each DOI report will contain the EPA site identification number
and site name. Where modifications of a proposed remedial
measure are required, EPA will consult DOI throughout the actual
implementation of such measures. OWPE and OEPR will serve as the
contacts for issues related to this agreement. DOI's agreement
with the terms of settlement or agreement to grant a release from
natural resource damages, or decision not to grant such a
release, will be conveyed by letter from the Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior to the Assistant Attorney General for
Natural Resources of the Department of Justice.
10. Reimbursement
Survey costs will be reimbursed on a site-specific basis through
an Inter-Agency Agreement (IAG). The allocations will be based
on OEPR's approved work plans and cost estimates, and will serve
as OEPR's budget for preliminary'surveys.
OEPR will be reimbursed for allowable preliminary survey costs
when they are incurred in accordance with an EPA approved work
Plan. The following is a list of allowable costs which are
reimbursable by the Fund:
G2.4
-------
a) Contractors and consulting costs;
b) lease or rental equipment;
c) supplies, materials, and equipment (including
transportation costs) procured for a specific
survey and expended during a survey;
d) use of DOI equipment including vehicles ~nd fuel;
e) DOI salaries, travel and per diem expenses directly
related to a survey and not otherwise reimburseable
by Superfund under any other agreement between DOI
and EPA.
Reimbursement will be made within forty-five (45) days after a
survey is completed and the EPA RPO has received the report
referred to in paragraph 9 of this agreement. EPA may allow a
follow-up survey under this agreement for those sites where the
findings of the initial preliminary survey are insufficient for
DOI to determine whether to agree to a covenant not to sue. A
follow-up survey would typically occur during the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) negotiations and include a review
of the Ri/FS. The costs for the follow-up survey would be
incremental to those incurred under the initial survey and must
be approved by the EPA RPO prior to its initiation.
H Accounting Requirements
EPA, acting as manager of the Hazardous Substance Superfund,
requires current information on CERCLA response actions and the
related obligations of CERCLA funds for these actions. DOI will
submit to EPA a request for reimbursement as specified in the
IAG. Such a request will include itemized accounting of all
reimbursable costs incurred while conducting each survey.
is required to keep detailed financial accounts of all costs
incurred. These accounts should include, but are not limited to
employee hours spent; receipts for materials, equipment or
supplies; travel and per diem expenses; and contract fees. All
accounts shall be maintained on a site-specific basis. Detailed
documentation on all preliminary survey costs must also be
available for audit, verification, or request of EPA's Inspector
General .
G2.5
-------
12, Coordination of Investigations and Negotiations
By other means the parties will specify how OWPE and OEPR will
notify each other of and coordinate their assessments,
investigations, and planning. In addition, EPA and DOI will
agree how OWPE will provide DOI notice of, and opportunity to
participate in, negotiations with responsible parties at
identified sites to facilitate resolution of resource-related
concerns through further investigations, governmental requests
for relief and the development of negotiating positions.
13. Period of Agreement
This memorandum shall take effect immediately upo'n signature of
the parties and shall apply to all sites regardless of their
status as planned or pending. It shall continue in effect until
modified or amended by the assent of both parties or terminated
by either party upon a 30-day written notice. This agreement
will be reviewed by the parties every two years from its
effective date or whenever CERCLA may be further amended.
-Jr Winston Porter /
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Environmental Protection
Agency
Joseph W. Gorrell
Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary
Policy Budget and
Administration
Department of the
Interior
/ i
Date: //
-------
APPENDIX H
-------
APPENDIX H
CONTACTS
(current as of January 1988)
-------
CONTACTS
Agencies:
JJ.S. Department of Interior
Regional Environmental Offices.
. Department of the Interior
10 Causeway St., Room 1022
Boston, MA 02222
(for NY) (617) 565-6856 FTS:
. Department of the Interior
Custom House, Room 502
200 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(for NJ) (215) 597-5378 FTS:
835-6856
597-5378
Department of the Interior
Suite 1320, Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(for Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands) (404) 331-4524 FTS: 242-4524
Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Offices:
. US Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
One Gateway Center
Suite 700
Newton, Corner, MA 02158
(for NY & NJ)
(617) 965-5100 FTS: 829-9200
Fish and Wildlife Service, Field Offices:
. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 534
705 White Horse Pike
Absecon, New Jersey 08201
(609) 646-9310
Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Ecological Services
100 Grange Place
Cortlandl New York 13045
(607) 753-9334
Fish and Wildlife Service
Richard Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, SE
Atlanta, GA 30303
(for Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands)
(404) 331-3588 FTS: 242-3588
Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 510
Boqueron, Puerto Rico 00622
(809) 833-5760
Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Office
274 Art Museum Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32207
(904) 791-2580 FTS: 946-2580
H.I
-------
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
143 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597-3503 FTS: 597-3503
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service Offices;
. National Marine Fisheries
Service
Environmental Assessment Branch
7 Pleasant Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
(617) 281-3600
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Herbert Hoover Building
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230-0001
(202) 634-4132
National Marine Fisheries Service
Environmental Assessment Branch
Duval Building
9450 Gandy Street
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
(813) 893-3141
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Division Offices:
North Atlantic Division
90 Church Street
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-0222
[also contact appropriate district office]
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service Offices:
. Soil Conservation Service
State Conservationist
1370 Hamilton Street
P.O. Box 219
Somerset, New Jersey 08873
(201) 526-2701
South Atlantic Division
510 Title Building
30 Pryor Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(404) 331-6715
Soil Conservation Service
State Conservationist
100 Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York
(315) 469-5034
H.2
-------
. Soil Conservation Service
Caribbean Area Office
Federal Office Building
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00917
(809) 753-4206
(809) 753-2851
Forest Service Office:
. Forest Service
Regional Forester
1720 Peachtree Road, NW
Atlanta, 6A 30367
(404) 347-4177
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Insurance and Mitigation Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-8980
Commissions:
Delaware River Basin Commission
Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ 08628
(609) 883-9500
Pinelands Commission
P.O. Box 7
New Lisbon, New Jersey
(609) 894-9342
08064
State Agencies:
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Fish, Game and Shell fisheries
P.O. Box 1809
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-2965, 5546
Division of Coastal Resources
P.O. Box 1889
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-2795
Division of Water Resources
P.O. Box CN-029
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-2203
H.3
-------
Office of New Jersey Heritage
Room 707
Labor and Industry Building
John Fitch Plaza
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-2023, 2121
New Jersey Department of State
New Jersey State Museum
Bureau of Archaeology and Ethnology
215 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-8594, 6300
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Fish and Wildlife
Delmar, New York 12054
(518) 439-7486
Division of Flood Control
South Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12223
(518) 457-3157
Cultural Resources Section, Room 432
Construction Grants Management Division
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-0001
(518) 457-3891
New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Division of Historic Preservation
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Agency Building #1, 13th Floor
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12238
(518) 474-0479
New York Department of State
Coastal Management Program
State of New York
Albany, New York 12231
(518) 474-8834
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 5887
Puerto de Tierra
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00906
(809) 724-8774
H.4
-------
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
204 del Parque
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00907
(809) 725-3708
Puerto Rico Office of Cultural Affairs
Office of Historic Preservation
P.O. Box 82
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901
(809) 721-3737
Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
Division of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 4399
St. Thomas, VI 00801
(809) 774-3320
Division of Coastal Zone Management
P.O. Box 4340
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
(809) 774-3320
Division of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 4339
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
(809) 775-6762
Bureau of Libraries and Museums
Box 390
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
(809) 774-3407
Unit for Archaeology and Historic Preservation
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
129-133 Sub Base
Chinnery Building
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802
(809) 774-7859
H.5
------- |