ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
UNDER 205(g)
MANUAL PREPARED BY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1
PROJECT STAFF
Project Managers:
Beth Henderson
Environmental & Economic Impact Office
Paul Pinault
Municipal Facilities Branch
Technical Consultant:
Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc.
July 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE
1 INTRODUCTION
2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT/COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
REGULATIONS/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES
3 DIRECT. AND INDIRECT IMPACTS
4 CLEAN AIR ACT - CONFORMANCE WITH STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
5 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
6 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
7 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT
8 EPA PROCEDURES FOR WETLAND/FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION
9 SECTION 404 OF CLEAN WATER ACT AND SECTION 10 OF RIVERS AND HARBORS
ACT
10 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
11 NATIONAL REGISTRY OF NATURAL LANDMARKS
12 t ILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
13 PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS
14 COMMUNITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
15 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER POLICY
16 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
17 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORMAT
July 1980
-------
Introduction
-------
INTRODUCTION
EPA’s goal is to improve the total environment. In order to do this, our
undertakings must always maximize environmental benefits; we cannot afford to
impair one pert of the environment while attempting to improve another, for
the losses may cancel the gains. We cannot, in our enthusiasm to clean up the
nation’s water, allow our construction projects to damage other components of
the environment.
Through the years we have learned, often the hard way, that sound initial
planning is the best way to obtain the best projects, and that such planning
can only be obtained when it is encouraged and reinforced by the hiohest
quality environmental review effort at all levels. We are committed to the
maintenance of this philosophy in the delegated programs.
Strong, coordinated environmental reviews are important for legal reasons as
well because the grants remain federal actions in terms of the National
Environmental Policy Act and other federal laws. Therefore, EPA is charged
with the ultimate responsibilty for complying with these statues and, if
challenged, must be able to defend the work in good conscience. Furthermore,
EPA plays a dual role as both a grant making or “construction” agency and a
permitting or enforcement agency. We must ensure that the projects we fund
and the permits they require meet the same standard of review that we require
of all projects and permits.
This manual and the accompanying training program have been developed to
assist the States in gaininq the understanding necessary to accomplish the
quality environmental review EPA and the States are both striving for. j.
sixteen chapters concentrate on the procedures and reauirements of th j j.
jron af I1 ouiations, and policies that affect the construction
antsiirogram . Each chapterTakes one statute and explains its legislative!
regulatory requirements, discusses the procedures to be followed during
environmental review under delegation, and gives contacts and references. By
gathering all of the pertinent material about each statute into one place we
hope we have simplified the task of becoming familiar with all of these
procedures. Although the many laws, requlations, and procedures may seem
overwhelmingly complex and cumbersome at first, the key is that they are all
designed simply to ensure that environmental resources are recognized early in
the process, and protected through proper planning and decision making. In
addition, we hope that the manual can continue to serve as a valuable
reference, so we have designed it as a looseleaf which can be amended easily
as the rules and procedures continue evolving.
Although this manual covers all procedural requirements, it is also important
to understand the various “tools” or methodologies which can be used in the
process of developing Environmental Information Documents to actually predict
impacts. These methodologies are covered in Region I ’s Environmental
Assessment Manual (1978).
To summarize, EPA is pleased that delegation is taking place, and we want it
to be successful. However, for it to be successful, agencies accepting the
July 1980 1:1
-------
delegation need to recognize the benefits of other federal programs, the
responsibility which will remain with EPA even after complete delegation and
how to develop the grant information in such a way as to achieve all of these
goals with the least effort and the most environmental return. We are
committed to make delegation work. We know that the states are committed to
make delegation work also and believe that this manual will help achieve this
common goal.
July 1980 1:2
-------
National Environmental Policy Act
Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations
Environmental Protection Agency
Implementing Procedures
-------
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REGULATIONS
EPA IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES
2.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The National Environmental Policy Act of’ 1969 (NEPA) established the
basic tenet that “environmental amenities and values.. .be given
appropriate consideration in decision—making, along with economic and
technical considerations” and set up the environmental impact state-
ment as a means of’ accomplishing this. The Council of’ Environmental
Quality (CEQ) was established by the Act to oversee its implementation
through monitoring and continuing policy development.
In 1970, CEQ issued the first guidelines for the preparation of
environmental impact statements (EIS’s). A revised set of guidelines
was issued in 1973. These guidelines directed each agency to estab-
lish its own procedures for implementing NEPA within its programs.
The guidelines suggested that agencies identify in their procedures
types of’ actions which normally 1) do, 2) do not or 3) may require
EIS’s and, for those that may require EIS’s, the information to be
gathered and procedures to be followed in determining whether or not
to do an EIS. The guidelines also suggested public announcements of
the decision to prepare an EIS or of’ a “negative determination”
(decision not to prepare one).
Each agency developed regulations in response to these guidelines:
EPA’s regulations (Final Regulations — Preparation of’ Environmental
Impact Statements, April 14, 1975) required grantees in the 201
program to develop a written analysis (“environmental assessment”) of
a proposed project’s impacts, which then served as a major resource
during the agency’s independent “environmental review” to decide
whether an EIS was needed (agency to publish a “Notice of’ Intent”) or
not (agency to publish a “Negative Declaration” supported by a summary
of impacts, the “Environmental Impact Appraisal”).
Because every agency’s NEPA regulations were different and followed
the guidelines to varying degrees, procedures and terminology varied
widely, making it difficult for the public and others to understand
the process. In addition, there was concern that, while ElS’s were
being prepared, they were only being used as a procedural step and
the NEPA goal of affecting federal decision-making was not being ful-
filled. In 1977 the President, recognizing these problems, directed
CEQ to issue regulations to improve implementation of NEPA. CEQ’s
“National Environmental Policy Act Implementation of Procedural
Provisions; Final Regulations” were issued November 29, 1978.
According to the introductory material in the regulations, they are
• .binding on all Federal agencies, replace some seventy sets of
agency regulations, and provide uniform standards applicable
throughout the Federal Government for conducting environmental
reviews. The regulations also establish formal guidance for use by
the courts in interpreting this law.”
July 1980 2:1
-------
Each agency then issued its own implementing procedures; the only
purpose of these is to explain how the CEQ regulations apply to
specific agency programs. EPA’s “Implementation of Procedures on the
National Environmental Policy Act” was published in the Federal
Register on November 6, 1979.
CEQ Regulations/EPA Procedures apply as follows: any wastewater
facilities plan initiated after December 15, 1979 and all facilities
plans submitted to EPA after September 30, 1980 (regardless of’ their
initiation date) must comply with the CEQ Regulations and EPA Pro-
cedures; for those facilities plans initiated before December 15, 1979
and received by EPA before September 30, 1980, the grantee does not
have to upgrade them, but EPA is responsible for complying with the
new regulations/procedures in reviewing them.
The changes between the older EPA regulations and the CEQ regulations
that replace them are primarily procedural rather than substantive.
EPA’s general NEPA review procedures for construction grants projects
remain the same; only the names have been changed. The document
prepared by the grantee analyzing a proposed project’s impacts and
used by EPA to determine whether to do an EIS is now called an
“Environmental Information Document” (EID). EPA’s decision not to do
an ElS is now called a “Finding of’ No Significant Impact”(FNSI) and
is accompanied by a summary of the project and its impacts now called
an “Environmental Assessment” (EA).
The criteria for triggering an EIS have also remained pretty much the
same. EPA’s new NEPA implementation procedures (40 CFR 6.506)
require that an EIS be done on a construction grants project when the
project will, directly or indirectly, result in significant adverse
impacts to:
—— land use practices
—— wetlands
—— endangered species critical habitat
—— floodplains
—— prime agricultural land
—— lands with recognized scenic, recreational, archaeological, or
historic value
—— neighborhood stability
—— local ambient air quality, noise levels, and water quality
—— local wildlife habitat
-— a water body with a challenged water classification
July 1980 2:2
-------
The regulations also urge that an ElS be considered when:
-- the project will contravene a federal, state or local environmental
protection statute.
-- a full—scale public participation program is being undertaken for
the project.
Because the EID is the basis of EPA’S decision on whether the project
will require an ElS based on these criteria, the EID must consider
all of’ these subjects and discuss them when necessary. In addition,
many of these topics must be considered under authorities other than
NEPA, as discussed below.
2.1 INCORPORATING OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
EPA’s and CEQ’s regulations both recognize an agency’s responsibili-
ties to carry out “Additional Procedures” and suggest these be
incorporated into the NEPA review. While NEPA is very broad and
general, and mandates consideration of all the components of overall
environmental well-being, there exist a number of laws and policies
both pre- and post—dating NEPA which promote the protection of
specific environmental resources. These laws affect federal
decision—making under their own independent authority and must be
complied with regardless of NEPA, but where NEPA compliance is being
carried out, the procedures required under these acts can often be
efficiently absorbed into the NEPA process. The subjects covered are
very similar to those in the EPA EIS—triggering criteria discussed
above.
An as example of this, if an endangered species is to be impacted by
a federally-funded project, the Endangered Species Act requires the
funding agency to follow specific procedures in order to comply with
the law. At the same time, under NEPA, the presence of the endangered
species is a significant feature of the existing environment, and
impacts to that species would be an undesirable result that the
agency should weigh in its decision—making process. “Red—flagging t ’
the presence of the species in the area and predicting the project’s
impact on it is, therefore, a necessary task under both acts.
However, the actual task need only be done once if the agency’s staff
is aware of all the environmental laws and can coordinate their
requirements during the environmental review process.
EPA’s November 1979 Procedures, Subpart C, briefly discusses these
“independent authority” provisions and suggest ways that they can be
incorporated into the NEPA review process. Many chapters of this
manual are devoted to discussing these in more detail.
In addition to applying the CEQ regulations to EPA programs and
addressing other environmental review requirements, the new EPA
Procedures consolidate updates in procedures that have occurred since
EPA’s previous NEPA regulations were issued. For example, EPA public
participation regulations promulgated in early 1979 are incorporated
into EPA’s NEPA Procedures. These are also discussed in detail
within this manual.
July 1980 2 3
-------
2.2 NEPA REVIEW PROCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROJECTS
While the major steps of this process have been briefly discussed
above, it is useful to discuss the process in more detail here (see
accompanying flow chart on following page).
2.2.1 Availability For Assistance To Potential Applicants
CEQ regulations [ 1501.2(d)] require that staff be made available to
advise potential applicants of studies or other information foresee—
ably required. EPA procedures (6.104) require that such advice be
available on a project—to—project basis.
2.2.2 Review of Project for Existence of Environmentally Sensitive Areas
[ 40 CFR 6.507(a) ]
STATE staffs delegated the facilities plan review function must,
prior to or no more than 30 days after Step 1 grant award, by drawing
on existing knowledge of people within federal, state, and local
agencies, determine what environmentally sensitive areas exist within
the project area. This information should be summarized in a brief,
concise memo and should be used to help determine the scope of the
EID and to help decide if an EIS should be undertaken immediately,
concurrently with preparation of the Facility Plan. If an EIS is to
be prepared immediately, no EID is required
2.2.3 Scoping of EID [ 40 CFR 6.507(a) ]
The STATE should discuss the above information with the grantee to
assist him in scoping the EID. In addition, other analyses and data
needed to satisfy the “independent authority” environmental review
requirements should be discussed. It is suggested that this be done
at routine pre—application conferences where other EPA facility
planning requirements are also explained to the grantee and his
consultants. Time and attention devoted at this stage can save
endless hours of revision later. The STATE should be satisfied that
the scope of the EID, as reflected in the Plan of Study, is adequate
before the necessary written approval of the Plan of Study is
prepared. See the EPA Procedures Section 6.507(c) for a discussion
of the proper scope and content of an EID.
2.2.4 Facility Plan and EID Preparation Mid—Course Reviews [ 40 CFR 6.507(b) ]
During the development of’ the facility plan and EID, the environmental
information being gathered should be discussed whenever progress meet-
ings are held between the STATE and the grantee and/or his consultant.
At the point where the majority of the EID has been completed but the
preferred alternative has not yet been selected, the STATE should
review and discuss the available information with EPA to allow EPA an
opportunity to begin considering whether or not an EIS should be
undertaken.
July 1980 2:4
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
2.2.5 Review of Completed Facilty Plan and EID [ 40 CFR 6.507(c) ]
The STATE shall review the complete Facility Plan with particular
attention to the adequacy of the ElD and whether or not it was used
properly in the development of alternatives and selection of the
preferred alternative. The reviewer may require correction of
inadequacies and submission of supplementary information required for
proper environmental review before approving the plan and preparing
the preliminary environmental assessment. Requests shall be made in
writing to the grantee.
2.2.6 Preparation of Preliminary Environmental Assesssrnent [ 40 CFR 6.507(c) ]
Based on an adequate Facility Plan, EID, and and other relevant
independent data sources, the STATE should prepare a preliminary
Environmental Assessment (format as decribed in assessment section of
the manual) and forward this to EPA, along with the STATE’S recommen-
dations on whether or not an EIS should be done (based on criteria in
EPA Procedures 6.506).
2.2.7 EPA Decision [ 40 CFR 6.507(d) and (e) ]
At this point, EPA must make an independent review of’ the available
information and the preliminary Environmental Assessment and determine
whether an EIS should be done. This function is the federal agency’s
legal responsibility and cannot be delegated. In addition to the
review at this point, EPA may wish to be involved in any of the
previous steps as time permits.
-- FNSI Process
Where EPA determines no EIS is necessary, the EA is attached to a
FNS1 (a cover sheet explaining that EPA has found that the project
does not warrant an EIS) and the FNISI/EA are widely distributed.
The agency must then wait 30 days and respond to comments received
during that time before taking action on the grant.
Because the CEQ regulations require the implementaton of mitiga-
tion measures, any mitigation measures outlined in the FNSI/EA
must be followed up by conditioning Step 2 and Step 3 grants as
necessary and requiring appropriate specifications in the bid
documents. This requires that the plans and specifications must
be reviewed to ensure that they accurately reflect what was
promised in the FNSI. Any significant changes in the project
could cause EPA to request additional environmental evaluations
and reviews, and an amended FNSI may have to be issued.
The implementation of’ the mitigation measures must be monitored by
EPA even after construction begins. Section 6.510 of the EPA
Procedures outlines EPA ’s enforcement options, should the grantee
not comply with grant conditions.
July 1980 2:5
-------
-- ElS Process
Where EPA determines an EIS is required, the Environmental and
Economic Impact Office (EEIO) of EPA prepares the EIS. EIS’s
cover the same topic areas as EID’s, but concentrate on the issues
identified by the ElD and examine them in depth (often involving
field and literature research efforts). The EIS process is
designed to allow more extensive public and review agency involve-
ment than is possible for routine projects.
The general procedure for preparing ElS’s is discussed in the
CEQ/NEPA Regulations (sections 1501—1506). First, a “Notice of
Intent,” announcing EPA’s decision to prepare an EIS is distribu-
ted. Then, a scoping process is undertaken; review agencies at
all levels of government, special interest groups, and the general
public are all contacted to solicit ideas and input on what the
EIS should try to accomplish. The EIS is then prepared utilizing
a special contractor. Several public workshops are held during
its development. After about a year, a draft EIS is printed and
distributed. A forty—five day comment period follows, during
which a public hearing is held. Then, supplementary material is
developed and revisions are made in the draft material to respond
to questions and criticisms received during the coment period,
and a final EIS, incorporating the comments and responses, is
printed and distributed. A 30—day comment period follows. After
this comment period, the agency makes its final decision on the
project and announces it by distributing a Record of Decision
This must state which alternative was found to be environmentally
preferable and if the agency did not choose it, must explain why.
It must also discuss what mitigation has been adopted and how it
will be carried out.
The entire EIS process takes 1 to 2 years. When an EIS is
initiated at the end of the NEPA review process, this additional
delay is often very frustrating to the grantee; to avoid this, it
is best to try to identify a project which will require an EIS as
early as possible.
In order to do this, the Muncipal Facilities Branch and the EEIO
review the state priority lists. If a project on the priority
list clearly will need an EIS, one can be undertaken immediately
and proceed concurrently with facilities planning. In this case
the EIS takes the place of the EID, and the process is known as
“piggybacking”.
If a project on the priority list is in an area containing many
environmentally sensitive resources, or the project has the
potential of becoming controversial, the project may be put on the
“joint review list”, and the EEIO will monitor the project by
attending pre—application conferences, reviewing the Plan of’ Study,
being involved in mid—course reviews, reviewing the completed EID
and Facility Plan, assisting in the preparation of the EA and
July 1980
2:6
-------
signing the FNSI. This process is expected to remain the same
under delegation. The STATE will assisLin reviewing the priority
lists for immediate ElS candidates, “joint review” projects, and
normal projects (90—95% of projects currently do not require the
involvement of the EEIO). For “joint review” projects, the STATE
will monitor the project closely, hold more meetings (the optional
steps on accompanying flow chart would be mandatory), invite EPA
to participate in all meetings, and advise EPA throughout the
Step 1 process so EPA can decide whether an EIS is required at an
appropriate point early in the process.
July 1980 2:7
-------
Direct & Indirect Impacts
-------
DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS
3.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
3.0.1 Terminology
“Primary” and “secondary” impacts have become common terms to those
involved in environmental evaluations under NEPA. Although the words
are familiar, the distinction between the two is not well
understood. CEQ’s 1978 NEPA regulations further cloud the picture by
substituting different terminology. Under the new regulations
“direct” replaces “primary” and “indirect” replaces “secondary”.
For the purpose of this discussion, primary and direct are synonymous
as are secondary and indirect.
The CEQ terms should be adopted by environmental practitioners. This
manual uses “direct” and “indirect” except where EPA publications,
prepared prior to 1978, referred to “primary” and “secondary” impacts.
3.0.2 CEQ Regulations
The CEQ Regulations include the following definitions of’ “effects”
“Effects include:
a. Direct effects which are caused by the action and occur at the
same time and place.
b. Indirect effects which are caused by the action and are later
in time or further removed in distance but are still reasonably
foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth—inducing
effects and other effects related to induced changes in the
pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and
related effects on air and water and other natural systems,
including ecosystems.”
The regulations go on to note that the terms effects and impacts are
synonymous.
3.0.3 EPA’s Rules and Regulations
EPA’s Rules and Regulations for the preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements (April 14, 1975) included definitions for primary
and secondary impacts which essentially are similar to the CEQ
definitions of’ direct and indirect effects.
EPA’s recently adopted NEPA Implementation Procedures (November 6,
1979) do not expand upon the CEP definitions. These new regulations
do stress the need for the evaluation of direct impacts, development
induced by a wastewater facility and land use impacts
[ 40 CFR 6.507(c)(5)&(6fl.
July 1980 3:1
-------
3.0.4 Program Requirements Memorandum 75—26
The essential document covering EPA’s policy on indirect impacts is
Program Requirements Memorandum 75—26 of June 1975. The major
provisions of’ this memorandum may be summarized as follows:
—— ElD’s must analyze indirect impacts as well as direct impacts.
—— The critical determination is whether or not any potential
indirect impacts will result in contravention of any existing
Federal, State or local environmental law or regulation, or any
plan or standard required by such laws or regulations.
—— Where indirect impacts resulting from a wastewater treatment
facility, “can reasonably be anticipated” to contravene an
environmental law or regulation, plan, or standard, the EPA
Regional Administrator shall withhold approval of Step 2 or Step 3
construction grants until the local applicant either (a) revises
the Step 1 Facilities Plan, (b) initiates steps to mitigate the
adverse effects, or (c) agrees to special grant conditions
requiring actions to minimize the effects. Furthermore, the
locality must demonstrate “good faith” and be “clearly moving
toward proper mitigative action” before a Step 2 grant is awarded.
—— Any special grant conditions imposed by the EPA Regional
Administrator must be “reasonable”, and the local applicant must
possess the requisite authority to fulfill the conditions.
—— EPA follow—up of grantee compliance with any special conditions is
required once the Step 2 grant is awarded. If an applicant fails
to abide by grant agreement conditions, the Regional Administrator
may take a number of actions, including:
• withholding grant payments
• refusing to process subsequent grant applications from the
locality
refusing to approve grants for future phases of the same
project
• entering an injunction against the grantee
suspending all work on the project
terminating the grant and recovering unexpended EPA funds
3.0.5 Examples of Direct Impacts
The following are examples of direct impacts:
—— Destruction of historical, archaeological, geological, cultural,
or recreational areas during construction.
July 1980 3:2
-------
—— Destruction of sensitive ecosystems, including wetlands and the
habitats of endangered species during construction.
—— Displacement of households, businesses, and services.
—— Damage and pollution to surface water due to erosion during
construction.
—— Direct violation during construction or operation of Federal,
State, or local environmental and land use statutes, or regulations
and plans imposed by such statutes and regulations.
—— Noise pollution, air pollution, odor and public health problems
associated with construction and operation.
3.0.6 Examples of Indirect Impacts
The following are examples of indirect impacts:
-— New development which occurs because of the availability of sewers.
—— Air and noise pollution caused by development induced by
wastewater facilities.
-— Increased municipal costs for schools and other services necessary
for induced growth.
—— Flooding caused by rapid run—off from paved areas created though
induced growth.
-— Threats to sensitive habitats through non-point pollution and
increased human activity as a result of’ induced growth.
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
3.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1
The STATE must ensure that direct and indirect impacts will be
examined properly in the EID by making sure that the Plan of’ Study
has allotted an appropriate level of effort for this task.
Direct impacts, such as land disruption for an interceptor sewer or a
treatment plant, are easily envisioned.
Indirect impacts, which can be of great importance to the
environment, are more difficult to predict. As a rule of thumb, the
following types of facilities and/or environmental conditions will
have the potential to generate indirect impacts:
—— Construction of a new or expanded treatment facility to serve
(directly or with a potential through expansion) sewering needs in
excess of needs generated by present development within the
service area.
July 1980 3:3
-------
—— Construction of’, or replacement of’, collection facilities to serve
or with a potential to serve, due to under—utilized capacity or
extensions, areas where development presently is constrained by
topography, soil conditions, sewer moratoria, zoning, or local or
State regulations requiring sewers.
—— Construction of collection or treatment facilities to serve areas
adjacent to, or including sensitive areas, such as wetlands, water
bodies, groundwater recharge areas, flood prone areas, archaeo-
logical, historic sites or prime agricultural lands.
3.1.2 Step 1 Procedures
In preparing the EID, the Grantee must develop a knowledge of the
existing environment and the direct and indirect effects of’ the
proposed facility on that environment. Impacts may be adverse or
beneficial. If the impacts are adverse, a key determination is the
severity and significance of the impact.
Since this is not a how—to—do-it manual, there are no procedures
outlined herein relating to direct and indirect evaluations. The
Environmental Assessment Manual prepared by Region I of EPA discusses
impact evaluations and can be used as a guide in determining impacts
and evaluating their significance.
3.1.3 Review of EID and Preparation of Preliminary EA by STATE
The STATE must review the EID for adequacy and prepare a preliminary
EA which identifies:
—— Major direct and indirect impacts.
—- The significance of these impacts.
—— Any contravention of any existing Federal, State, or local
environmental law or regulations, or any plan or standard required
by such laws or regulation. This has particular application to
the areas covered by other chapters of’ this manual.
—— Any induced development which may result from the various
alternatives evaluated.
—— The significance of land use development which can be attributed
to the proposed action alternative.
—— Any mitigation measures proposed to mitigate indirect impacts.
3.1.4 EPA Review
EPA is responsible for determining that the preliminary EA submitted
by the STATE covers all important impacts and properly assess the
severity of the impacts and methods for their proposed mitigation.
July 1980 3:4
-------
It’ the impacts are not significant, EPA will issue a FNSI.
Where EPA determines the impacts are significant and criteria for
preparing an EIS (40 CFR 6.506) are met, EPA will issue a Notice of’
Intent to prepare an EIS.
3.2 CONTACTS
3.2.1 Federal Agencies :
Mr. Paul Pinault
NEPA and Public Participation Coordinator, Municipal Facilities Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
3. F. K. Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
617—223—7213
3.2.2 State Agencies
Responsible State agencies of states having their own environmental
impact review legislation may be sources of assistance in evaluating
direct and indirect impacts.
3.3 REFERENCES
3.3.1 Distributed with the Manual
—— Population Projections and Environmental Constraints Analysis
discussion adopted from New York State Delegation Training
Material written by Michael Glogower, 1979.
3.3.2 Distributed to States
—— Program Requirements Memorandum 75-26, Consideration of’ Secondary
Environmental Effects in the Construction Grants Process (June
1975).
—— Environmental Assessment Manual , Region I of EPA.
—— Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan EPA/MCD—46, (May 1975).
July 1980 3:5
-------
Clear Air Act - Conformance with
State Implementation
-------
CLEAN AIR ACT - CONFORMANCE WITH STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
4.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
4.0.1 Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act, as amended through 1977, directed EPA to set
ambient air quality standards and to establish limitations for new
pollutant sources. Each state has been given the responsibility of
developing strategies for attaining ambient air quality standards.
Key sections of the Act are as follows:
4.0.1.1 Section 110
Section 110 of the Act’s 1977 amendments require that each state
outline a process and provide for legally enforceable mechanisms to
sufficiently reduce air pollution to comply with national standards
by 1982 or 1987 where the pollutants are caused primarily by
automobiles.
Areas of a state which meet the standard for any of the five
categories of pollutants for which national standards have been
established are identified as “attainment” areas. Those not meeting
the standards are “non-attainment” areas. A major portion of the
Clean Air Act (Part D) is devoted to correcting such non-attainment
areas.
The state’s total air quality control stategy is known as the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). SIP’s were in existence prior to 1977,
but the changes in the Act required that they be amended to include a
specific plan for correcting non-attainment areas.
In Region I, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire have approved amended
SIP’s. EPA approval of the Massachusetts and Rhode Island amended
SIP’s is anticipated in the near future. Connecticut, due to issues
extending beyond its borders, is still in the process of negotiating
an acceptable amended SIP.
4.0.1.2 Section 176(c )
This section states that Federal agencies cannot approve or fund
projects which are not in conformance with the SIP.
4.0.1.3 Section 316
This section deals specifically with EPA 201 grants projects. The
Administrator of EPA is authorized to condition, restrict or withhold
grants for wastewater treatment facilities:
July 1980 4:1
-------
—— if the facilities involve an incinerator that cannot meet the new
source performance standards (NSPS) or the national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutant sources (NESI-IAPS);
—— if the proposed new treatment capacity will lead, directly or
indirectly, to an increase in emissions in excess of that provided
for in the SIP or will otherwise not conform to the SIP;
—— where the project is in a non—attainment area or area subject to
prevention of significant deterioration and the STATE is not
carrying out or does not have an approved SIP which provides for
the project’s anticipated emissions; or
—— if the increased emissions associated with the new capacity will
interfere with or be inconsistent with the SIP of any of’ the
surrounding states.
4.0.2 EPA NEPA Regulations - [ 40 CFR Section 6.303 ]
This section sets forth procedures for incorporating the Clean Air
Act Section 176 requirements (i.e. assuring that the project conforms
with the SIP before deciding to fund it) into the NEPA review. These
procedures consist of:
—— assessing direct or indirect increases in emissions and their
subsequent effect on air quality;
—— consulting with state and local agencies to determine whether or
not the proposed action conforms with the SIP; and
—— assuring in the FNSI that the proposed action conforms with the
SIP.
4.0.3 Proposed Rulemaking to Implement Section 176(c )
On April 1, 1980, EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking to implement Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. The
rulemaking requires states to adopt procedures and criteria to help
assure Federal actions are in conformity with the SIP and requires
Federal agency procedures for determining conformity of their action
with the SIP.
Pending adoption of the proposed rules and the subsequent development
of’ more specific procedures by individual states and federal agencies,
the advanced notice of’ proposed rulemaking recommended that the NEPA
review be used to enable assurance of conformity.
4.0.4 Unpublished Draft “Policy and Procedures to Implement Section 316 of
the Clean Air Act, as Amended ”
Because Section 176(c)’s provisions and implementing procedures apply
to all federal actions, they are general and relatively simple. In
July 1980 4:2
-------
contrast, Section 316 has more detailed and specific provisions
relating to the complex construction grants program. Therefore, a
detailed explanation of the policy and procedures to be followed is
currently being developed. The basic goal is to provide guidance for
ensuring “...that the emissions quantification, control, and
mitigation requirements for Step 1 construction grants are
implemented in consonance with EPA’s procedures to implement NEPA.”
The unpublished draft 316 policy specifies the conditions under which
grants must be withheld, discusses extentuating circumstances where
exceptions are allowed, and discusses how SIP’s can be revised or
mitigation programs can be adopted to allow certain projects to
proceed. It also requires that Step 1 and Step 2 grants be
conditioned to incorporate sufficient control technology for direct
emissions, that direct emission sources obtain applicable permits
prior to Step 3 grant approval, that Step 1 grants be conditioned to
require the quantification of anticipated indirect emissions and the
recommendation of’ mitigating measures in the EID. Costs to
accomplish these measures are declared grant eligible.
Since this policy is expected to be adopted, the procedures below
reflect its requirements.
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
4.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1 (See Flow Chart on Following Page)
The STATE must explain the requirements for incorporating control
technology for direct emissions and for quantifying and mitigating
indirect emissions to the grantee and his consultant prior to or
during the development of the Plan of Study (POS). The STATE must
then review the P05 to ensure that an adequate work effort has been
allotted.
EPA must condition the grant to require that the ElD and Facilty Plan
consider control technology and quantify and mitigate the anticipated
indirect emissions.
4.1.2 Procedures During Step 1
The grantee must develop the analyses discussed above. In addition,
the population figures used for Step 1 planning must be those speci-
fied in Appendix A “Cost Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines” (EPA
construction grants regulations, Sept. 1978). The population projec-
tions in the SIP’s are being or will be revised to conform to these.
4.1.3 Review of EID and Preparation of Preliminary EA by STATE
Based on the information being developed in the Step 1 process, if
the project appears to have significant adverse impacts, the STATE
should consult with the State Agency with primary responsibilities
for the SIP, the non—attainment enforcement agency designated under
July 1980 4:3
-------
Section 174 of the Act, and, where appropriate, with the metropolitan
planning organization to find out whether the project complies with
the SIP. If no adverse impacts are anticipated, the STATE can assume
conformity without consultation.
In either case, the preliminary EA should contain an assurance of
conformity based on the determinations contained in 40 CFR
Section 6.303(d). Documentation evidencing consultation, where it
was carried out, should be submitted to EPA by the STATE along with
the preliminary EA.
Where an assurance of conformity cannot be made, the STATE will
notify EPA, and EPA will recommend additional planning to find a way
to assure conformance or will determine that an EIS is necessary
under the criteria of’ 40 CFR 6.506(6) or (7b).
4.1.4 EPA Review
Based on the review of the submitted information, EPA will, in the
case of a conforming project, issue a FNSI. Where no consultation
was undertaken, the review period of’ the FNSI will allow the state
agency with primary responsibility for the SIP an opportunity to
concur or object to the assurance of’ conformity in the EA. EPA must
also condition the Step 2 grant to require that the design
incorporate appropriate technology to control direct emissions.
4.2 CONTACTS
4.2.1 Federal Agencies
-- Air Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
J. F. K. Federal Building
Boston, Ma 02203
617-223—5630
4.2.2 State Agencies — primarily responsible for SIP’s
CT — Dept. of’ Environmental Protection
Division of Environmental Quality
Hartford, CT
Air Quality Director 203—566—4030
Air Quality Enforcement 203——566—3160
MA — Dept. of Environmental Quality Engineerng
Division of Air and Hazardous Materials
Air Quality
Boston, MA
617-727—2658
.July 1980 4:4
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
ME — Dept. of Environmental Protection
Air Quality Control Bureau
Augusta, ME
207 -289—2437
NH — Air Pollution Control Agency
Health and Welfare Dept. Public Health Division
Air Quality
Concord, NH
603-271—4587
RI — Dept. of Environmental Management
Air Resources
Providence, RI
401—277-2808
VT — Agency of Environmental Conservation
Environmental Protection Division
Air Pollution Control Section
Montpelier, VT
802-828-3341
4.3 REFERENCES
4.3.1 Distributed to States
—— The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7478) as amended August 1977 .
—- Implementation of Section 316 of the Clean Air Act , June 8, 1980,
EPA Memorandum from David C. Hawkins to REgional Administrators.
—— Transmittal of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air ACt , April 8, 1980, EPA Memorandum
from John 0. Hidinger to Directors, Air and Hazardous Materials
Divisions.
July 1980 4 : 5
-------
Coastal Zone Management Act
-------
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
5.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
5.0.1 Coastal Zone Management Act
The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 encourages
States to develop comprehensive resource management programs that
balance the wise use and protection of the coast. All of the states
in Region I , except for Vermont, are eligible to participate and
either have federally—approved programs or are working toward that
goal. Once a program is approved, all projects within the coastal
zone requiring Federal assistance or permits must be consistent with
the state’s coastal zone management (CZM) program policies (CZMA ,
16 USC Section 1456).
This requirement may not be as formidable as it appears, for two
reasons. First, in order to be approved, the CZM program must require
that projects meet Federal environmental standards. Secondly, CZM
programs are usually structured to operate through existing state
statutes and local ordinances. Thus, projects already designed to
meet these Federal standards have a “head-start” on consistency.
State coastal management agencies ensure Federal compliance with
state coastal policies through what the CZMA refers to as
“consistency procedures” (15 CFR 930 Subpart B). Essentially, before
a Federal agency can fund a project or grant a permit in a State’s
coastal zone, it must receive a consistency determination from the
state CZM agency.
Projects are reviewed for their consistency two different ways.
Applicants seeking Federal assistance , follow a State’s standard A—95
notification procedure to alert the CZM agency and to obtain a
consistency determination from them. Applicants seeking Federal
permits , however, must correspond direct1j with the State CZM agency
to secure a consistency determination.
Although a consistency determination is not required until the time
of a request for Federal assistance or a permit, applicants and the
State 201 agency are encouraged to consult with the State CZM agency
throughout 201 planning and design to avoid conflict that may arise
during the consistency review process.
5.0.2 201 Federal Assistance
When a prospective grantee requests Federal assistance under 201, the
State-designated A-95 clearinghouse notifies the Office of’ Coastal
Zone Management of the action through the A—95 review process (15 CFR
930 Subpart F). The State CZM agency then has 45 days to evaluate
the consistency of the proposal with State CZM policies and nay
respond in one of the following four ways:
July 1980 5:1
-------
1) No comment (presumed to mean no objection).
2) Support the project (project is consistent).
3) Object to the project because of inconsistency.
4) Object to the project due to insufficient information.
When a CZM office chooses to comment, the response is generally in the
form of a letter or memo, citing applicable coastal policies. This
response is then transmitted back to the applicant through the clear-
inghouse. In the event of an objection, the CZM agency’s statement
must describe how the project is inconsistent with elements of the
CZM program and recommend modifications that would eliminate the
inconsistencies (15 CFR 930.96). Objections, based on insufficient
information, must include a description of the information necessary
to complete the review. Applicants may choose to accept suggestions
of the State coastal zone management agency and revise the project
or, if so directed, supplement the previously deficient information.
If there is serious disagreement, grantees may request mediation by
the Secretary of Commerce (15 CFR 930, Subpart C).
5.0.3 Federal Permits
Common examples of Federal permits required during the 201 process
are a 404 Army Corps permit for sewer—related construction affecting
wetlands, or a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, required for effluent disposal. Even privately—
funded wastewater facility projects that need Federal permits require
a consistency determination from the State coastal zone agency. As
mentioned previously, it is the applicant’s responsibility to notify
the State coastal zone management agency of the proposed action
(15 CFR 930.57). In turn, the State CZM agency responds directly to
the applicant concerning the consistency certification and resolution
of minor conflicts. Major conflicts are mediated as described above.
Procedures for reviewing permits vary considerably from state to
state.
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
The following table summarizes the consistency determination
requirements for the 201 program. An elaboration of the table
follows:
July 1980 5:2
-------
CZM Consistency Procedure for the 201 Program
PRIOR TO STEP 1
STEP 1
STEP 2 & 3
-Describe proposed
coastal project for
the A—95 review.
—Work with the State
to resolve any CZM
consistency objec-
tions.
——Initiate A—95
review process.
S —Wait for CZM agency
consistency determina—
tion before submitting
Step 1 application to
A EPA (lack of
response after 45
T days from A-95
notice presumed to
E indicate consistency
—Help applicant
resolve any consis-
tency objections.
—Require CZM consis-
tency determination
prior to approving
application for
Step 1 Federal
assistance for
all coastal projects.
E
P
A
-Prepare through coastal
resource impact section
in EID to support
Step 2 A—95 review.
—Identify coast—related
permits needed for
project (402, 404)
—Require CZM consistency
determination prior to
submitting completed
Step 2 application to EPA
-Help grantee resolve any
minor CZM consistency
obj ections
-Engage EPA assistance to
resolve any major con-
sistency objections
Send request for consis-
tency determination for
Federal permits directly
to State CZM Agency.
—Submit CZM consistency
determination as part of
Federal permit applica-
tion.
—If required, make sure
NPDES is complete.
—Secure consistency
determination directly
from State CZM agency
prior to submitting
NPDES application to EPA
(NPDES permit required
at least 180 days prior
to discharge.
—Work with State to
resolve any CZM consis-
tency objections.
—Make sure grantee has
filed for all necessary
Federal permits and
includes CZM consistency
determination with
each application
—Help grantee resolve any
CZM consistency objec-
tions
0
R
A
N
T
E
E
—Require A—95 CZM con—
—NFDES permit application
sistency determination
must include State CZM
prior to approving
consistency determina—
Step 2 Federal assistance
prior to approval of
application
permit
—Help State and grantee
resolve any major CZM
consistency objections
*Procedure does not apply to States without Federally approved programs.
July 1980
5:3
-------
5.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1 (See Flow Chart on Following Page)
The Federal CZM Act requires that all 201 Federal assistance applica-
tions for coastal projects receive a consistency determination prior
to any approval of funding (15 CFR 930 Subpart F); consequently, the
application must receive a consistency determination or resolve any
CZM agency objections before EPA can fund a Step 1 project. When
preparing a Step 1 application, the applicant must determine whether
the proposed project lies within the State’s adopted coastal zone.
This information should be included on the A—95 Notice.
In order to assist the applicant as well as increase the STATE’S own
understanding of its own CZM program, it is strongly recommended that
the STATE invite their CZM Agency to give a presentation to the STATE
staff on the CZM program. Thereafter, coordination between the two
agencies should be encouraged and the STATE should maintain a current
plan and set of maps for reference.
The major objective of the Step 1 A—95 review is to notify the State
CZM agency that a 201 project is proposed for the coastal zone and to
prepare the agency for consultation with the grantee during Step 1;
consequently, the STATE should make sure the A—95 notice clearly
states that the proposed project is within the State’s coastal zone.
In addition, the notice should list any sensitive coastal areas (e.g.
wetlands, finfish migratorial pathways) that are known to exist
within the project planning area.
After a State CZM agency responds to a request for a consistency
determination, it transmits the decision to the applicant through the
A-95 clearinghouse. In the event the CZM agency fails to make a
determination within 45 days after receiving the A—95 notice, the
clearinghouse informs the applicant that consistency is “conclusively
presumed.”
5.1.2 Procedures During Step 1
The information and materials developed during Step 1 should be used
to support the application for Step 2 funding. As is the case for
Step 1 approval, the Step 2 application also requires an A—95 consis-
tency determination from the State CZM agency (15 CFR 930.96(b)).
It is important that the grantee thoroughly address impacts to
coastal resources during Step 1 to meet the CZM agency’s information
needs for the Step 2 application consistency determination. Prior
consultation with the State CZM office will often streamline the
grantee’s literature reviews, coastal impact anlysis and, ultimately,
the consistency review. At a minimum, the coastal analysis
supporting the Step 2 A—95 funding request should include the
following:
5:4
July 1980
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
• A list and map of sensitive coastal resources within the planning
area (refer to the State Coastal Program for a definition of
sensitive coastal areas).
• A review of impacts to these sensitive coastal areas including
proposed mitigative measures.
• A review of project—induced growth impacts on the coastal zone
within the planning area.
• A review of’ regional impacts to the coastal zone that extend
beyond the planning area of the project.
5.1.3 EID Review and Preparation of Preliminary EA by STATE
The STATE should review the EID to be sure sufficient information is
present to allow the CZM agency to determine consistency. If it is
evident that Federal permits (Section 404, Clean Water Act;
Section 10, River and Harbors Act) will be required to construct the
facility, the STATE should remind the grantee to apply for its
permits and the consistency determination necessary for the permit
during Step 2.
The preliminary EA should summarize the information presented in the
ElD on this subject and reference the consistency deerminations
already obtained and those still required. The EA should also
discuss any comments received from the CZM agency. It should be
written, keeping in mind that this document may be used by the CZM
agency in a supplement to the A—95 notice in making the Step 2
consistency determination.
5.1.4 EPA Review
EPA will review the preliminary EA and other documents, and if
everything seems in order will issue a FNSI/EA. EPA should be sure
the CZM agency receives a copy, since receiving their comments at
this point would allow any problems to be corrected before the Step 2
consistency determination or subsequent permits are required.
5.2.1 Federal Agencies
—- The United States Department of Commerce
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235
Kathryn Cousins — 202—634-4126
Richard O’Connor — 202—634-4126
July 1980 5:5
-------
5.2.2 State Agencies
The following state agencies are responsible for managing their state
coastal program:
-— CONNECTICUT (appoval expected 9/80)
Arthur Rocque, Director 203—566—7404
Coastal Area Management Program
Department of Environmental Protection
71 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06115
RHODE ISLAND (approved)
Leo McAloon, Program Manager 401—789-3048
Coastal Zone Management Program
Washington County Government Center
Tower Hill Road
Wakefield, RI 02879
MASSACHUSETTS (approved)
Edward 3. Reilly, Director 617—727—9530
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
NEW HAMPSHIRE (Being developed)
John Mettee, Program Manager 603—271—2155
Coastal Management Program
Office of State Planning
2 1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, NH 03301
MAINE (approved)
Esther Lacognata, Coastal Program Manager 207—289-3154
State Planning Office
State House Station 38
Augusta, ME 04333
5.3 REFERENCES
5.3.1 Distributed to States
—— Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
—— U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management, Simplified Guidance for
Understanding the Federal Consistency Requirements . U.S.O.C.Z.M.
Memorandum dated April 11, 1978
July 1980 5:6
-------
Endangered Species Act
-------
ENDAF’ CERED SPECIES ACT
6.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
6.0.1 Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, provides a means
whereby various species of fish, wildlife and plants which are
threatened with extinction may be conserved.
The Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to research the status
of various species and designate a species as endangered or threatened
where such designation is warranted. Designated species are put on a
list, which also identifies that portion of the range of a species
where it is endangered or threatened and any critical habitat within
such range. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has the jurisdiction
over and the responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater species on
the list while the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has
jurisdiction and responsibility for the marine species.
The list of species is periodically published in the Federal Register.
As of’ the date of the manual, the following plant and wildlife
species in EPA’s Region I have been included in the Department of
Interior’s list:
-— Endangered
Gray Wolf
Cougar
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
Indiana Bat
Furbish Lousewort
Short-nose Sturgeon
Whales
Sea Turtles
Plymouth Red—bellied Turtle
—— Being proposed as endangered
Several plants in Vermont and New Hampshire
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies such as EPA to
ensure that actions they authorize, fund or carry out are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened
species or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitats of such
species. Actions which might jeopardize listed species have been
interpreted to include direct and indirect effects, together with the
cumulative effects of other actions which are interrelated or
interdependent with the proposed action.
July 1980 6:1
-------
If listed species or their habitat are to be affected by a project,
consultation between the agency acting on the project and the
appropriate wildlife agency must be undertaken to find out if the
project will be “likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat” or not. The amended act
requires specific procedures in order to determine this. These
procedures consist of a Request for Informaton, a Biological
Assessment, consultation if necessary, and then a Biological Opinion
(see Attachment A for description of these documents).
6.0.2 FWS/NMFS Interagency Cooperation Regulations
In order to implement the original Act’s Section 7 requirement for
consultation, FWS and NMFS had published regulations on Jaunary 4,
1978, outlining required procedures, but, because of the November 1978
amendments to the Act, new regulations are necessary. These have
been written but the draft form has not yet been published in the
Federal Register for comment, so these regulations are expected to
remain unofficial for quite some time. The major departure of the
unpublished proposed regulations from the procedures set forth in the
amended act itself is that the regulations try to set a threshold
before requiring the Request for Information and the Biological
Assessment (thus, this procedure would only be required on EIS
projects —— for other projects, the burden of decisions/compliance
would be placed on the individual agency but FWS/NMFS would be given
an ample “foot in the door” for stepping in on any project at any
time if they felt the agency didn’t properly consider endangered
species).
Until such time as these pending regulations are promulgated, EPA
will follow the procedures set forth in the amended Act itself.
6.0.3 State Programs
In addition to the Federal endangered species program, many states
have endangered species programs of their own and maintain lists of
those species endangered or threatened within the state.
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
As previously noted, a number of species in New England have been or
are being considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act;
consequently, there is a potential for impacts as a result of the
direct or indirect impacts of wastewater facilities.
6.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1 (See Flow Chart on Following Page)
Before or as soon as the grantee and STATE initiate discussions on
the preparation of a Plan of Study (P05) the STATE should ask EPA to
submit letters to the Regional Director of FWS and NMFS requesting a
determination of whether there are species listed or proposed to be
listed which may be present, or have critical habitats within the
July 1980 6:2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
community or study area. EPA must write all letters to FWS or NMFS
because EPA cannot delegate the responsibility for compliance with
this Act. The FWS and/or NMFS must respond within 30 days.
The STATE should also be aware of whether there is a state program
and, if so, what species are included. The STATE should advise the
grantee what procedures should be followed to meet state require-
ments. In any case, if’ a species on the state list is in the area,
the EID should discuss this and assess the impacts of the project on
the species.
If the FWS and/or NMFS respond that there are no endangered species,
no Biological Assessment will be required. If an endangered species
on the Federal list is present, a Biological Assessment will be
necessary. The appropriate federal wildlife service will, to the
extent their manpower permits, assist the grantee, STATE, and EPA in
the scoping of the assessment. An agreed—upon scope should be made
part of the P05.
A finding that endangered species (federal or state status) are
present and may be impacted could also cause EPA to require an ElS at
this point, pursuant to the criteria of 40 CFR 6.505(a)(3).
6.1.2 Procedures During Step 1
When a Biological Assessment is necessary the grantee must have it
prepared within 180 days of EPA’s receipt of notification from FWS or
NMFS unless the agencies agree to an extension. The Biological
Assessment should be submitted to the STATE and EPA for review as
soon as it is available. EPA will then submit the Biological
Assessment to FWS or NMFS for review.
The FWS or NMFS may find the document inadequate and request improve-
ments. Once the FWS or NMFS find the Biological Assessment to be
adequate, the grantee should include the document as part of the EID
and incorporate appropriate alternatives and mitigating measures
required to protect species into the Facility Plan.
If the FWS or NMFS feel, based on an adequate Biological Assessment,
that there may be impacts to a species or its habitat, they can
initiate a formal consulting process with EPA. The consulting
process will hold up EPA approval of a Step 2 application until its
completion. The consulting process will result in the issuance of a
Biological Opinion by FWS or NMFS which concludes that the project is
or is not likely to jeopardize a species or its habitat. If it is
likely to jeopardize, EPA will not be able to fund the project.
6.1.3 EID Review and Preparation of Preliminary EA by STATE
The STATE should be sure that the approved Biological Assessment has
been incorporated into the EID and any mitigating measures it
recommended or FWS or NMFS recommended have been or will be
July 1980 6:3
-------
incorporated into the project The preliminary EA should discuss the
findings of the assessment and, if consultation was undertaken, the
findings of the Biological Opinion.
6.1.4 EPA Review
Where the preliminary EA shows that there are no endangered or
threatened species present or that the project will not adversely
impact those that are present, EPA can issue a FNSI. Where a
Biological Opinion has stated that a project “is likely to jeopardize”
a species, EPA will not be able to fund the project unless an exemp-
tion to the Act is granted. It is more likely that this situation
would result in another round of’ Step 1 planning (probably with a
concurrent EIS) to try to come up with a different solution which
would not harm the species.
6.2 CONTACTS
6.2.1 Federal Agencies
-— Mr. Paul Nickerson
Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 5 — One Gateway Center
Newton, MA 02158
617-926-9316
—— Mr. Douglas Beach
National Marine Fisheries Service
14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
617-281-3600
6.2.2 State Agencies
The following State agencies should be able to provide assistance in
assessing impacts on endangered species and information on whether
the state has an endangered species program and list of its own.
CT — Fauna and Flora:
—— Mr. Leslie Mehrof’f 203/486—3266
Division of Natural Resources
Department of Environmental Protection
U—42 University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut 06268
ME — Fauna:
-- Mr. Robert W. Boettger, Chief 207/289-3651
and
Mr. Lee Perry, Assistant Chief
Wildlife Division
Inland Fisheries Wildlife Department
284 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333
July 1980 6 : 4
-------
MA- Fauna:
—— Mr. Chet McCord, Chief 617/366-4470
Wildlife Research, Divison of
Fisheries and Wildlife
Field Headquarters
Westboro, MA 01581
—— Mr. Brad Blodget, Chief of Non—Game 617/727—3151
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
NH — Fauna:
—— Mr. Howard C. Nowell, Jr. 603/271—3551
Chief, Came Management and Research
Fish and Came Department
34 Bridge Street
Concord, NH 03301
Flora:
—— Mr. Howard Townsend 603/271—3551
Commissioner
New Hampshire Department of’ Agriculture
Park Plaza
85 Manchester Street
Concord, NH 03301
RI — Fauna:
-- Mr. John M. Croanan, Chief 401/789—3094
Division of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Environmental Management
Washington County Government Center
Tower Hill Road
Wakefield, RI 02879
Flora:
—- Mr. James Chadwick 401/789—3094
Deputy Chief of Wildlife
Division of’ Fish and Wildlife
Department of Environmental Management
Washington County Government Center
Tower HIll Road
Wakefield, RI 02879
VT — Fauna:
-- Mr. James D. Stewart 802/828-3371
Fish and Came Coordinator
Fish and Game Department
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
July 1980 6:5
-------
Flora:
—- Mr. Charles Johnson 802/828-3375
State Naturalist
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation
79 River Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
6.3 REFERENCES
6.3.1 Distributed to States
—— Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
-- FWS/NMFS Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR Part 402) ,
January 4, 1978
—- Unpublished proposed reuglations (50 CFR Part 402) , date stamped
January 21, 1980.
July 1980 6 : 6
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Biological Assessment (as described in the unpublished proposed regs.)
—— purpose to assist agency in determining whether consultation necessary
-— 180 days to complete
—— informal assistance from FWS and NMFS in scoping
-— study shall include:
• on—site inspection of total area affected to determine presence of
animals themselves and/or suitable habitat
• interview experts
• review literature and data
• analyse effects of proposed project on species in terms of
individuals (short—term.impacts), populations (long—term impacts),
habitat
• analyse alternative actions (act defines these as including
alternatives outside of original objectives and agency jurisdiction)
—— report shall describe study methodology, discusss any problems
encountered, and present the conclusions
-— report shall be forwarded to director of applicable FWS or NOAA office
for review (no time deadlines on this review step —— yet)
Consultation (not addressed in unpublished proposed rags., so this assumes
that this part remains the same as in the Jan. 4, 1978 regs.)
-— initiated by letter to FWS or NOAA formally requesting consultation
—— after request, no irreversible or irretrievabe commitments to the
project are allowed until process complete
-— amendment to Act requires biological opinion to be issued by FWS or
NOAA within 90 days after initiation
—— under January 4, 1978 regs. (assume this still holds, since no further
detail about it has superceded it?), the biological opinion document
could express one of following three opinions about the effect of the
project:
a) not likely to jeopardize or adversely affect habitat —— no further
problem.
July 1980 6:7
-------
b) Likely to jeopardize or adversely affect —— now up to proponent
agency to decide what it wants to do, considering its
responsibilities under the ct —— amendments set up, exemption
process to take it from here.
c) Insufficient information —— FWS or NOAA could require information
to be gathered before they would reconsider and issue a final
opinion —— this situation shouldn’t happen now that arrangements
for biological assesssments are the routine procedure.
Reinitiation (not addressed in unpublished proposed regs, so this assumes
that this part remains the same as in Jan. 4, 1978 regs.)
—— if’ new information revealing adverse impacts
—— if modification of project
—— if new species is listed that project may affect
July 1980 6:8
-------
Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act
-------
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT
7.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
7.0.1 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1958 requires that
wildlife conservation be given equal consideration and be coordinated
with other features of water—resource development projects. Under
the act, “. . .whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water
are proposed or authorized to be impounded, diverted, the channel
deepened, or the stream or other body of water otherwise controlled
or modit’ied for any purpose whatever.. .“ (FWCA, Section 662(a)), the
proponent agency must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the State wildlife agency. The wildlife agencies recommend
mitigative actions, and the proponent agency adopts “. . .such
justifiable means and measures for wildlife purposes.. . [ it].. .finds
should be adopted to obtain maximum overall project benefits.” (FWCA
Section 662(b)).
The Act authorizes agencies such as EPA to provide grant funds for
measures necessary to accomplish wildlife conservation activities.
7.0.2 Proposed Uniform Procedures for Compliance
In order to more vigorously implement the Act, President Carter
directed, in his July 12, 1978 Water Policy Memorandum, that formal
implementation procedures be established. In the May 18, 1979 issue
of the Federal Register, the Department of Interior and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued proposed regulations.
Due to a number of objections raised by Federal agencies, including
EPA, a legislative EIS on those regulations is being prepared. One
of EPA’s objections to the proposed regulations is the regulations’
interpretation that the Act applies to the grants program; EPA
contends the Act applies only to permitted or licensed activities
(many grants projects do, however, require permits). This issue and
others will remain unresolved until the EIS is completed and new
regulations are issued.
7.0.3 “ Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Department of Interior” November 1978
In the absence of formal regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Service
has been relying on the Authority of this memorandum [ a general one
developed by direction of the Clean Water Act Section 304(j)(l) to
enhance coordination of Clean Water programs] for elevating
FWCA—related issues above staff level for resolution.
July 1980 7:1
-------
7.0.4 Current Practice
Regardless of the status of’ these regulations, EPA has found it
beneficial to involve the FWS in reviewing the facilities plans and
EID’s for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, EPA has an overall
responsibility under its own mission and under NEPA to protect fish
and wildlife habitat (especially wetlands) and FWS, because of its
expertise in this area, can offer valuable comments and assistance.
Secondly, for projects requiring permits, EPA or the Corps would
eventually have to consult with FWS on the project under the FWCA;
even if they didn’t, FWS regularly reviews all 404/Section 10 permits
under a general agreement with the Corps (see 404/Section 10 chapter).
Since problems at this stage, after a project has been designed, can
require completed work to be changed and can seriously delay a
project, it is much better to consult early in the planning process
and avoid these problems altogether.
Because of these considerations, Region I EPA has arranged to have
the FWS staff at their area office in Concord, N.H., review all
completed Facility Plans and EIS’s (see the 4/29/80 memo being handed
out with this manual). In addition, it is standard practice to
involve the FWS in early field trips and mid—course review meetings
for those projects which can be predicted to involve impacts to
wetlands and require 404/Section 10 permits.
7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
7.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1 (See Flow Chart on Following Page)
The STATE should ensure that the grantee is aware of the provisions
of the FWCA itself and the general concerns of the FWS (as expressed
in the 5/9/80 letter from Beckett to Murray, being handed out with
the manual) prior to or during the devlopment of the Plan of Study
(POS). The STATE should review the POS making sure that wetlands,
404/Section 10, and fish and wildlife habitat issues will be
adequately addressed in the EID.
7.1.2 Procedures During Step 1
During step 1 planning, the STATE should closely monitor those
projects which may involve wetland or riverine construction. EPA and
the FWS should be kept informed of the project’s progress and invited
to mid—course review meetings and field trips to view the wetland in
question. Any FWS comments received should be heeded in the
development of the facility plan.
If it becomes evident later during Step 1 that a preferred
alternative will require stream or water body alterations (crossings,
diversions, construction in wetlands, etc) the STATE should notify
EPA immediately so formal consultation under the FWCA may proceed.
July 1980 7:2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
7.1.3 EID Review and Preparation of Preliminary EA by STATE
Regardless of whether the FWS was involved during Step 1 or not, the
STATE should arrange for FWS to receive a copy of’ the completed
Facility Plan as soon as it is available. The FWS will try to comment
within 30 days. The STATE may wish to incorporate FWS comments into
the other comments back to the grantee requesting further information
or corrections before Facility Plan approval. The STATE may need to
require that mitigating measures be developed.
The preliminary E1\ should describe any wetlands/riverine impacts,
discuss the permits involved, briefly describe any coordination that
was undertaken, discuss mitigating measures and how they are to be
accomplished, and discuss any unresolved issue.
7.1.4 EPA Review
If EPA is satisfied that fish and wildlife coordination concerns have
been adequately incorporated into the project, it will issue a FNSI.
If unresolved issues remain, EPA will determine whether or not an EIS
is necessary under the criteria of 40 CFR 6.506(a)(6).
7.2 CONTACTS
7.2.1 Federal Agencies
—— Mr. Gordon Beckett, Supervisor
Ecological Services
Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5
U. S. Department of the Interior
P. 0. Box 1518
Concord, N. H. 03301
603-834-4726
—— Mr. Allen E. Peterson, Jr., Director
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U. S. Department of Commerce
14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
617 -281—6700
7.2.2 State Agencies
See listing of’ wildlife agencies in section covering Endangered
Species Act.
July 1980 7:3
-------
7.3 REFERENCES
7.3.1 Distributed With the Manual
—— Memo of 29 April 1980 from Paul Pinault to files.
—— Letter of’ 9 May 1980 from Gordon E. Beckett to Charles W. Murray.
—— Letter of 5 June 1980 from Cordon E. Beckettt to Charles W. Murray.
7.3.2 Distributed to States
—— Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended .
—— Memorandum of Understanding Between the Enviromental Protection
Agency and the U. S. Department of the Interior.
July 1980 7:4
-------
EPA Procedures for Wetland!
Floodplain Protection
-------
EPA PROCEDURES FOR WETLAND/FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION
8.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
8.0.1 Administrator’s Decision Statement No. 4, February 21, 1973
EPA has had a strong policy to protect wetlands since early 1973.
This decision statement, entitled “EPA Policy to Protect the Nation’s
Wetlands,” outlines the values of wetlands and states that it is the
agency’s general policy to give special attention to any proposal
with the potential to damage wetlands and to protect wetlands to the
maximum extent possible from adverse dredging and filling practices
and non-point source pollution. Regarding the 201 grant program, it
specifically states, “. . .it shall be the policy of this Agency not to
grant Federal funds for the construction of municipal wastewater
treatment facilities or other waste—treatment—associated appurtenances
which may interfere with the existing wetland ecosystem except where
no other alternative of lesser environmental damage is found to be
feasible.”
8.0.2 Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands May 24, 1977 and
Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management May 24, 1977
Due to increasing public awareness of the values of wetlands and
floodplains, and increasing concern for protecting these areas,
President Carter issued these two orders instructing agencies to
ensure their own actions do not diminish, but rather restore, preserve
and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands and flood—
plains. Each order directed every agency to avoid new construction
in wetlands or floodplains except where no practicable alternative
existed and then only after adopting strong mitigating measures and
giving special public notification. Both orders required that each
agency amend existing procedures or issue new procedures in order to
implement these requirements.
8.0.3 Water Resources Council “Floodplain Management Guidelines for
Implementing Executive Order 11988” February 10, 1978
Because the Executive Order directed that agencies prepare their
procedures in consultation with the Water Resources Council, that
organization issued these detailed guidelines to aid the agencies.
While the EPA procedures developed from these guidelines are complete
in and of themselves, this document is still useful as a reference.
It gives a detailed interpretation of the Executive Order and
provides a great deal of information on the “nuts and bolts” of
identifying, evaluating, and minimizing floodplain impacts.
July 1980 8:1
-------
8.0.4 EPA “Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands
Protection” January 5, 1979 (Appendix A, EPA NEPA Regulations,
November 6, 1979 )
These procedures emphasize that, to the extent possible, the require-
ments of the Executive Orders will be carried out through the
agency’s NEPA procedures. They also point out that the 1973 EPA
Wetlands Protection Policy remains in effect and define “practicable”
as capable of being done within existing constraints, including cost
and technological constraints. The specific procedures they recommend
to carry out the executive orders have been incorporated into the
following discussion.
8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
8.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1 (See Flow Chart on Following Page)
The potential grantee should make a preliminary review of the
proposed project area to determine if there are any wetlands or
floodplains located there (see the “Contacts” section at the end of
this chapter for sources of this type of information). This review
should be completed during the preparation of the Plan of’ Study (POS)
for the Step 1 grant application so that an appropriate level of work
can be budgeted in the Step 1 grant. The STATE should also review
the extent of’ the wetlands and floodplains located in an area so they
will be able to judge the adequacy of the POS work effort in this
area and will be able to judge how closely the project should be
monitored. Since the preliminary EA must be quite detailed in this
subject area (see “EID Review.. .“ section below) it is in the STATE’S
best interest and the project’s best interest (to avoid delay) that
all the information necessary for the EA be fully developed in the
EID.
8.1.2 Procedures During Step 1
The EID should contain detailed information on the location, extent,
type and value of wetlands and floodplains in the area. During
planning, alternatives which avoid any impacts to the areas should be
formulated, and where an alternative will impact a wetland or
floodplain, the impacts should be quantified and mitigating measures
should be developed.
The STATE should closely monitor any projects with the potential for
significant impacts (direct or indirect) on wetlands or floodplains.
Mid—course review meetings and field trips are strongly recommended,
and EPA and FWS should be invited to attend (see the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act chapter for a discussion on their involve-
ment); the 1973 EPA wetlands policy supports this involvement by
stating, “The Department of Interior will be consulted to aid in the
determination of the probable impact of the pollution abatement
program on the pertinent fish and wildlife resources of wetlands”).
The Facility Plan and EID should incorporate any comments received
from EPA and FWS during the process.
July 1980 8:2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
EPA may also decide early in the process that an EIS is necessary
under the criteria of CFR 6.505(a)(2).
8.1.3 EID Review and Preparation of Preliminary EA by STATE
The STATE should forward the completed Facility Plan and ElO to FWS
for review as soon as they are available. Comments from FWS should
be incorporated into the STATE’S general comments back to the
grantee. The STATE should review the Facility Plan and EID to be
sure that the treatment of’ floodplain/wetland information and issues
is comprehensive and that the selected alternative is the least
harmful “practicable” one.
In EPA programs without a normal NEPA review process, the EPA
Floodplain/Wetland Procedures require the preparation of a
“Floodplain/Wetland Assessment” and a “Statement of Findings,” along
with special public notice, if’ the proposed action will be in or will
affect a floodplain or wetland. However, where there is an
established NEPA procedure, these discussions on floodplain and
wetland matters can be incorporated into the normal assessment and
FNSI, and notice can be provided through the normal EA/FNSI
distribution procedures.
The preliminary EA must cover all the areas a “Floodplain/Wetlands
Assessment” and a “Statement of Findings” would [ Appendix A
Section 6a(3) and (6)]:
—— describe the proposed action
—— discuss its effects on the floodplain/wetlands
-— describe alternatives considered
—— discuss the reasons why the action must be located in or affect
the floodplain or wetland (describe decision factors)
—— state whether the action conforms to applicable State or local
floodplain protection standards
—— describe how the proposed action has been modified to minimize harm
8.1.4 EPA Review
EPA will review the preliminary EA as well as the correspondence from
FWS and any other pertinent information. If the project will not
affect or will present the least impact of’ any practicable alterna-
tive, EPA will issue a FNSI and will take special care to be sure it
is distributed to all parties and agencies with special interest in
floodplains and wetlands. If there are unresolved floodplain/wetland
issues, EPA will consult with the grantee, STATE and FWS and try to
resolve them, and will again consider whether or not an EIS is
warranted.
July 1980 8:3
-------
8.2 CONTACTS
8.2.1 Federal Agencies
—— Mr. Cordon Beckett
Ecological Services
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P. 0. Box 1518
Concord, NH 03301
603-834-4726
8.2.2 For Information on Locating Floodplains and Wetlands
—— National Flood Insurance Program community floodplain maps FEMA
Office, Boston (617)223—1197
-— Fish and Wildife Service wetland inventory maps
Regional Office
Boston (617)965—5100
—— SCS soil survey maps, USDA District Offices
amherst, MA (413)549—0650/256—0441
Burlington, VI (802)862—6261
Durham, NH (603)868-7581
Orono, ME (207)866-2132
Storrs, CT (203)429—9361
West Warwick, RI (401)884—9499
—— U.S. Army Corps of Engineers floodway mapping
(617)894-2400 x 551
—— USGS quad sheets
—— State water resource planning agencies
CT DEP (203)566—2110
ME DEP (207)289-2811
MA ECEA (617)727—7700
NH WSPCC (603)271—2503/3199
RI DWS (401)277—2234
VT AEC (802)828-3365
8.3 REFRENCES
8.3.]. Distributed with Manual
-— EPA Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands
Protection , January 5, 1979 (in Appendix A, EPA Implementation
Procedures on NEPA, 40 CER Part 6, November 6, 1979).
July 1980 8:4
-------
8.3.2 Distributed to States
—— Water Resources Council Floodplain Management Guidelines for
Implementing Executive Order 11988 , February 10, 1978 (includes
Executive Orders 11988 and 11990).
—— Environmental Assessment Manual , EPA Region I, Chapter 7 —
“Wetlands” (undated).
—— New England States’ Wetlands Legislation (3 page table).
July 1980 8:5
-------
Section 404 of Clean Water Act &
Section 10 of Rivers and Harbors Act
Cl)
CD
C)
0
0
-------
SECTION 404 OF CLEAN WATER ACT AND
SECTION 10 OF RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT
9.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
9.0.1 Clean Water Act — Section 404
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act established a national program to
control the discharge of’ dredged or fill material into the “waters of
the United States”. “Waters of the United States” are defined to
include all tributaries of navigable water, up to their headwaters
and landward to their ordinary high water mark, thus including
wetlands. Key requirements of Section 404 are that there must be a
clear need to place fill or dredged material in the water resource
and that alternatives must be thoroughly examined.
Under Section 404(b) a permit system was established for administra-
tion by the Corps of Engineers. The section required the Corps and
EPA to develop criteria to guide the permitting decisions. These are
discussed below.
Under Section 404(c) EPA may overrule a Corps decision to allow a
discharge if EPA determines such discharge will have an unacceptable
adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery
areas, wildlife areas or recreational areas. EPA 404 staff regularly
reviews Corps permits by examining the projects for conformance with
the 404(b) guidelines. Even though EPA may be a proponent of’ a
construction grant project, it has an overriding responsibility to
see that the planning and construction are done in an environmentally
sound manner and that the guidelines are applied without bias.
Because of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s expertise in and
responsibilities toward the protection of wetlands, they have
arranged with the Corps to routinely review 404 permit applications
as they are announced through the Corps regular public notice
procedures.
Each state also has input into the Corps permit decision. Since each
discharge of dredged material is, in effect, the discharge of a
pollutant into the water, a state water quality certification is
required (Clean Water Act, Section 401) before a permit can be issued.
In 1977, the provisions of’ Section 404 were expanded under 404(g) and
(h) to allow state permit programs in lieu of the Corps in non—tidal
waters and where the Corps has not historically maintained navigation
channels.
9.0.2 Rivers and Harbors Act — Section 10
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act established a permit program
administered by the Corps which regulates the placement of structures
into navigable waters and is concerned with their effect on
navigation.
July 1980 9:1
-------
The distinction between Section 404 and Section 10 is the difference
between “waters of the United States” and “navigable waters.” As
noted above, “waters of the United States” under Section 404 extends
the jurisdiction beyond the limits of traditional navigability.
In most situations applying to “navigable waters,” the Corps will
consolidate permit applications for both Section 404 and Section 10.
For areas not defined as “navigable waters” Section 404 permits only
apply. Section 10 permits, however, will be required for the
placement of any structure, such as an outfall pipe, in navigable
waters even without any discharge of dredged or fill material.
Section 404 and/br 10 permits are required for any wastewater
treatment plants or sewer lines located in or crossing water bodies
or wetlands.
9.0.3 Interim Guidelies on Dicharge of Dredged or Fill Materials to
Navigable Waters (40 CFR 230 )
Pursuant to Section 404(b)(l) of the Act, EPA, in consultation with
the Corps, developed guidelines dated September 5, 1975, covering the
issuance of 404 permits. The guidelines establish procedures for the
evaluation of physical and chemical—biological interactive effects of
discharges and the selecton of’ sites for such discharges.
The nature of the 404 permit—granting decisions is such that the
plans and specifications need to be evaluated; therefore, Step I.
wastewater plans will not contain sufficiently detailed information
to allow a permit application to be completed. Neverthiess, as noted
below, the environmental evaluations under NEPA during Step 1 should
anticipate any critical environmental issues created by the need to
discharge dredged or fill material in water or wetland areas.
9.0.4 Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill
Material (40 CFR 230 )
On September 18, 1979 EPA issued proposed guidelines to review the
September 5, 1975 interim regulations in order to clarify them and to
reflect the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act. The new
guidelines stress the overall 404 program’s goal of preventing any
dicharges that would have “. . .an unacceptable adverse impact on the
aquatic ecosystem including wetlands, either individually or
cumulative.”
The revised guidelines are still under review. Pending their
adoption, the 1975 regulations still apply.
July 1980 9:2
-------
9.0.5 PRM 76—4
On October 14, 1976, EPA issued a Program Requirements Memorandum on
the “Coordination of Construction Grants Program with EPA — Corps of
Engineers Section 404/Section 10 Permit Programs.”
The PRM suggests early consultation with the Corps if it is
determined during Step 1 that a 404/Section 10 permit will be
required. The intent of the consultation is to determine if a permit
will be approved for the proposed discharge area and to ascertain
what environmental features should be evaluated as part of the NEPA
process to enable the Corps to make a final decision on the permit
application when it is submitted. The PRM further states: “When
required, an issued 404/Section 10 permit or a determination by the
Regional Administrator that the Corps is prepared to issue a
404/Section 10 permit, shall be a prerequisite to the award of’ a
Step 2 grant.”
9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
In actual practice, the Corps cannot issue a permit during the Step 1
process, because they need the detailed plans and specifications
developed during Step 2 in order to make a permit decision. However,
since the EPA 404 staff is experienced in applying the guidelines and
routinely monitors Corps permit decisions, it is possible for them to
have a feeling for whether “... the Corps is prepared to issue a
404/Section 10 permit. . .“ or not. Sections 230.4 and 230.5 of the
guidelines outline the environmental factors which must be considered
by the Corps and EPA staffs when making decisions on a permit. If
the NEPA documents present information on these factors clearly and
succinctly, EPA 404 staff would be able to indicate whether they felt
a permit would be issued or not.
The process decribed below follows a common sense approach directed
at ensuring there will be no permit denials late in Step 2 when
changes in extensive engineering design would be costly and
time-consuming.
9.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1 (See Flow Chart on Following Page)
At this stage, it may be difficult to predict the applicability of
Section 404/Section 10 to a gross concept for solving a wastewater
collection and/or treatment need. Neverthless, the STATE should
discuss section 404/Section 10 requirements with the grantee and
should give the grantee the latest EPA/Corps guidelines and criteria
under Section 404 prior to or during the development of the Plan of
Study. As of the date of this manual, the 1975 guidelines apply.
9.1.2 Step 1 Procedures
During facility planning, alternatives which would avoid any river
crossings or other dredging activities should be formulated. If,
however, it is determined that such situations cannot be avoided and
a Section 404/Secton 10 permit will be required, alternative methods
of accomplishing the work in the most environmentally sound manner,
July 1980 9:3
-------
and further mitigation measures should be formulated. The grantee
should then review the guidelines and develop information for
inclusions in the EID which allow a determination of the environmental
effects of placing dredged and fill materials into water or wetland
areas.
In order to expedite later reviews, the EID should contain a separate
Section 404 discussion following the outline of Section 230.4 and
230.5, and including sufficient information for a preliminary
determination that Section 404 approvals from the Corps can be
anticipated.
9.1.3 LID Review and Preparation of Preliminary EA by STATE
As soon as it is available, the STATE should forward the EID’s
404 Section to EPA, where the Construction Grants staff will request
that the 404 staff review it and give their opinion on whether the
project would receive a permit.
The STATE should also review the EID to assure satisfaction of any
overall environmental concerns raised by a 404 permit.
This whole review process may be facilitated when portions of the 404
permitting process are delegated to the states. Since no New England
state has received such a delegation, this manual will not attempt to
speculate on how the process will operate.
The preliminary EA prepared by the STATE should refer to the applica-
bility of Section 404/Section 10 to a project, discuss the environ-
mental issues relating thereto, and give an opinion as to the
project’s acceptability in consideration of the prevailing guidelines.
9.1.4 EPA Review
After receiving the preliminary EA, EPA should review the discussion
for adequacy and accuracy and issue the FNSI if the project is
acceptable under the guidelines. If it is not, EPA may decide to do
an EIS under the criteria of 40 CFR 6.506(a)(2)..
9.2 CONTACTS
9.2.1 Federal Agencies
-— Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02154
617—894-2400
—— Special Permits Development Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
3. F. K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617—223—5061
July 1980 9:4
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
9.2.2 State Agencies
Agencies noted under the chapters on Wetland/Floodplain or Coastal
Zone Managment Act may be able to provide assistance with 404
evaluation.
9.3 REFERENCES
9.3.1 Distributed with Manual
—— Navigable Waters — Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material ,
Environmental Protection Agency — September 5, 1975.
-— Outline of’ above.
-— Sample “Sectcn 404 Evaluation Report,” New England Division, Corps
of’ Engineers.
9.3.2 Distributed to States
—- Program Requirements Memorandum #76—4 — Coordination of
Construction Grants Program with EPA—Corps of Engineers
Section 404/Section 10 Permit Programs - Environmental Protection
Agency — October 14, 1976.
—- Guidelines for Specifications of’ Disposal Sites for Dredged or
Fill Material , Environmental Protection Agency — September 18,
1979.
—— The 404 Program , a paper discussing 404 in more depth.
—— Letter from Max B. Scheider to William R. Adams, Jr. re: Scoping
concerns with sewage treatment projects — October 4, 1979.
—— Several sample “Section 404 Evaluation Reports,” New England
Division, Corps of Engineers.
July 1980 9:5
-------
National Historic Preservation Act
-------
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
10.0 LEGISLATIVE/RECULATORY FRAMEWORK
10.0.1 National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of’ 1966 and its support-
ing regulations are intended to help ensure that no significant
archaeological or historical properties are irretrievably lost as a
result of Federally—funded construction projects.
The major provisions of’ NHPA are the following:
—— Establishment of the National Register of’ Historic Places
—— Implementation of the Section 106 review process
—— Establishment of’ the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The National Register of Historic Places is a listing of significant
historic buildings, districts and archaeological sites maintained by
the Secretary of’ the Interior under Section 101(a) of’ NHPA.
Under Section 106, any Federal agency must take into account the
effect of a Federally funded, licensed or assisted project upon any
historic or archaeological property listed in, or eligible for
listing in, the National Register.
In Sections 201—212 of NHPA, the establishment of the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation and its role in the 106 review process are
described. The Advisory Council was authorized to develop regulations
in order to implement the terms of Section 106 of’ NHPA.
10.0.2 Advisory Council Regulations
Executive Order 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment” of 1971, required Federal agencies to consult with the
Advisory Council in the initiation of, and o mpliance with, the
Council’s procedures. The issuance of this Executive Order prompted
the Advisory Council to utilize its authorization and actually
develop regulations implementing Section 106; “Procedures for the
Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties” were published in
1974.
In order to improve implementation of the Advisory Council regula-
tions, the Presidential Memorandum on Environmental Quality and Water
Resources Management in 1978 directed that the 1974 regulations be
amended and further stated that “Federal agencies with water resource
responsibilities.. .publish procedures implementing the Act (NHPA).”
Pursuant to the requirements of the Presidential Memorandum, the
July 1980 10:1
-------
Advisory Council issued new regulations in January 1979 (36 CFR
Part 800) and EPA is now in the process of preparing implementing
procedures. These procedures are being developed at the Office of
Environmental Review in Washington, D. C. Draft regulations are
expected to appear in the Federal Register by the end of October
1980. These will explain how the Advisory Council regulations are to
be applied to EPA’s specific programs. On an interim basis Program
Requirements Memorandum PRM No. 75—27 of July 2, 1975 serves as EPA’s
basic guideline under NHPA.
10.0.3 State Historic Preservation Officer
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), appointed by the
governor of each state, is reponsible for the inventory of cultural
resources in each state and implementing programs necessary for the
protection of resources on or eligible for the National Register.
The SHPO is also responsible for directing a state-wide survey of all
cultural properties that are significant in American history, archi-
tecture, archaeology and culture at the national, state and local
levels. The SHPO has a primary role in the review of historic and
archaeological properties that may be affected by federal programs in
compliance with the Advisory Council Procedures (36 CFR 800.5)
10.0.4 Explanation of the 106 Review Process
The major steps of the 106 review process are as follows:
1. Identification of National Register Properties
2. Determination of effect of project on the properties, if any
3. Agreement as to mitigative or avoidance measures, if necessary
These major steps are described in detail below.
1. Identification of historic and archaeological properties
initially involves contacting the SHPO and any local historical
commission in the community of the project’s location. If an
adequate survey of archaeological/historic resources has not been
previously conducted in the project area, the EPA will fund a
survey to identify resources on or potentially eligible for the
National Register. This survey must be conducted by a
professional.
There are different levels of surveys to be conducted at specific
stages in the planning process. The first level of survey is the
reconnaissance survey, designed to identify any archaeologically
and/or historically sensitive areas potentially within the project
area. This level of survey involves background research into the
available literature and the consultation of local sources
July 1980 10:2
-------
(written and oral) for the identification of culturally signifi-
cant properties. This survey should be done as early in the
Step 1 planning effort as possible, since its results may
influence the formulation of choice of alternatives to avoid
identified properties or areas suspected to contain resources.
The extent of survey activities is determined in consultation
with the SHPO and based on the probability with which historic
and archaeological properties can be expected to be found. EPA
regional policy is that reconnaissance survey (Phase 1) be
limited in scope to cover only areas where the project will have
direct impact. Primary (direct) impact areas are defined in PRM
75—27 of July 2, 1975 as those areas “where ground will be
disturbed for the project”. This policy is in conflict with the
Advisory Council’s final amendments to their regulations, which
state that secondary impacts to properties should be evaluated as
well. This conflict in policy and procedures has not yet been
resolved. However, in practice, the agency and the SHPO can
usually reach an agreement on the scope of an individual project.
Once the reconnaissance survey has identified the historic
properties and the areas likely to contain archaeological
resources and the project alternatives have been developed, a
second level of survey (Phase 2) may be necessary where the
project’s construction would overlap the sensitive area. This
survey involves field testing of previously undisturbed lands
which lie within the project’s area to determine the nature and
extent of archaeological properties possibly contained therein.
If archaeological properties are discovered, a site examination
to evaluate the significance of any identified properties will
follow. The final level involves developing avoidance and
mitigation strategies to be carried out if they have been deemed
necessary.
The findings of all surveys will be submitted to the SHPO for
comments. Where nothing has been found, the SHPO can determine
that the project would have no effect on cultural resources
because of their absence. Where something has been found, the
SHPO will advise on the scope of the next level of survey.
According to the January 1979 regulations [ 36 CFR 800.4(3)], when
a survey identifies a property that is not on the National
Register but has historical, architectural, archaeological, or
cultural value, the agency, in consultaton with the SHPO, will
apply the National Register Criteria (36 CFR 60.6) to see if the
property might be eligible. If the SHPO and the agency agree
that the identified property does not meet the criteria, the
agency will document this agreement.
July 1980 10:3
-------
If the property appears eligible, a request for a determination
of eligibility must be made. 36 CFR Part 63 discusses the
procedures for this in detail. Basically, if the SHPO and the
agency agree that a property is eligible, the SHPO or the agency
shall forward to the Keeper of’ the National Register: 1) a
letter signed by the agency stating their agreement and 2) a
description of the property with the SHPO’s statement that the
property is eligible for the National Register. Written notice
of the determination made by the Keeper of the National Register
will be received by both the agency and the SHPO within 10 working
days. If the agency does not agree with the SHPO’s determina-
tion, it shall submit a letter to the Department of the Interior
requesting a determination of eligibilty. The Keeper of the
Naional Register must respond to this request within 45 days of
its receipt.
2. Having identified the properties listed in, or eligible for
listing in, the National Register, a determination of effect on
the properties by the proposed project alternative or alternative
must be made. The grantee, in consultation with the SHPO, will
apply the Advisory Council Procedures Criteria of Effect (36 CFR
60.3). If there is no effect, then the project can proceed, with
the grantee retaining documentation of the determination of no
effect If an effect is found to result from the project, then a
determination of no adverse effect or adverse effect must be
made. If there is an effect, but it is found to be not adverse,
documentation must be submitted to the Advisory Council by the
SHPO and the agency. The documentation must include:
—— a cover letter from EPA stating the determination of effect
—— a description of the project
—- a discussion of’ the project’s effects and why they will not be
adverse, including mitigation measures
-— plans and specifications
—— photographs of the property
- - a National Register form, if not yet listed
—— a map indicating project boundaries and buldings listed on or
eligible for the National Register.
Once submitted to the Advisory Council, there is a 30—day review
period for the Council to concur with or reject the finding of’ no
adverse effect.
3. If there is an effect and it is determined to be adverse, EPA,
the Advisory Council, and SHPO must consult and negotiate until
an adequate program of mitigative measures is agreed upon before
the project may proceed.
July 1980 10:4
-------
10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
10.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1 (See Flow Chart on Following Page)
The STATE should explain the requirements and procedures under the
National Historic Preservation Act to the grantee and his consultant
prior to or during the development of the Plan of Study (POS). The
STATE should then review the PUS to be sure that a realistic level of
effort has been included to cover consulting with the SHPO and
carrying out the first level of survey.
Since the necessity, scope and timing of other levels of surveys is
determined by the results of the first, additional surveys may more
be undertaken more efficiently in Step 2 or under a Step 1 grant
modification. The goal during Step 1 is to obtain enough information
to allow sound decisions to be made. For example, if the
reconnaissance survey shows that one route clearly avoids more
sensitive areas than another, it would be safe to choose that route
and proceed with the design. While further survey work (Phase 2)
would need to be done during design that might affect the design
itself, the major choice of routes would be correct, supported by
study; the design money would not be risked as in a case where the
choice between the two would be made before any survey and later
studies showed the wrong one had been chosen and designed.
The grantee should meet with the SHPO, find out what information is
already available and whether a reconnaissance survey is required. If
it is required, the grantee (with the assistance of the SHPO) should
develop a scope of work and arrange to have a professional carry it
out. The STATE should review and approve all scopes of work.
10.1.2 Procedures During Step 1
The grantee should send copies of the completed reconnaissance survey
(Phase 1) to the STATE and the SHPO for review. The SHPO will
comment on the adequacy of the report and will: issue a no effect
determination if no properties are identified; advise on further
studies of potential or sensitive areas identified; assist in
applying the criteria of eligiblity to unlisted but valuable
properties; and assist in applying the criteria of effect to
properties on or elgible for the register.
In a case where a determination of eligiblity must be requested, the
STATE should prepare the request but EPA must become involved at that
point. Any correspondence to the Advisory Council must be on EPA
letterhead and signed by EPA, because the January 1979 regulations
(36 CFR 800.4) specify that EPA cannot totally delegate its responsi-
bility for complying with the regulations.
Any further studies recommended by the SHPO should be agreed upon,
undertaken by the grantee, and reviewed as above. As noted before,
some of this work may overlap into Step 2.
July 1980 10:5
-------
Once all the properties on or eligible for inclusion have been
identified, the grantee, in consultation with the SHPO, will apply
the criteria of effect. If there is no effect, the SHPO will
document this. If there is an effect but it is not adverse, the
STATE must prepare the necessary documentation which the SHPO and EPA
will review and send to the Advisory Council. If there is an adverse
effect, the STATE should notify EPA immediately and EPA will consult
with the SHPO and Advisory Council.
10.1.3 ElD Review and Preparation of Preliminary EA by STATE
If’ there are no properties identified or no effect on properties, the
ElD will contain the letters from the SHPO documenting this and the
STATE can simply reflect the no effect in the EA. In other
situations, the STATE and EPA will have been involved to varying
degrees ard more studies may remain to be done by the time the EID is
completed. In these cases, the STATE should review the EID and
Facility Plan to be sure they document that the locations of any
cultural resource properties that were identified or discussed as
potential in the reconnaissance survey were taken into account when
formulating or choosing alternatives. The STATE should then prepare
an EA which discusses the surveys already undertaken and how their
results have affected the project, and discusses any further studies
necessary, when they will be done, and how their results will affect
future action on the project.
10.1.4 EPA Review
EPA must review all the material and be satisifed that enough
information on cultural resources was available to allow sound
planning decisions, that decisions were made taking this information
into account and avoiding the resource where possible, and that any
necessary further surveys will be undertaken and taken into account.
EPA may then issue a FNSI and condition the Step 2 grant to ensure
that the necessary surveys and design adjustments will be made.
In a case where adverse impacts to historic or archaeolcgic
properties cannot be avoided, EPA will consider whether an EIS is
necessary under the criteria of 40 CFR 6.506(s)(5).
Surveys made during Step 2 should be reviewed by the STATE and EPA.
The STATE and EPA should also review the plans and contract
specifications produced during Step 2 to be sure that appropriate
design adjustments have been made before granting any Step 3 funds.
July 1980 10:6
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
10.2 CONTACTS
10.2.1 Federal Agencies
—— Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Thomas King, Director of Cultural Resources Preservation
Jordan Tannenbaum, Chief of’ Eastern Division of Project Review
Sharon Conway, New England Representative
Jill Elmendorf, Staff Archaeologist
202—254-3495
Address: 1522 K Street, N.W.
Washington, 0. C. 20005
10.2.2 State Agencies
List of EPA Region I - Historic Commission Officers
—- John Shannahan, Director and SHPO 203—566—3005
David Poirier, Staff Archaeologist
Connecticut Historical Commission
59 South Prospect Street
Hartford, CT 06106
—— George Gilman, Historic Preservation Officer 603—271—3483 or
Dr. Gary Hume, Staff Archaeologist 603—271—3558
Linda Ray Wilson, Director
New Hampshire Historic Preservation Office
6 Loudon Road
F. 0. Box 856
Concord, N. H. 03301
—— Earle Shettleworth, Jr., Director and SHPC 207—289-2133
Dr. Arthur Spiess, Staff Archaeologist
Maine Historic Preservation Coniniission
242 State Street (mailing address only — State House /65)
Augusta, ME 04333
—— Patricia L. Weslowski, SHPO 617—727—8470
Valerie Talniage, State Archaeologist
Massachusetts Historical Commission
294 Washington Street — 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02180
—— Eric Hertfelder, Deputy SHPO and Director 401—277-2678
Geoffrey Moran, Principal Historic Preservation Planner,
State Archaeologist
Rhode Island Historical Preservation Cornniission
150 Benefit Street
Providence, R.I. 02903
July 1980 10:7
-------
—— William B. Pinney, Deputy SHPO and Director 802—828-3227
Eric Cilbertson, Assistant Director
Giovanna Neudorf’er, State Archaeologist
Division for Historic Preservation
Pavilion Bldg.
Montpelier, VT 05602
10.2.3 Local Historical Society or Historic Commission
10.2.4 SHPO Advisory Services
The following is a comparative statement of the SHPO advisory
services available in the states of EPA’s Region 1.
National Survey
Register Scope of
Properties Work List of Manual of
Listing Preparation Consultants Procedures
CT X Reconnaissance X In Preparation
Survey (Stage I)
x
NH X X X Informal
Archaeological
Sites Listing
at UNH
ME X X X 0
Depending on
scale of project
MA X X X X
RI X X X In Preparation
VT X X X X
X = Present
0 = Absent
10.3 REFERENCES
10.3.1 Distributed to States
-— °ublic Planning and Environmental Review: Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, Office of the Secretary of’ the
Commonwealth, Massachusetts Historical Commission, December 1978.
Contains:
-— National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (FL 89—665, 16 USC
470) as most recently amended.
July 1980 10:8
-------
—— Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures.
“Protection cf Historic and Cultural Properties,” (36 CFR Part
800) in Federal Register , vol. 44, No. 21, Tuesday, January 30,
1979.
—— Executive Order 11593
-— Instructions for Making Requests for Determinations of
Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register Pursuant to
Section 800.4(a)(2) of the Procedures of The Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800) and Section 2(b) of Executive
Order 11593.”
—- EPA Region I Memorandum of’ June 12, 1979 to Construction Grants
Staff.
—— EPA Region I Program Requirements Memorandum of July 2, 1975, PRM
No. 75—27.
July 1980 10:9
-------
National Registry of Natural
Landmarks
-------
NATIONAL REGISTRY OF NATURAL LANDMARKS
11.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORI <
The Historic Sites, Building and Antiquities Act of 1935, a forerunner
of the National Historic Preservation Acts declares...”that it is a
national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings,
and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit
of the people of the United States.”
Under this authority, the Department of the Interior has established
a natural areas program and maintains a “National Registry of Natural
Landmarks.” Agencies... “should take cognizance of the sites included
in the National Registry of Natural Landmarks to fulfill the intent
of Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969”
(Federal Register 4/27/78, page 18050). A “National Heritage Act,”
which would provide stronger protection provisions, is currently
before Congress.
Many states have similar programs for listing outstanding or critical
natural areas.
11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
11.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1
The STATE should maintain an up-to-date list of the areas on the
National Registry of Natural Landmarks. Updated lists are published
periodically in the Federal Register or can be obtained from the HCRS
contact listed below. The STATE should also keep lists of the
properties on their own STATE’S critical or outstanding natural area
programs.
If there is an area on one of these lists within the study area, the
STATE should inform the grantee and his consultant prior to or during
the development of’ the Plan of Study.
11.1.2 Step 1 Procedures
Those developing the facility plan should be aware of the
significance of the natural area and try to avoid formulating any
alternatives which would impact it. The EID should discuss the area
and its significance. Any differential impacts to the area should be
weighed carefully when choosing a preferred alternative.
11.1.3 EID Review and Preparation of Preliminary EA by STATE
The STATE should review the LID to ensure known landmarks are
identified and addressed, and that adverse impacts are avoided or
mitigated. The preliminary EA should discuss the landmarks and
whether or not adverse impacts are anticipated.
July 1980 11:1
-------
11.1.4 EPA Review
EPA should review the preliminary EA. Where no adverse impacts to a
landmark are anticipated, EPA will issue a FNSI. Where adverse
impacts are expected, EPA will determine whether an EIS is necessary
under the criteria of 40 CFR 6.506(a)(5).
11.2 CONTACTS
11.2.1 Federal Agencies
—— Mr. John Bayless
Northeast Region
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
600 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215—597—1577
11.3 REFERENCES
11.3.1 Distributed to States
—— State list of areas currently included in the National Register of
Natural Landmarks.
—— The National Natural Landmarks Program , HCRS Fact Sheet.
—— We Need the National Heritage Act! , American Heritage Alliance
Pamphlet.
July 1980 11:2
-------
N
Cl)
>CD
C)
CD
-I
C l )
Wild & Scenic Rivers Act
-------
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
12.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act establishes a procedure for protecting
outstanding rivers in their “free flowing” condition. Pursuant to
the provisions of the Act, rivers or segments thereof may be desig-
nated for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in
one of’ three classifications, including: wild river areas, scenic
river areas or recreational river areas.
Designation under any of the classifications may be accomplished by
Congressional action or by the Secretary of the Interior, following a
submission by a State Governor.
To assist in determining which rivers should be designated, the
Secretary of Interior, with the assistance of the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS), has been directed to
prepare an inventory of’ candidate rivers. From this list, Congress
may choose to instantly designate a river or may choose to authorize
a further study of a river. In the latter case, the National Park
Service or the Forest Service carries out the study to determine the
advisability of including the river and to devise a management plan.
Based on the report, Congress may then decide to designate the river.
Under the Act, different requirements apply to “designated” rivers,
rivers under “study” and rivers identified in the “inventory.” These
may be summarized as follows:
—— For a “designated” river, no Federally—recommended water resource
project may be authorized which would have a direct and adverse
effect on the values for which the river was established without
advising the Secretary of the Interior (or in the case of’ a river
within a national forest, the Secretary of Agriculture) and
Congress. The Department of the Interior has determined that any
water resource project construction within one—quarter mile or
within the visual field of the river could have a direct and
adverse impact.
—— For a river under “study” the provisions cited above apply for a
three year period following its designation as a potential addition
to the national system unless the Secretary of the Interior or
Secretary of Agriculture makes the determination that the river
under study should not be included in the national wild and scenic
rivers sytem and notice is published in the Federal Register.
—— For a river included in the “inventory” there is no specific
protection mandated by the Act. The President’s Environmental
Message of’ August 2, 1979, however, directs Federal agencies to
avoid or mitigate any adverse impacts on rivers identified in the
inventory.
July 1980 12:1
-------
The Allagash River in Maine is the only designated river and the
Shepaug and Housatonic Rivers in Connecticut and Penoobscot in Maine,
are the only rivers being studied in New England. A significant
number of New England rivers, however, are included in the wild and
scenic inventories completed to date. An updated, consolidated
inventory will be released in the fall of 1980.
It should be noted that one New England state, Massachusetts, has
adopted legislation for its own scenic river designation program.
Connecticut and New Hampshire are considering similar legislation.
Although such designation does not trigger action under the Federal
Act, NEPA requires consideration of any locally significant resources.
12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
12.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1 (See Flow Chart on Following Page)
The STATE should maintain an up—to—date list of the rivers in the
national program and in their state’s program. If there is a river on
one of those lists within the study area, the STATE should inform the
grantee and his consultant prior to or during the development of the
Plan of Study.
12.1.2 Step 1 Procedures
If there is a wild and scenic or recreational river in any status of
consideration within the study area, the EID must describe the
qualities of the river that are the basis of its being considered and
then assess the impacts of the project on those qualities. The
managing agency (for a designated river), the National Park Service
or Forest Service (for a river under study), HCRS (for a river on the
inventory), interested state agencies, and river interest groups are
good sources of information for this. If there are adverse impacts,
the EID must suggest avoidance or mitigation measures to be
incorporated into the facility plan.
12.1.3 EID Review and Preparation of’ Preliminary EA by STATE
The STATE must review the EID to be sure the information relating to
a river’s status and anticipated impacts is adequate.
If there are no adverse impacts, the preliminary environmental
assessment can be prepared, briefly mentioning the river’s status and
explaining why there is no impact. Where adverse impacts cannot be
avoided, the STATE should immediately notify EPA.
12.1.4 EPA Review
When EPA is notified that adverse impacts are anticipated, EPA will
consult with the appropriate agencies and try to resolve the issues.
EPA will also determine whether an EIS is necessary under the
criteria of’ 40 CFR 6.506(a)(5).
July 1980 12:2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
12.2 CONTACTS
12.2.1 Federal Agencies
-- United States Department of the Interior
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
Northeast Region
600 Arch Street
Room 9310
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Glen Eugster — 215-597-7386
Elizabeth Titus — 215-597—1585
12.2.2 State Agencies
The following State agencies generally will have knowledge of or
responsibilities in the area of scenic rivers:
—— Planning and Coast Area Management Division
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Hartford, Connecticut
203-566-7404
—— Office of State Planning
State of New Hampshire
Concord, New Hampshire
603—271—1110
-- Scenic Rivers Program
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
Boston, Massachusetts
617—727—3267
—— Bureau of Parks and Recreation
Department of Conservation
Augusta, Maine
(Administers Allagash Wilderness Waterway)
207-289—3821
-- Environmental Conservation Agency
State of Vermont
Montpelier, Vermont
802-828—3341
—— Department of Environmental Management
State of Rhode Island
Providence, Rhode Islan
401-277—2234
July 1980 12:3
-------
12.3 REFERENCES
12.3.1 Distributed to States
—— Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of’ 1968
—— State by State List of Designated, Studied, and Inventory Rivers
July 1980 12:4
-------
-I
3
CD
I-
C
‘I .
C
Prime Agricultural Lands
-------
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS
1.3.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The legislative and regulatory requirements concerning preservation
of ecologically significant agricultural lands have a brief but
concise history.
Major agency policy statements and regulatory acts are listed below,
followed by a brief description of their content and purpose:
13.0.1 United States Department of Agriculture Secretary’s Memorandum
No. 1827, Supplement 1, Statement of Prime Farmland, Range, and
Forest Land dated June 21, 1976
This memorandum outlines USDA’s concern for the conversion of prime
agricultural lands to other irretrievable uses and sets forth six
policy recommendations to guide the agency’s actions. These policies
place the agency (USDA) in an advocacy position concerning preserva-
tion of prime farmland; make the agency responsible for assuring that
environmental impact statements 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 lands.
13.0.2 Council of Environmental Quality Memorandum for Heads of Agencies -
Subject: Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique Farmland in
Environmental Impact Statements, dated August 30, 1976
This memorandum directs that, in order to comply with NEPA regula-
tions, “Federal agencies should attempt to determine the existence of
prime and unique farmlands in the areas of impact analyzed in environ-
mental impact statements.” Although the memorandum is directed at
EIS, the wording implies that it covers all environmental reviews.
The memorandum further outines procedures for inter-agency contact
and coordination of information exchange.
13.0.3 United States Environmental Protection A 9 ency (EPA), Subject: EPA
Policy to Protect Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands,
dated September 8, 1978
This document’s EPA policy “to protect the nation’s ‘environmentally—
significant’ agricultural land from irreversible conversion to uses
which result in its loss as an environmental or essential food
production resource.”
The policy sets forth specific directives for agency action, which
include:
July 1980 13:1
-------
—— Specific 201 project decisions involved in the planning, design
and construction of sewer interceptors and treatment facilities
shall consider farmland protection.
-— Direct and indirect impacts on agricultural land shall be
determined and mitigation measures recommended in environmental
assessments.
—— Interceptors and collection systems should be located in
environmentally—significant agricultural land only if necessary to
eliminate existing discharges and serve existing habitation.
13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
13.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1 (See Flow Chart on Following Page)
Prior to or during the development of the Plan of Study (P05), the
STATE should make sure that the grantee and its consultant are aware
of the requirements to identify agricultural lands and assess impacts
to them. The STATE should then ensure that this work has been
included in the P05 for projects in areas containing agricultural
lands. The scope of this work item will depend on the amount of
assistance the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) can offer in
identifying lands (see next section).
13.1.2 Step 1 Procedures
If environmentally—significant agricultural lands are present in the
planning area, the ElO should:
-— Identify them by mapping their location, classify them, and
discuss their significance (see discussion below).
—— Assess and evaluate both direct and indirect effects of the
proposed action.
—— Avoid or mitigate those adverse effects identified to the extent
possible, as stated in EPA’s policy to protect environmentally—
significant agricultural land (40 CER 6.302(c)).
In EPA’s policy to protect environmentally—significant agricultural
lands, seven agricultural land types are defined. Types 1—4 are
based on definitions set forth by the U.S.D.A. in (7 CFR Part 657).
Land types 5, 6, and 7 are classified as significant in relation to
their role in an EPA—required program.
Environmentally—significant agricultural lands include:
I. Prime farmland is land with the best combination of character-
istics capable of economically producing sustained high yields of
crops when treated or managed. While based on a variety of site
characteristics, the key to these lands is “high productivity.”
July 1980 13:2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
2. Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used
for production of specific high value food and 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 New England 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
or 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 farmers as a conservation
district.
5. Farmlands in or contiguous to environmentally sensitive areas
(ESI4’s) 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
ESA’s. The lands, in many cases, are categorically included in
land types 1—4. Examples of these lands are found the length of
the Connecticut River Valley, as well as in many other locations.
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. This practice occurs in New England, although to a
lesser degree than other regions of the country.
7. Farmlands with significant capital investments in Best Management
Practices (BMP’s ) 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.
Nationally (through 7 CFR Part 657), the SCS has been charged with
the responsibility of the identificaton and classification of prime
agricultural soils. This assessment work is progressing at varying
rates for each state. Studies are being done in several discrete
geographic areas each year, and complete coverage will not be
attained for many years to come. Therefore, the SCS may or may not
have surveyed agricultural lands in a specific project area. In
cases where SCS has not yet performed studies, EPA can request that
SCS undertake one and SCS will try to fulfill the request.
For maximum efficiency, the STATE should try to coordinate with the
State Conservationist and SCS to:
3uly 1980 13:3
-------
a. Find out where inventories have been completed or are underway
(this will help target areas where prime agricultural lands are
already identified as a concern and will assist grantees in
finding out what work has or hasn’t been done in their study
area); and
b. To try to influence SCS’s sequence of undertaking studies by
making SCS aware of the sequence of’ projects on the 201 priority
list.
13.1.3 Review of ElD and Preparation of’ Preliminary EA by STATE
The STATE will review the EID to make sure that agricultural lands
have been identified, that impacts to them have been adequately
assessed, and that adverse impacts have been avoided or mitigated to
the maximum extent possible.
If significant agricultural lands are present, the preliminary EA
should discuss the extent of direct or indirect impacts to such lands
and propose mitigation measures.
The preliminary EA should also include a determination that intercep-
tors and collection systems, located on environmentally—significant
agricultural lands, are necessary to serve existing habitation or
eliminate existing discharges.
13.1.4 EPA Review
EPA will review the preliminary EA and any other related material.
If no adverse impacts to prime agricultural lands are anticipated,
EPA will issue a FNSI. If significant adverse impacts are antici-
pated, EPA will determine whether an EIS is necessary under the
citeria of’ 40 CFR 6.506(a)(4)(iii-).
13.2 CONTACTS
13.2.1 Federal Agencies
United States Department of’ Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Each New England State has a state—based CS office under charge of
the State Conservationist. Listed below are the proper contacts for
each of’ the State SCS offices.
—— Department of’ Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Mansfield Professonal Park
Route 44A
Storrs, CT 06268
Conservationist: R. C. Haistead
203—429-9361
July 1980 13:4
-------
—— Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
USDA Building
University of’ Maine
Orono, ME 04473
Conservationist: Eddie L. Wood
207-866—2132
—- Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Federal Building
Durham, NH 03824
Conservationist: Donald C. Burbank
603-868—7581
—- Department of’ Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
96 College Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Conservationist: Craig M. Right
802-862—6261
—— Department of’ Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
29 Cottage Street
Amherst, MA 01002
Conservatonist: Benjamin Isgur
413—256—0441
—— Department of’ Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
46 Quaker Lane
West Warwick, RI 02893
Conservationist: Donald McArthur
401-884—9499
13.2.2 State Agencies
Each New England State is serviced by Regional Soil Conservation
Districts, usually broken down on a country—wide basis. Contact the
SCS office above for the appropriate State/Local contact.
13.3 REFERENCES
13.3.1 Distributed to States
— — EPA Policy to Protect Environmentally—Significant Agricultural
Lands , September 8, 1978.
—- Background Paper in Support of’ EPA Policy to Protect
Environmentally—Significant Agricultural Lands , September 8, 1978.
July 1980 13:5
-------
Community Impact Analysis
C)
0
3
>3
C l )
U)3
C)
-------
COMMUNITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
14.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
As part of President Carter’s overall efforts to strengthen existing
urban area economies, reduce suburban sprawl, conserve energy, and
properly target limited funds by making sure federal programs do not
work at cross purposes to each other, the White House issued the
“Community Conservation Guidance” in late 1979. This document
provides procedures for reviewing certain federal actions when an
action is anticipated to result in damaging an existing downtown
commercial area by subsidizing competing development. It provides
that if the chief elected local official of an affected community
outlines his concerns about a specific federal action to the
responsible agency and requests a “Community Impact Analysis” (CIA),
the responsible agency must carry out a study to determine the con-
sequences of the action on the existing business district and on the
community in general. Such a study must be completed within 45 work-
ing days after the official’s request. If the study demonstrates
significant negative consequences, the agency must try to modify the
project or mitigate the adverse impacts.
The guidance specifies that these studies be coordinated with NEPA
requirements whenever possible; it should be stressed that developing
sufficient information on these types of impacts during the NEPA
process could prevent the need for a CIA later.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is overseeing
the implementation of this procedure; they will be preparing the
first O CIA’s nationwide. After that, it is assumed that each
agency will have to make its own arrangements.
14.1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
14.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1
The STATE should make the grantee aware that impacts to any central
business districts are of special concern. If a project has the
potential for allowing commercial development which may compete with
a nearby central business district, the STATE should make sure the
Plan of Study includes a work item to examine the impacts to the
business district in the EID.
14.1.2 Step 1 Procedures
The grantee should explore the possibility of impacts to nearby
central business areas and discuss the subject in the ElD. The
project should be formulated to avoid or mitigate such impacts.
July 1980 14:1
-------
14.1.3 Review of’ EID and Preparation of’ Preliminary EA by STATE
The state should review the EID for adequacy in this area. If
adverse impacts are anticipated despite best efforts to modify the
project to avoid them, the preliminary EA should discuss the problem.
14.1.4 EPA Review
EPA should try to take community impact into account when reviewing
projects for funding and assure that impacts have been avoided or
mitigated to the maximum extent possible. When the preliminary EA
demonstrates this has been achieved, EPA will issue a FNSI. Where
adverse impacts are anticipated, EPA will consider whether an EIS is
necessary under the criteria of 40 CFR 6.506(a)(l).
CIA requests will be to EPA, and EPA will be responsible for
producing the CIA’s.
14.2 CONTACTS
14.2.1 Federal Agencies
—- Robert E. Mendoza
Environmental & Economic Impact Office
EPA, Region I
3. F. K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617—223—3190
—- Marshall Kaplan
Deputy Assistant Secretary of’ Urban Policy
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street
Washington, 0. C. 20410
202-755—6082
14.3 REFERENCES
14.3.1 Distributed to States
—— Community Conservation Guidance, the White House
—— EPA Implementation of President’s Community Conservation Guidance ,
EPA Memo from William N. Hedeman to Regional Administrators,
April 4, 1980.
—— Community Conservation Guidance; Options Paper on Implementation ,
EPA Menio from Tom Sheckells to Distribution List.
July 1980 14:2
-------
Regional Groundwater Policy
-------
C
a.
C)
.,I.
.Q-.
•C)
0)
0
Public Participation Requirements
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS
16.0 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
16.0.1 Februar ’ 16, 1979 40 CFR Part 25 Overall Public Participation
Regulations
On February 16, 1979, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published new regulations in the Federal Register (40 CFR 25) expand-
ing the Agency’s commitment to provide for meaningful public input to
programs carried out under the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking
Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. They replace
existing regulations for public participation in water programs and
interim final regulations for public participation in solid waste
management. The regulations include general provisions which require
open processes of government and efforts to promote public awareness
in the course of making decisions in programs and activities under
the three Acts. Also included are requirements which apply to specific
public participation mechanisms, such as public hearings and advisory
groups. These regulations do not require the use of the specific
mechanisms. The mechanisms must be used only if they are required in
program regulations.
This part sets forth minimum requirements and suggested program
elements for public participation in activities under the above
referenced Acts. The applicability of the requirements of this part
is as follows:
a) Basic requirements and suggested program elements for public
information, public notification and public consultation. These
requirements are intended to foster public awareness and open
processes of government decision—making.
b) Requirements and suggested program elements which govern the
structure of particular public participation mechanisms (for
example, advisory groups and responsiveness summaries). This
part does not mandate the use of these public participation
mechanisms. It does, however, set requirements which those
responsible for implementing the mechanisms must follow if the
mechanisms are required.
c) Requirements which apply to Federal financial assistance programs
(grants and cooperative agreements) under the three acts.
d) Requirements for public involvement which apply to specific
activities such as permit enforcement, rulemaking, and assuring
compliance with requirements.
July 1980 16:1
-------
16.0.2 February 16, 1979 40 CFR Part 35 Public Participation in the
Construction Grants Program
To supplement the part 25 regulations, EPA also published specific
requirements which apply to the construction grants program
(40 CFR 35). These regulations affect all new grants awarded after
February 16, 1979, and some on—going projects which have changed
significantly since the grant was awarded. They provide opportuni-
ties for public interest groups, private citizens, elected officials
and members of the business community to become extensively involved
in the decision—making process during the planning stage, and to a
lesser extent at the design and construction stages. They also afford
an opportunity to grantees to develop an interested and informed
public able to participate in the whole spectrum of water—related
programs. Both the general public participation regulations and the
specific construction grants regulations specify the activities
required for an adequate Public Participation Program.
Prior to the issuance of these regulations, the only public partici-
pation requirement in the development of a Facilities Plan was that a
public hearing must be held on the draft plan. In many cases this
was found to be inadequate as all of’ the major decisions (needs,
proposed alternative, etc.) had already taken place with little or no
public input. Therefore, the new regulations allow the public to get
involved prior to, and all the way through the development of the
facilities plan.
The regulations specify that public participation in that program
applies to development of the state priority system and annual list
of projects designated for tederal funding, to development of plans
for wastewater treatment facilities, to development of user charge
and industrial cost recovery systems, and to the delegation of
administrative responsibilities for the Construction Grants Program
to the states, (a flow chart has been included in this section to
outline P.P. activities in the Construction Grants Program). The
regulations establish a two—tier program of participation (Basic or
Full Scale) in the facility planning process. This allows EPA,
states, and grantees to focus their resources and energies, and those
of participating citizens, on the minority of projects which have the
greatest financial or environmental impacts and which will benefit
most from active community involvements. The regulations contain
fewer public participation requirements for the large majority of
projects expected to be less costly or to have less significant
impacts. The regulations permit the exemption of projects which
involve only minor upgrading of treatment works or minor sewer
rehabilitation from many of the public participation requirements of
these regulations.
Refer to “A Guide for Public Participation in the Planning of
Wastewater Treatment Works in New England,” a copy of which will be
distributed with this manual, for specific details of the Construc-
tion Grant Public Participation requirements.
July 1980 16:2
-------
16.1 ENNIRONMENIAL REVIEW PROCEDURES UNDER 205(g )
16.1.1 Procedures Prior to Step 1 (See Flow Chart on Following Page)
At the pre—application conference, the STATE should make the grantee
aware of the Public Participation (P.P.) requirements. At that time,
the STATE must make a determination as to whether there should be
either a basic or full scale P.P. program during the development of
the Step 1 work, or if the project should be exempt from P.P.
requirements. After this decision has been made, the grantee must
include a “Public Participation Outline” in the Plan of Study which
must be approved by the STATE prior to EPA’s award of a Step 1
grant. The STATE must also ensure that the grantee has “consulted
with the public in the development of the Plan of Study.”
16.1.2 Procedures During Step I
After the Step 1 grant has been made, the STATE is responsible for
the following:
Review and approval of’ the “Public Participation Workplan” which
must be submitted 45 days after the grantee accepts the grant
(this is a detailed outline of the proposed P.P. program)
Review and approval of the proposed “Public Participation
Coordinator” qualifications, duties and expense (Full Scale
Program Only)
Review and approval of the proposed “Citizen Advisory Group”
(Full Scale Only)
Review and aproval of the “First Responsiveness Summary”
submitted after the first public consultation, meeting or workshop
Conduct a “Mid-Course Review”
Review and approval of “Second Responsiveness Summary” submitted
after second public meeting or workshop
Review and approval of “Final Responsiveness Summary” submitted
after the public hearing
Ensure that the Public Participation Program outlined in the
approved Workplan is followed
16.1.3 EID Review and Preparation of Preliminary EA by STATE
For facility plans initiated prior to February 16, 1979, the STATE
must ensure that the public hearing was properly advertised, must
review the transcript of the hearing and any associated letters
received from the public or any State or Federal agencies, and must
July 1980 16:3
-------
summarize this information in Section 6 — Summary of’ Agency and
Public Consultation of’ the EA (see standard format in the manual).
If the project is controversial, there may be a need to initiate an
EIS. Therefore, controversial projects should be discussed with EPA
as soon as possible to determine if’ an EIS is warranted under the
criteria of (40 CFR 6.506(c)).
For Facilities Plans initiated after February 16, 1979, the STATE must
have approved all of the items listed under the Step 1 Procedures.
The STATE must also review the transcript of the public hearing and
any associated letters received from the public or any State or
Federal agencies and summarize this information in Section 6 — Summary
of Agency and Public Consultation of the EA.
Again, if the project is controversial, there may be a need to do an
EIS and in those cases EPA should be consulted as soon as possible.
16.1.4 EPA Review
EPA will review the preliminary EA and any other pertinent
information to determine if the project is controversial. If there
is no controversy, and all of the Public Participation requirements
have been satisified EPA will issue a FNSI.
There is a 30—day comment period, starting from the date of issuance
of the FNSI, in which the public and interested State and Federal
agencies have additional time to comment on the project. Any
comments received by EPA during that time must be addressed prior to
the award of any Step 2 or 2/3 grant. EPA will call upon the STATE
to asist in the development of responses to any comments that are
received.
If significant comments are received, the EA may have to be revised
by the STATE, and EPA will then re—issue the FNSI and another 30—day
comment period must take place prior to EPA taking any further
administrative action.
If, during EPA’s review of the preliminary EA, or upon the receipt of
significant comments during the 30—day comment period it is
determined that the project is controversial, then an EIS may have to
be prepared.
16.2 CONTACTS
16.2.1 Federal Agencies
-— Mr. Paul Pinault
NEPA and Public Participation Coordinator
Municipal Facilities Branch
EPA Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, W 02203
617-223-7213
July 1980 16:4
-------
16.3 REFERENCES
16.3.1 Distributed With the Manual
-— A Guide for Public Participation in the Planning of Wastewater
Treatment Works in New England , EPA REgion I, 1980.
16.3.2 Distributed to States
—— Public Participation in Programs Under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water
Act, CFR 40 Part 25, February 16, 1979.
—— State and Local Assistant Grants for Construction of Treatment
Works , CFR 40 Part 35, February 16, 1979.
July 1980 16:5
-------
Public Participation in the
201 Construction Grants Program
Manda tory
activi ties
Public
Notice
Responsiveness Responsiveness
(Pub. Partic.
Public Responsiveness Fin
Sumary Sumary
Public ‘Outline
ot1ce llncludes
and Pub. Partic.
Fact Sheet Element
Public
ring
Hea
Coordinator Con
Designated] (or
(Advisory
Group
Estabi I shed J
Workplan
I I
sultation Sumary
Meeting]
Responsiveness
Sumary
Mid-Project
Review
I Public
I1ee 1nq
i
Responsiveness
Surm ary
Public
Hearing
‘ir
P u .ot.i.tq
Sy em
Mu or
work tasks
S ta .te
Pn.2oirA j
S.ttp I
PLait o
S .tudq
Pub. Partic. Workplan
In Grant Application
[ If necessary]
I I
Consult with Public
Advisory_Group)
ITt H
Infonn and
Consult with
Public Before
Adoption
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I —
GM,t
Acceptance
A4oe &6
CondLt2ono
V ,te
AUea tive6
Seh ct
AUQAntthvt
Fac.UA2 j
PLan
Adopti on
S ep 2
G’ta,tC
AppUca22on
SLIp 3
Gn.ar L
AppUcati.on
AdopL U4e/t
ChMge and
1ndu4tn. 2
Co6L Recou-
‘W Sq6L s
[ 3 IndIcates activity mandated only for full scale public participation programs
REGION 1 EPA - JULY 1980
-------
CD
(n .
30
CD
3—
Environmental Assessment Format
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORMAT
A. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Project Name:
Address:
Project Location:
EPA Project No.:
B. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The applicant’s facilities plan, environmental information document, all
other supporting documentation (give specific references), and associated
comments submitted in regard to this project have been reviewed, and in
accordance with EPA regulations, the findings of our environmental review
are summarized below.
1. Project Description (See Attached Map(s) )
Describe planning area and outline the proposed project (length and
diameter of’ sewers, and force mains; number, size and location of
pumping stations; location and description of treatment facilties;
alternately, areas where on—site septic system rehabilitation and
cluster systems will be utilized, etc.).
Explain if the project is total, or part of a larger scheme.
Include project duration (i.e. 6 months, 1 year, etc.) and for
segmented projects a schedule for construction.
Population Data — Give initial or existing and design year populations
for the Planning Area and the Service Area and the basis for the
projection. Note conformity with Appendix A of the Construction Grant
Regulations and the approved 208 plan projections. (Should summarize
population information in a table.)
Flow Projections — State existing or initial and design year flows and
conformity with flow projections with Appendix A of’ the Construction
Grant Regulations (may also want to summarize this information in a
table).
2. Purpose and Need
A summary discussion and demonstration of the need for the proposed
facilities in the planning area and how the project will solve the
problem, with particular emphasis on existing public health or pollu-
tion problems that exist, including air, surface water (note water
quality classification) and groundwater, stating their severity and
extent. Outline sources of information used to document the need.
Note conformity with the 303(e) Basin Plan, the NPOES permit and the
208 Plan.
July 1980 17:1
-------
3. Discussion of Alternatives
This discussion shall include a brief description and a comparative
analysis of all the feasible alternatives studied (highlight proposed
alternative), as well as including the no—action alternative, for
wasterwater collection, treatment process, site location, effluent
disposal and sludge dispoal throughout the study area. Land
application alternatives evaluated in accordance with PRM 79—3 must be
fully discussed. The alternatives shall be compared with respect to
capital and operating costs in accordance with Appendix A of the
construction grant regulations (these costs should be summarized in an
appended table).
Discuss significant impacts of alternatives to highlight major
differences between that alternative and the proposed alternative.
If the proposed alternative is not the most cost—effective one,
justify the reason(s) for selecting it.
4. Impact of Proposed Project on the Environment
Point out environmental impacts, with mitigation, for the proposed
project.
a. Direct Impacts
i. Air Quality — SIP Compliance, odors, dust
ii. Water Quality and Quantity
Surface — sedimentation impacts, beneficial quality
improvements.
Groundwater — case I, II, III
iii. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Floodplains and Wetlands (if impacted, prepare “Flood-
plain and/or Wetland Assessment” and a “Statement of
Findings” in accordance with Appendix A of the NEPA
Regulations)
Prime Agricultural Land
Wildlife Habitat
Stream Modification
Section ‘404/10 Evaluation’
July 1980 17:2
-------
iv. Socio—Economic Impacts—costs (State, ENR give total project
cost, eligible project cost (note ineligible items),
estimated grants, local share, cost impact to average
homeowner in accordance with PRM 76—3 and 79—8, include
one—time sewer hook—up charge; employment; multiple—use;
uniform relocation and assistance; parks; legal and
institutional constraints.
v. Historical/Archaeological Sites and National Landmarks
vi. Endangered Species
vii. Coastal Zone Management
viii. Wild & Scenic Rivers
b. Indirect Impacts — deal with population growth and land—use
changes induced over the long-run by the project.
i. Present information on present land use, zoning, etc., and
reference population discussion in item B.l.
ii. Re—examine 4a list for induced impacts in those categories
On a case—by case basis, each project must be evaluated to
determine if there are other pertinent topics or categories that
are worthy of discussion in the environmental assessment.
5. Mitigation of Environmental Impacts
—— Summarize mitigation measures discussed in item 4; expand upon
them by explaining how these will be achieved and monitored
(Special Grant Condition or review of Plans and Specifications).
—— Remember to consider structural and non—structural methods.
6. Summary of Agency & Public Consultation
a. Describe PP efforts briefly (include dates of major public
information meetings and hearings).
b. Describe the public’s significant objections to the proposed
project, if’ any —— discuss how the plan was modified to address
the objections raised, and for outstanding objections, explain why
no changes were deemed necessary.
c. Discuss significant comments received from interested State and
Federal agencies (pro and con) discuss how the plan was modified
to address the objections raised, and for outstanding objections,
explain why no changes were deemed necessary.
7. List of’ agencies and environmental groups consulted in the development
of the Facilities Plan and Environmental Information Document.
July 1980 17:3
------- |