Working for Clean Water
An information Program for Advisory Groups:
What is meant by environment? _
What impacts do water quality projects-
have upon the environment?
What are the contents of an environmental assessment?
What role does it play in planning?
How can advisory groups participate
in environmental analyses?
Citizen Handbook
-------
-------
Thisprogram was prepared by
The Pennsylvania State University
Institute of State & Regional
Affairs
Middletown, PA 17O57
Dr. Charles A. Cole -
Project Director
Dr. E. Drannon Buskirk, Jr.
Project Co-Director
Prof. 1.orna Chr. Stoltzfua -
Editor
This unit was prepared by
E. Drannon Buskirk, Jr.
Aduiso!y Team for the Project - -
David Elkinton, State of West
Virginia
Steve Prislunan, private citizen
Michele Frome private citizen
John Hammonã, private citizen
Joan Jurancich, State of California
Richard Hetherington, EPA
RegionlO -
Rosemary Henderson, EPA
Region 6
George Hoessel, EPA Region 3
George News,- EPA Region 5—
Ray Pfortner, EPA-Region 2
Paul Pinault, EPA Region I -
- Earlene Wilson EPA Region 7
Dan Burrows, PA Headquarters
Ben ,Gryctko, EPA Headquñrters
• Robert Hardaker, EPA -
HeadQuarters -_ -
çharlesi uff , EPA .
- Headquarters’
Steve Maier, EP Headquarters
• -
EPA Ptoject Officer -
- Barry H. Jordan- - ‘
Office of Water-Programs
Operations
Ackn*wledgeinents -
Typists:
Ann Kirsch, Jan Russ, Tess
Startoni
Student Assistants: --- , -
Fran Costanzi, Kathy DeBatt;
Michael Lapano, Mike Moulds,
- Terry Switzer
Illustrator. -
Charles Speers
Graphics support was provided by
the Office of Public Awareness,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Photographs were provided by E.
Drannon Buskirk, Jr. and USDA -
Soil Conservation Service.
-------
Environmental Assessment
Focus on Environment
In many parts of the country, surface
waters are cleaner today than they were
just a decade ago. Fish are returning to
once-polluted streams. Community pride in
water resources is on the upswing.
Although the work for clean water is far
from over, things are better in many
places. All this was accomplished while
population grew, and pollution continued.
What turned the situation around? It is
mainly a matter of environmental
awareness, and careful consideration of the
environmental effects of plans.
What is meant by environment? How is it
involved in planning? Where do citizens fit
in?
Environment is a word of many meanings.
For the interior decorator it means
household furnishings. To urban dwellers
it includes skyscrapers. For some persons it
is the natural world of plants and animals.
These diverse viewpoints have one thing in
common—surroundings. Environment
means surroundings. In water resource
planning, environment includes natural
elements such as water and wildlife, and
economic and social features such as
employment and housing. Meaningful
water resource planning thus involves just
about everything. Economic matters alone
are not enough.
Including environmental considerations in
water resource planning has several
benefits:
• Incorporation of environmental values in
decisions
• Protection of cultural, historical, and
natural resources
• Broad basis for determining the costs and
tradeoffs of proposed projects.
Besides, it is the law!
Regulations of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
call for the consideration of the
environmental effects of certain projects
and programs in water resource planning.
These regulations apply to efforts such as
201 local facilities plans, and 208 water
quality management plans (The numbers
refer to sections of the Clean Water Act).
Facility Planning
In planning local wastewater management
facilities, an environmental information
document describing the environmental
effects of proposed actions is prepared by
the grantee or similar agency. The EPA
then evaluates this information for
environmental impacts, and ways of
avoiding or minimizing the adverse effects
of the actions. The resulting public
document, called anenvironmental
assessment, provides data and analyses on
the significance of the environmental
impacts. If no significant adverse impacts
are anticipated, the EPA issues a Finding
of No Significant Impact. However, if
significant impacts are possible, and they
cannot be sufficiently reduced or
eliminated, an environmental impact
statement is prepared and released. The
impact statement is a report which
identifies and analyzes in detail the
environmental impacts of proposed actions
and feasible alternatives. The statement
differs from the environmental assessment
in the level of detail and in the scope of
analysis; it is more comprehensive than an
environmental assessment, and
concentrates upon areas with potential for
significant environmental degradation.
Impact statements are prepared when the
wast.ewater facilities will induce significant
changes in land uses, will seriously impair
air or water quality, or will adversely
affect other resources.
1
-------
An overwhelming majority of the
assessments report no significant adverse
impacts. Fewer than ten percent of the
facility plans result in impact statements.
Increasingly, however, the EPA and/or the
public have been challenging the
environmental findings because of
inadequate analysis, or the insufficient
documentation of community needs. These
controversies can delay facility planning
for a year or more. In several regions such
as New England, some impact statements
are prepared concurrently with the facility
plans. While the impact statement must be
complete before the facility plan can be
approved, this cpiggybacking approach
can avoid the delay inherent in doing the
two separately.
Water Quality Managemetit
Planning
In water quality management (WQM)
planning, environmental information also
is used in shaping alternatives. However, a
separate report such as the environmental
information document is not prepared
during or after the WQM plan is
completed. The environmental information
is included with the plan itself. The final
form of this data is determined by the state
or areawide planning agency, and the EPA
regional office.
After the plan is submitted, the EPA
reviews the environmental findings to
determine whether an impact statement is
necessary. If a significant adverse
environmental impact is likely to occur, a
draft statement is prepared by the EPA,
and is distributed to interested or affected
groups. After these recipients have had
time to comment, a final statement is
prepared incorporating their comments.
State and areawide water quality
management plans seldom need
environmental impact statements.
Elements of Environmental
Assessment
Although the environmental information of
WQM and facility plans may be reported
differently, the contents are essentially tli
same. Together with a list of information
sources, the environmental information
includes:
• Description of current and future
environment, without the implementation
of a plan
• Evaluation of alternative plans
• Discussion of environmental
consequences
• Description of measures to mitigate or
minimize adverse effects.
These aspects, in general, apply to both
WQM and facilities planning.
Description of Current
Environment
Knowledge of the existing environment is
important for identifying water quality
problems and for comparing alternative
plans. In describing the current situation,
analysts look at natural resources such as
water quality, cultural features such as
population, and environmentally-sensitive
areas such as wetlands. However, this is
not just a straightforward data-gathering
exercise. Environmental information
missed or misinterpreted may substantially
affect the planning outcome.
Advisory groups can monitor the
current situation by seeking answers to
questions such as:
• Have the environmental aspects of
existing water quality problems, from
both point and nonpoint sources, beer
sufficiently and accurately identified?
• Are existing population and land use
data properly assessed?
• Have all environmentally-sensitive
areas been identified?
• Are the boundaries and criteria of
the analysis realistic?
• Do the methods of data collection
make sense?
Finding of
No Significant
Impact
Imentatuon
2
-------
A basic concern is the accuracy and scope
of the data. Careful attention to study
boundaries and assessment criteria can
minimize these difficulties.
Study Boundaries
Boundaries refer both to the geographical
area, and the type and degree of topics that
make up the studies. The geographical
area must be large enough to assess all
potential environmental impacts of any
wastewater treatment alternatives or
water quality management plans. It must,
for example, include the entire area that
might receive growth induced by water
projects. Similarly, it must be large enough
so that cost-effective alternatives can be
considered. Since boundary selection often
crosses town borders, especially in WQM
planning, political and legal tugs-of-war
may occur among communities. This
conflict can be held to a minimum by the
selection of advisory group members who
represent the relevant interests of
participating communities.
Another type of planning boundary is the
subject matter or scope of studies.
Although the EPA regulations call for
certain analyses such as population
projections, other factors not explicitly
named should be studied. For example, in
some areas the ethnic composition and
location of.the residents may be just as
important as overall population size.
Since the advisory group is especially
sensitive to local concerns and values,
its perspectives can be invaluable in
setting the course of these planning
studies.
Assessment Criteria
Criteria, the guidelines for making
decisions, need explicit attention in
environmental studies. The use of
appropriate criteria throughout the
planning process — from data collection to
plan selection — is extremely important.
Some criteria, such as those for
cost-effectiveness analysis, are given in the
regulations. However, others such as those
for data collection are not drawn out.
Sometimes, in a rush to get the work done,
poor data measures are adopted andlor the
reasons for their selection are not given. A
remedy for this situation is having
measures that fit the subjects. For
example, quantitative measures are often
inappropriate for assessing aesthetics. Yet,
some analysts compare all factors,
including aesthetics, on a numerical basis.
It is neither the role nor the function of
advisory groups to make such
analyses. This work is best left to the
consultants and planning staff.
However, advisory groups have a
responsibility to know how data is
being collected, analyzed, and
interpreted. They should be told why
certain assessment approaches were
chosen, why others were ruled out, and
what ramifications these choices have
for the community. Since all planning
is based upon data, advisory groups
must see that the methods of data
collection make sense.
Description of Future Environment
Many WQM and facility plans propose
reasonable solutions to managing water
quality and disposing of wastewater.
However, some plans have resulted in
economically and socially burdensome
projects. A major shortcoming has been the
identification of water quality and
wastewater management needs, especially
future needs. This aspect of environmental
analysis, the determination of the future
situation both with and without plans, is a
weakness of the assessment process.
Compared to the effort spent compiling an
inventory of the present situation, too little
attention is often given to future
conditions. Projection methods may be
inadequate. For example, an
environmental assessment of a proposed
wastewater project in central Pennsylvania
stated that sewer construction alongside a
trout stream would result in
sedimentation. No estimates were given of
the amount of sedimentation or its effects
on fish, water quality, and aquatic
productivity. In this instance, the
description of the future environment was
clearly inadequate. However, the extent of
these studies depends, in part, upon the
anticipated impacts and their value to the
community. Every aspect cannot be studied
to the last degree. Just as decisions must
be made on the scope of studies, similar
decisions must be reached on the extent of
the assessments.
3
-------
Advisory groups, sensitive to
community concerns, can help decision
makers make judgments about the
resources that are committed to an
environmental assessment. Factors that
are complex or important usually will
need more effort spent on the
assessment. One factor in water quality
planning that is particularly significant
is the size of the future population.
Population Estimates
Most water quality difficulties are caused
by human actions. Many problems such as
urban runoff and wastewater production
are often in direct proportion to the
number of people. Therefore, accurate
population estimate are essential in
assessing the future situation.
To avoid unneeded wastewater treatment
capacity, or construction that induces
undesired growth, the EPA has guidelines
for making population estimates. The EPA
requires that population estimates for each
facility planning area be consistent with
the national and state estimates. The state
water quality agency, working with WQM
pianning agencies or other regional
agencies, will break down the state
population estimates into regional
projections. Numerous facility plans may
fit into these projections.
Maine. A 208 water quality analysis and
population projection identified
eutrophication from phosphorus enrichment
as a potential threat to Lake Maranacook,
which borders Readfleld. Agriculture,
failing septic systems, and stormwater
runoff were found to be the sources of this
nonpoint source pollution.
Various analysis approaches at the local
level may be used, including extrapolations
of past growth trends, estimations
according to population age groups, and
even forecasts based upon business
activities. However, the approach that is
adopted must make sense. Its results must
be consistent with the overall estimates for
the state and water quality planning area.
Any deviance from these projections, as
might occur from an unanticipated influx
of immigrants, must be thoroughly
justified by the planning agency.
A few questions appropriate for
describing the future environment
include:
• Can current and past trends be
expected to continue into the future?
• Are the projections of population,
stormwater runoff, and similar
considerations realistic?
• Are any potentially significant facton
excluded from the assessment?
• Have sufficient resources been
allocated for studying important
issues?
These descriptions of current and future
environments provide a basis for
evaluating water quality and wastewater
management alternatives.
Evaluation of Alternatives
The environmental assessment is used foi
comparing alternatives, and selecting the
final plan. An array of possibilities is
usually considered. Alternatives are
screened based upon monetary costs,
environmental effects, and physical, leg&
or institutional constraints. Alternative
actions include: structural approaches sw
as wastewater treatment plants, and
sediment basins for stormwater runoff;
nonstructural measures such as land use
ordinances, and changed operation and
management for improved wastewater
treatment efficiency. In fact, the EPA
regulations for facility planning call for
analyses involving:
• Flow and waste reduction measures
through water conservation and control ol
infiltration/inflow
• Alternative locations, capacities, and
phasing of facilities construction
• Alternative waste treatment and sludge
management techniques
• Improved operation and management
efficiency
• Energy reduction
• Multiple use of treatment facilities for
activities such as education and recreation
A wide range of alternatives is also
considered in WQM planning. A major
thrust of the WQM program is the
Testing water quality.
4
-------
development of Best Management Practices
for preventing or abating pollution from
nonpoint sources. Methods such as street
sweeping and sediment detention basins
are being studied at dozens of test sites
around the country. These results should
be available by the end of 1983, or sooner.
In focusing upon the benefits, drawbacks,
and risks of each alternative, it is easy to
lose sight of broad relationships and
cumulative, long-term effects. Similarly,
the tradeoffs between short-term gains and
long-term losses should be explored. For
example, disruptions during a construction
project should be compared with the
probable impacts of induced growth and
community development. The extent to
which a proposed plan would foreclose
future options should be discussed.
Pennsylvania. The potential loss of
wilderness near Philadelphia due to a
proposed interceptor project was worth $9
million. The foregone benefits made a
competing spray irrigation alternative much
more cost effective.
The evaluation of alternatives shows that
different kinds of impacts occur at various
points in time.
Discussion of Environmental
Consequences
The environmental assessment of a WQM
or facility plan involves many facets.
Although the required content of the
assessment is given in EPA regulations,
the relative emphasis placed upon different
elements varies from place to place, and
changes from time to time. These impacts
occur in different ways.
Primary Impacts
Effects directly related to the location,
construction, and operation of projects or
programs are considered primary impacts.
They can be either beneficial (positive) or
adverse (negative). At the local level,
primary beneficial impacts include the
removal of disease-causing organisms from
wastewater, and the reclamation of poor
soils by application of sludge. Negative
impacts may include the noise and soil
erosion which occur during sewer
excavation. Impacts of WQM efforts may
be less obvious, but are still important.
Destruction of open space, loss of wildlife
habitats, and the transfer of wastes out of
an area can be problems of regional
significance. Beneficial primary impacts of
WQM plans include reduced costs through
shared facilities, and expanded multiple
use opportunities.
Direct impacts are interrelated. If
environmental disruption is to be held to a
minimum, or costs are to be kept low, a
water quality project often should be built
within or adjacent to a developed area.
However, the aesthetics will suffer because
of the siting: unsightly construction, noise,
and traffic disruption as a treatment plant
is built; other problems such as odors may
exist after construction is completed.
California. Planners in Monterey faced an
impacts tradeoff. The only available sites
for a wastewater treatment plant were on
prime farmland — a principal source of
artichokes for the nation. In the end,
agriculture was forced to move to less
desirable land.
The primary impact is important, but
another kind of impact may be even more
significant, especially for WQM plans.
Secondary Impacts
Indirect effects that are induced by a
program or project are called secondary
impacts. They involve the subtle, often
long-term, changes in location, density,
timing, and type of development brought
about by the construction of treatment
facilities. Impacts on population, economic
growth, land use, and the environment are
the main areas of concern. For example, in
many areas the siting of sewers and
treatment plants directly influences the
location of growth within a region.
Secondary environmental impacts from
growth and sprawl are numerous. New
suburbs, shopping centers, industrial
parks, and recreation centers may consume
excessive energy, and generate air
pollution from traffic. Newly built-up areas
also contribute to stormwater runoff and
nonpoint source pollution. Facilities may
induce unwanted urban development that
infringes on open space, recreational areas,
Eroding stream bank.
5
-------
Mitigation of Impacts
historical sites, or agricultural lands. The
scenic character or ethnic makeup of an
area can be disrupted by the forces of
growth. For example, sewering usually
permits dense development such as
high-rises and townhouses. The type and
quantity of housing in an area, as well as
the people who can afford it, may change
as an indirect result of treatment facilities.
Some secondary impacts are singled out for
special attention by federal law. They
include construction in wetlands,
destruction of habitats for endangered
species, development in flood-prone areas,
and degraded air quality in certain
geographical areas. Other impacts such as
steep slopes may be of special concern to
states or communities.
In evaluating the alternatives, and
describing their environmental
consequences, several questions are
appropriate:
• Is a full range of realistic alternatives
— both structural and nonstructural
types — evaluated?
• Are the alternatives consistent with
the values of the community?
• Does the evaluation consider
short-run and long-term tradeoffs, and
irreversible commitments of resources?
• Are all potentially significant impacts
— both primary and secondary —
included in the analysis?
An appropriate followup to assessing
impacts is studying ways to mitigate
(remedy) the adverse effects of alternative
plans. In fact, the consideration of
mitigating measures is required under the
EPA regulations.
Most primary or secondary impacts are
mitigated by several measures. Yet, both
the measures and the local situations vary
It is important to select the measure that
best meets the needs of a particular area of
the community.
Several questions should be considere
in selecting mitigation methods:
• What mitigation techniques are
available?
• Hosi feasible are these measures?
• Who will be responsible for their
implementation and enforcement?
Technique Availability
Primary impacts such as erosion,
sedimentation, and noise are generally
short-term impacts. They are relatively
easy to mitigate through site planning,
control of construction activities, and
facility operations or program -
management.
• Secondary Impacts of Sewers
6
-------
These problems can be kept to a minimum,
in part, through thoughtful site selection
and working with, rather than against,
environmental constraints such as limited
terrain. An example of mitigative site
planning is the use of vegetation as a
visual screen, or as a buffer against
nonpoint source pollution. Another -
strategy is the control of construction
impacts through measures such as
restoring disturbed soils immediately, and
continually cleaning up debris. An
additional approach involves proper
operating procedures, such as adequate
treatment and disposal of sludge to
minimize odors.
Wisconsin. The Dane County Regional
Planning Commission, through its WQM
program and the local Soil and Water
Conservation District, developed an effective
agricultural nonpoint source control
program. Using cost sharing, techniques
such as minimum tillage and stream bank
fencing were emphasized.
Secondary impacts can have long-term
consequences that often are difficult to
predict and correct. Efforts to control them
are relatively recent. The EPA has
identified a range of possibilities for
dealing with sdcondary impacts. The list
includes: project changes such as a
reduction in treatment plant capacity; land
use regulations such as zoning and
subdivision ordinances to protect water
quality; restrictions on the number and
type of sewer hook-ups. A more
controversial approach for mitigating
adverse impacts involves multiple use
activities, such as wastewater treatment
facilities used for recreational purposes.
Adoption Feasibility
Identifying possible techniques is only the
initial step. Just as important is the
feasibility of implementing a particular
mitigation measure. Especially difficult are
adverse secondary impacts that are not
easily mitigated through technological
fixes. Land use controls such as zoning and
floodplain ordinances are usually needed.
Communities concerned with stimulating
economic development may be
unresponsive to land use controls. Even the
local land use plans may be inadequate for
particular mitigation measures. Therefore,
plans and enforcement should be reviewed
carefully to determine their effectiveness
and feasibility for various mitigation
measures. Two other important factors are
monetary cost and timing.
A major consideration is the cost to the
community of implementing a technique.
Some measures, such as the reduction of a
service area, may actually bring down
project costs. Others, such as using existing
trees for screening, may have no effect on
cost. For the community, grant-eligible
expenditures are as important as the total
costs. Some mitigating actions, such as
extending an outfall an extra 100 yards,
may make the item grant eligible.
Measures that are considered innovative or
alternative technologies can reduce the
local share of design and construction costs
by forty percent! However, some mitigating
costs, such as acquiring wetlands to
discourage future development, may not be
eligible for federal grants.
Timing is also a key element in
implementation. Mitigation measures
should be considered early in the planning
process, soon after impacts are identified.
Once the engineering designs are
completed, or construction is underway, it
may be extremely difficult to make
changes.
Implementation and Enforcement
Responsibility
An equally important matter is who will
have the responsibility for implementing
mitigation measures. The planning agency
must have the capacity to coordinate the
efforts of the many organizations and
individuals that are involved. For example,
the facility contractor may build erosion
and sediment control structures such as
detention basins. However, an official
usually conducts an inspection. The
planning agency itself may be responsible
foi ongoing maintenance. The local
government generally has the
responsibility of implementing land use
controls.
7
-------
Advisory Group Activities
California. A facilities plan for North
Monterey called for the mitigation of
construction, operation, and growth-related
impacts. Over 16 agencies and
organizations were identified for possible
implementation roles.
In facilities planning, the grant recipient
must demonstrate that it has the necessary
legal, institutional, financial, and
managerial resources to carry out
construction, operation, and management
— and mitigation of primary and
secondary impacts. However, areawide and
regional arrangements may be
troublesome. One community or
organization may be planning on the
behalf of several others. Since several
jurisdictions are involved, no single local
organization may have the authority to
implement mitigation measures outside its
own area. Or, it may be a special agency
with powers too limited to carry out
mitigation projects. Therefore, this
situation may require an
interjurisdictional authority with powers
for implementing mitigation measures.
Although the local agency executes the
mitigating actions, the EPA has the
ultimate responsibility to make sure that
appropriate measures are adopted. This is
done by monitoring the planning process.
Environmental Assessment
in the Planning Process
All planning, even water quality planning,
has similar events. They include:
• Identifying problems
• Establishing goals and objeciivi
• Compiling data
• Developing and evaluating alternatives
• Selecting a plan
• Implementing and revising the plan.
WQM and facilities planning differ
primarily in subject scope, level of detail,
and regulatory requirements.
Environmental inputs are dealt with
throughout the planning process. In facili
planning, perhaps even before the advisoi
group is formed, it is important to discuss
potential impacts at the preapplication
conference. Activity at this point shows
local interest, and starts planners thinkir
about impacts and mitigation measures.
Early in the planning process, goals are
established and data is collected. Advisor:.
groups can address these concerns by
putting environmental issues on meeting
agendas. Advisory groups can consult wit
their constituents, and communicate the
values and opinions of the public to the
planners. Frequent news releases about
environmental aspects can interest the
community in water projects, and establisn
on-going support. Fact sheets about
programs or projects can be released to U]
public at the beginning of the process.
These sheets can be used to point out
environmental issues.
Advisory groups can be actively involved
in developing and evaluating alternatives.
Subcommittees can be formed to study
various aspects, especially from the
perspective of the local interests. Resource
specialists such as soil conservationists cer
be invited to contribute their expertise to
advisory group discussions. In facilities
planning, the grantee is required to help
identify these parties. This is also a time
for assessing mitigation measures.
Advisory group members and the public
can take tours of existing facilities to
observe mitigation techniques in operatic
Informational meetings are especially
appropriate for the plan selection, and th
needs assessment early in the process.
They present an opportunity to make
environmental tradeoffs known to the
public, and to hold planners accountable
for their analyses.
Advisory group members should encourage
planners to present data and findings in
ways that are relevant to the audience.
Charts and pie graphs may appeal to the
general public, while tables of data are
more appropriate for technicians. Aécoun
sheeS may be an effective way for
displaying environmental, economic, and
social impacts. Similarly, reports can be
written with different levels of detail or
8
-------
summarized for communication with all
interests in the community. Tradeoffs
should be explained in common terms, such
as the effect of the project on the local tax
rate, or the project compared with other
expenditures such as a new school. It must
be made easy for people to compare
proposals and tradeoffs.
The review of final plans and specifications
offer additional opportunities for the
consideration of environmental issues. In
facilities planning, impact mitigation can
be made a condition for design and
construction grants.
Texas. The North Central Texas Council of
Governments in the Dallas-Fort Worth area
is incorporating water quality into
comprehensive planning and development
for the region. It consolidates input from
several technical committees into a
Preferred Regional Development Program.
This program integrates five areas:
transportation, sewage, water supply,
housing, and land use.
Place in the Planning Process
Some persons think that the
environmental assessment should be
limited to the latter part of the planning
process, and handled as a task apart from
other planning functions. This can result
in plans that overlook environmental
issues, and cause subsequent
implementation problems. The EPA
inadvertently encourages this practice,
requiring the submission of the
environmental information document
separate from the facilities plan.
Proper water quality planning is a
back-and-forth process. The assessment of
current and future situations goes into the
development of alternative plans. The
evaluation of these alternatives, in turn,
often leads to further studies of the future,
and so on. Similarly, the environmental
assessment proceeds concurrently with all
steps in the planning process.
Natural features
Environmental Factors in
Surface and groundwater quality
Hydrology and water supply
Planning
Cultural factors
Air quality
Soils and topography
Population -
Plant and animal communities
Housing
Sensitive areas
Noise and odors
Employment
Transportation
Solid wastes
Energy resources
Land use
Historical sites.
EndangeredS ’es
Flood plaIns
Wetlands
Coastal es
Wild and scêrt1c,c ver
Agrlcu iUrai are s
Earthquake zones
Steep slopes
Recreation and open space
Aesthetics
9
-------
Advisory Group Activities
Assess
current
situation
r
Assess
future
situation
Identify
alternatives
Conduct
environmental
assessment
Select
alternative
I Put environmental issues on agendas
of meetings
Consult with public on the local goals,
values, and resources; communicate
findings to planners
I Circulate fact sheet about program or
project
Raise environmental concerns with the
I public; arrange for presentations to key
constituents
I Visit facilities with mitigation measures
I Invite resource specialists and other
interests to participate in studies
I Make detailed environmental analysis
4 Advise on data format for the public
I Survey constituents about impacts and
tradeoffs
I Put environmental assessment on the
agendas of public meetings
I Review the consideration of mitigation
techniques -
Define
water quality
problems
Identify
constraints and
priorities
Determine
solutions
Develop -
alternatives
Evaluate
alternatives
Sél’eót. :
- .plmn -
• •.••. • .,•- S. .,
‘S ‘S% -
‘ implement
and revise
plan •
Facilities
Planning
State and Areawid
Planning
Evaluate
cost
effectiveness
Design
and construct
project
10
-------
Main Points
Because environment means surroundings,
the word has different connotations for
various persons. To the EPA it means just
about everything. Environmental
assessments in water quality planning,
therefore, evaluate jobs, housing, and
aesthetics, as well as water quality,
animals, and other natural resources. In
water quality planning, environmental
factors are as important as monetary costs.
Environmental information documents are
prepared for all facilities plans. Impact
statements are done only if projects are
controversial, are expected to have
significant impacts, or other circumstances
warrant additional studies. Water Quality
Management planning is also subject to
the environmental assessment process, but
WQM plans seldom need an impact
statement.
Programs have different regulations, and
different terms describe the assessment
steps. However, the environmental
assessment involves the same basic
elements: description of current and future
environments; evaluation of alternative
plans; discussion of environmental
consequences; description of measures to
mitigate or minimize adverse effects.
Impacts can be either beneficial (positive)
or harmful (negative). They also are
classified as either primary or secondary,
terms which do not reflect their
importance, but show their relationships to
actions. Primary impacts are due directly
to a project or program. Secondary effects,
such as growth, are induced or caused
indirectly by a project.
Successful projects require the mitigation
of adverse impacts. The choice of
mitigation measures depends upon
technique availability, implementation
feasibility, and enforcement responsibility.
Secondary impacts are generally more
difficult to mitigate.
WQM and facilities planning programs
have different specific requirements, but
they have the same basic planning
elements. Both involve: identifying
problems; establishing goals and objectives;
compiling data; developing and evaluating
alternatives; selecting a plan;
implementing and revising the plan.
Advisory groups can ensure that
environmental aspects are considered
throughout the planning process. Meetings,
public hearings, fact sheets, project
reviews, and other occasions are
opportunities for citizen involvement.
Maximum information exchange between
the planners and the public requires
different kinds of communication
approaches for the diverse public and
discussions in common terms.
plays a key ,.ok in soil
conser ation plan fling.
11
-------
Case Study
Mitigating Growth Impacts and
Protecting Wetlands
Block Island, Rhode Island
Adapted from Municipal Wastewater Management- Citizen’s Guide to
Facility Planning, by Clem L Rastatter, editor. Washington, DC- U.S
Enuironmentaf Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations,
January 1979
Block Island is a small island located roughly ten miles off
the coast of Rhode Island. It SUpports a small year-round
population of about 500 residents. During the summer, the
resident population increases to 1,700, and on a typical
summer day another 1,000 - 2,000 tourists may be visiting
the island.
Development on the island has been concentrated in the
Old Harbor area. Hotels, inns, rooming houses,
restaurants, and shops are clustered along the old
harborfront. To the northwest, more recent development
has taken place in the New Harbor area. The remainder
of the island is largely open heath, pasture, numerous
ponds, and inland wetlands. Of the island’s nearly 7,000
acres, over 5,000 are in heath and open pasture, and
another 1,000 acres are in water and wetland.
In 1972, the island adopted a comprehensive development
plan. The goals and policies outlined in the plan include
protecting environmentally sensitive lands and natural
areas, preserving the rural New England character of the
island, and confining development to lands with soils
suitable for septic tanks. In 1973, the township updated
its 1967 zoning ordinance to conform with the new plan,
and to ensure the protection of wetlands, ponds, and
streams.
The Problem
Until the late 1960’s, the primary wastewater disposal
method on the island was onsite sewage systems, usually
with the direct discharge of raw wastewater into the
ocean. In the early 1970’s, a ban on raw ocean discharge
caused a switch to subsurface disposaL
The high density in the Old and New Harbor areas,
however, did not allow enough land for adequate
subsurface disposal, particularly during the peak summer
season. New construction, which was increasing at the
time, placed additional strain on the capacity of the soils.
As a result, many onsite systems failed, creating a
situation that was aesthetically displeasing to the
residents. It also represented a potential community
health hazard.
Proposed Solution
Because of the serious sewage disposal problems, island
officials hired a consulting engineering firm to study the
situation, and develop tentative plans fora municipal
collection and treatment system. Next, the township
began application proceedings for federal aid. It then
contracted with the same engineering firm to design,
supervise construction, and start operation of the
recommended waste disposal system.
The initial plan called for the construction of a secondary
wastewater treatment plant, sewers, and an outfall off th
breakwater near Old Harbor. The system (0.28 mgd) was
designed to initially serve both the Old and New Harbor
areas, with provisions to serve the area south of Old
Harbor in the future.
Based on the environmental assessment, the EPA issued
Finding of No Significant Impact. However, in six montbs
the project had become the subject of serious public
controversy. Citizens discovered that the project would
cost $2.6 million more than was originally estimated. It
would also have serious growth implications for their
community. The EPA Regional Office, recognizing the
serious nature of the community concerns, reversed its
decision and decided to prepare an environmental impact
statement.
Issues Raised
Both the draft and final environmental impact statement
discussed in some detail the project’s possible secondary
land use impacts. Based on the experience of other island
resort communites, and depending on the demand for
zoning changes and expanded treatment capacity, the
statement warned that the following secondary impacts
could result:
• Develop resorts and residences on wetlands, shorelines,
and flood-prone areas
• Facilitate condominium and high-density residential
development on the extensive open moors
• Intrude upon the character of open space, especially the
view of Great Salt P nd and Block Island Sound
12
-------
;fl4
• Degrade water quality through runoff from additional
paved and impermeable surfaces, through erosion and
sedimentation associated with construction activities, and
through solid waste-septage disposal and septic systems
• Increase noise levels through additional vehicles,
lawnmowers, and human activities
• Degrade air quality through additional motor vehicles
and power boats
• Disturb the fragile ecosystems of marshes, dunes, and
upland plant and animal associations.
The Alternatives
The proposed project alternatives were carefully analyzed
to ensure that an extreme growth situation would not
occur, and that the severe secondary impacts would be
avoided. The analysis concentrated on what were
considered the four most practical choices.
Alternative A. Construction of a treatment facility and
collection system to serve the Old and New Harbor
sections of the island, with provisions to serve the area
south of Old Harbor in the future
Alternative B. Construction of the project without
provsons for sewering the area south of Old Harbor in
thefuture
Alternative C. No sewer construction, but a
comprehensive program for rehabilitating individual
septic systems
Alternative D. Construction of a treatment facility and
collection system for the Old Harbor area only, with
rehabilitation of individual septic systems in the New
Harbor area.
CONN MASS
Block Island
Block Island
Rhode Island
Environmentally.
sensitive area
High water Iin
13
-------
The draft impact statement recommended against
allowing thesituation to remain unchanged (a “do
nothing” alternative), and against trying to solve the
problem simply by upgrading existing individual septic
systems (Alternative C). Also rejected was the original
proposal (Alternative A), which was about to be enacted
when the citizens raised their protests. This alternative
was eliminated because wetlands and other
environmentally-sensitive areas made up a large portion
of the area proposed for future sewers. The draft impact
statement recommended alternatives B and D.
Of these two recommended alternatives, the draft
statement favored Alternative D. Pressures for induced
growth would be minimized, particularly along the strip
between the two harbors. However, due to the insistence
by the Rhode Island Department of Health that septic
systems could not be made adequate in the New Harbor
area, the final environmental impact statement
recommended Alternative B. It also advocated that both
commercial areas be served by public sewers, rather than
the Old Harbor area alone.
Mitigation Measures
Scaling down the original project design was the first
mitigating measure. Eliminating Alternative A reducec
the size of the service area. This meant that the project
would not induce growth on wetlands and other
environmentally-sensitive lands south of Old Harbor.
The second mitigating measure involved a specific
directive to protect wetlands on the periphery of the two
harbors, and lands adjacent to interceptors carrying
wastes from the New Harbor to the treatment plant in
Old Harbor.
The EPA attached a condition to the facilities grant. It
required the grant recipient to protect wetlands by
partially controlling the new growth through hook-up
limitations.
It is important to note that this condition reaffirms Rhc
Island law on the protection of wetlands, and that it
supports policies contained in the local comprehensive
plan and zoning ordinance.
14
-------
Selected Resources
Environmental Assessment of Construction Grant Projects. FRD-5. EPA-430/9-79-007. Need More
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1979. 58 pp. IMormation?
This manual is designed to aid grantees in the preparation of environmental
assessments for wastewater treatment facilities. Using a checklist format, it
discusses the types of environmental factors which should be considered in
environmental assessment. It has four chapters which deal with procedures for
identifying and assessing impacts, types of pertinent man-made and natural
features, hazardous or sensitive areas, and conservation of natural resources.
Federal laws and regulations are mentioned, and the minimum and
supplemental requirements of the assessments are given. Copies are available
from: General Services Administration (8FFS), Centralized Mailing Lists
Services, Building 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Give the FRD
number and the publication title when ordering.
Environmental Assessment of Water Quality Management Plans. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, January 1977. 108 pp.
This report is designed to assist managers and staff of planning agencies in
assessing environmental impacts of water quality management plans. In
addition to an overview, chapters are devoted to land use, air quality, water
quality, visual quality, and ecological economic, and social impacts. These
chapters discuss parameters appropriate to the topic, baseline development, and
assessment methods. Key questions about each topic also are featured. Copies
may be obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Library
Services, Mail Drop No. 35, Research Triangle Park, NC 27771. When ordering, -
give PDS No. 3471.
Leffel, R. Ernest, Direct Environmental Factors at Vfunicipal Wastewater Treatment
Works. EPA-43019-76-003. MCD-20. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, January 1976, 104 pp.
This report is primarily limited to a few categories of impacts at municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, but it does contain a good summary of
evaluation and control measures of environmentally-sound projects. It has a
comprehensive section on facility planning and site design. Other chapters
discuss airborne pollutants, noise, and site problems. To order this publication
write: General Services Administration (8FFS), Centralized Mailing Lists
Services, Building 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Indicate the
MCD number and the title of publication when ordering.
Rastatter, Clem L., ed. Municipal Wastewater Management: Citizen’s Guide to Facility
Planning. FRD-6. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Program Operations, January 1979. 263 pp.
This handbook is designed to acquaint citizen leaders with important decisions
that need to be made in managing wastewater. The book: identifies key
decisions throughout the planning process that are critical to the facility plan
and the community; identifies environmental, economic, and social
considerations affecting these decisions; facilitates citizen input and helps
citizens understand the legal tools to facilitate their involvement. Regarding
environmental assessment, the book focuses upon primary and secondary
impacts, and mitigation measures. It is available from the General Services
Administration (8FFS), Centralized Mailing Lists Services, Building 41, Denver
Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Indicate the FRD number and title of
publication when ordering.
15
-------
Glossary
Account Sheet — a table for displaying
impact assessment data to facilitate the
comparison of alternatives.
Alternative Technology — wastewater
treatment approach, as defined by the EPA,
that can save energy or cost compared to
conventional treatment methods.
Aquifer — underground bed or layer of earth,
gravel, or porous stone that serves as a
reservoir for groundwater.
Best Management Practice — method
determined to effectively abate or prevent
pollution at the overall least monetary and
nonmonetary cost.
Boundary — geographical area or the degree
of study.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis — detennination
of whether a project or practice is worth
fundrng; involves both monetary and
nonmonetary factors.
Criteria — guidelines for making decisions
Ecosystem — the interaction of organisms
with their environment.
Effluent — treated or untreated waste
material discharged into the environment
Environment — surroundings, including all
living and non-living factors.
Environmental Assessment — a document
prepared by the EPA on its assessment of the
impacts of preposed projects.
Enviromnental Impact Statement —
document evaluating the effects of proposed
projects; more comprehensive than an
environmental assessment, and concentrates
upon areas with potential for significant
environmental degradation.
Enviromnental Information Document —
report done by the grantee describing the
environmental effects of proposed wastewater
projects.
Environmental Review — the process by
which the EPA identifies and evaluates impacts
upon the environment.
Eutrophication — nutrient enrichment of a
waterway leading to a proliferation of algae,
which may result in choked lake bottoms and
shorelines, decaying vegetation, dissolved
oxygen depletion, and fish kills.
Erosion — the wearing away of land surface
by wind or water.
Facilities (201) Planning — planning local
wastewater collection, treatment, end disposal
facilities; the number refers to section of the
Clean Water Act.
Floodplain — a nearly flat area along the
course of a stream that is subject to flooding at
high water periods
Innovative Technology — new ideas and
methods that can significantly reduce resource
costs, improve control of toxic materials,
improve operational reliability, or result in
other significant public benefits.
Mitigation Measure — technique for
correcting or mimmizing adverse
environmental impacts.
Multiple Use — wastewater treatment
facilities used for functions other than pollution
control, such as recreation and environmental
education
Nonpoint Source — origin of pollution coming
from a dispersed area; origin is generally
difficult to locate.
Nonstructural Method — non-physical
pollution abatement technique; includes land
use controls such as zoning ordinances,
construction schedules, and no-till agricultural
practices.
Point Source — easily identifiable location c
pollution.
Primary Impact — effect directly related to
program or a project such as noise associated
with the construction of a wastewatsr
treatment plant.
Secondary Impact — effect indirectly cause
by a program or project, such as community
growth induced by wastewater treatment
facilities.
Sediment Detention Basin — structural
facility for temporarily storing stormwater
runoff, during which time sediment is removed
by settling.
Sewer Interceptor — pipe which carries fb i
from the collector sewers in the drainage basifl
to the point of treatment or disposal of the
Wastewater
Sludge — concentration of solids removed fix
sewage during wastewater treatment.
Structural Method — techniques involving
construction of physical entities for delaying,
blocking, or trapping pollutants.
WQM (208) Planning — water quality
management plaqning for a stats or region;
guidance for individual 201 facilities plans
within the area; the number refers to section 01
the Clean Water Act.
Wetiands — low-lying lands which frequentl
have standing wator on them, such as swamp.,
marshes, and meadows.
16
,‘ U S GOVERNMENT PRTNTTNG OFFiCE 1981 0 — 37-08O
-------
Worl lng for CleanWater is a
program designed to help advisory
groups improvedecigion mnking in
water quality planning. It aims at
helping people focus on-essential
issues and questions by providing
trained instructors and-materials
suitable for persona with
non-technical backgrounds. These
materials include a citisen
handbook on important principles
and considerations about topics in
water quality planning, an
audiovisual presentation, and an
instructor guide for elaborating
points, providing additjonal
information, and engajing in
problem-solving exercises.
This program consists of 18
informational unita on-various
aspects of water quality planning:
• Role of Mvisory Groups - -
• Public Participation
• Nonpoint Source Pollution:
Agriculture, Forestry, and Mining
• Urban Stormwater Runoff
S Groundwater Contami afion
• FacilIty Pl nning in the -
Construction Grant ’Program -
• Municipal Wastewater Processes:
- Overview -
--• Municipal Wastewater Processes:
Details -
- Small Systens -
•Innovative and Alternative
Technologies - -
• Industrial Pretreatment -
• Land Treatment
• Water Conservation-and Reuse
•Multiple Use - ---
• Environmental Assessmeji - -
• Cost-Effectiveness -Analysis
• Wastewater Facilities OIetation--
and Management -
• Financial MaMgement -
The units are not designed to-
make technièal experts out of -
citizetis and local officials. Each
unit contains essential facts, Icey -
questions, advice on how to deal
- with the Issues, and -
clearly-written technical -
backgrounds. In short, each unit
provides the information that.
citizen advisors need to better
fulfill their role. - —-p -
This program is avail ble throngh ’-
public l?articipation coordinators at
the regional offices of the\United -
States Environmental Protection
Agency o - •
This informationpregram was -
-financed with federal funds fiprn
the U.S. EnvironmOntaJ-pot t -
Agency under Coqperative
—Agreement No. CT9009 0 01. The
information program h s lleen-
revewedb -. -
Protection
for
Tl 1s project jsdethcate(Jto the
memory of Susan A Colè
------- |