vxEPA
United States , Region
Environmental Protection 230 So
Agency Chicagc
905R88105
Environmental
Impact Statement
Cleveland Hilltop
Planning Area, Ohio
Final
-------
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Cleveland, Ohio - Hilltop Facilities Planning Area
Prepared by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Chicago, Illinois
and
Science Applications With Triad Engineering
International Corporation Incorporated
McLean, Virginia Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
February 1988
Approved by:
Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
( ) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(X) Final Environmental Impact Statement
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
1. NAME OF ACTION
Administrative (X)
Legislative ( )
2. LEGAL BASIS FOR ACTION
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a Federal
agency to prepare an EIS on "...major Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment...." In addition, the Council pn
Environmental Quality (CEQ) ha? established regulations (40 CFR Part
1500-1508) to guide Federal agencies in determinations of whether Federal
funds or Federal approvals would involve a project that would significantly
affect the environment. USEPA ha? developed its own regulations (40 CFR Part
6) for the implementation of the NEPA review. As noted above, USEPA Region V
has determined that pursuant to these regulations, an EIS was required for the
Hilltop project.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500)
established a uniform nationwide water pollution control program. Section 201
of the Act established grants for planning, design, and construction of water
pollution control facilities. The Construction Grants program was an
importanj: impetu^ for planning improved wastewater collection and treatment
facilities in Northeast Ohio.
3. PROJECT HISTORY
The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer pistr^ct (NEORSD), previously the
Cleveland Regional Sewer District, was formed by court order in 1972 to
conduct a program of pollution abatement in northeast Ohio. (Subsequently, the
NEORSD was designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as
-------
the lead agency to provide a program for wastewater management in Cleveland's
Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant service area. Subsequent NEORSD facili-
ties planning divided the Cleveland metropolitan area into separate planning
areas. Individual facilities plans were then prepared for each area.
Suburban communities to the east of Cleveland were included in the
Easterly Separate Sewer Area (ESSA). NEORSD initiated facilities planning for
the ESSA in 1977, with the goal of eliminating problems in the existing
wastewater treatment and conveyance systems. Although the ESSA originally
included the Creekside area, NEORSD concluded that a separate facilities
planning approach for this area would be more cost-effective than a regional
approach, and the Creekside area was dropped from the ESSA. The remaining
area was termed the Heights/Hilltop Facilities Planning Area (see Figure 1).
A chronologic listing of relevant facilities planning documents is provided in
Table 1.
In 1981, a facilities plan was prepared for the Heights/Hilltop
Facilities Planning Area (FPA), including all or portions of Cleveland, East
Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, Gates Mills, Shaker Heights, University Heights,
Mayfield Heights, South Euclid, Lyndhurst, Richmond Heights, Highland Heights,
Mayfield, and Willoughby Hills. Additional facililities planning (including a
Sewer System Evaluation Survey) for the Heights/Hilltop FPA was initiated in
1981, and submitted to Ohio EPA in 1983. During review, it was determined by
Ohio EPA that a partitioned environmental assessment would be appropriate due
to several unresolved issues concerning alternatives in the Hilltop portion of
the project, as well as the extended project timeframe (calling for completion
of the Hilltop interceptor in 1997). As a result, facilities planning
activities were continued independently for the Heights Facility Planning Area
(FPA) and for the Hilltop FPA.
The USEPA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) on the Heights
FPA on August 29, 1984. The Heights interceptor will extend from the Easterly
WWTP southward through Cleveland, East Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, Shaker
Heights, and South Euclid. This FNSI approved a sewer segment along Green
Road, between Euclid Avenue and Monticello Boulevard, called Contract G, but
acknowledged that final sizing would depend on decisions made for the Hilltop
FPA.
11
-------
CO
C
"co
D
CQ
0)
0) O)
P O
"to C
-^ •;;
Q O
CO O
-*— CO
X C
•^ o>
o> 9
«
>~
o
111
-------
Table 1. Facilities Planning Documents Relevant
to the Hilltop Planning Area
TITLE
PREPARED BY
DATE
Easterly Separate Sewer Segment
Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Volume 1 - Environmental
Inventory and Assessment
Easterly Separate Sewer Segment
Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Volume 2 - Infiltration
and Inflow Analysis
Easterly Separate Sewer Segment
Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Volume 3 - Sewerage Study
Easterly Separate Sewer Segment
Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Executive Summary
Advanced Facility Planning Report.
Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Supplemental Facilities
Planning, Sewer System Evaluation
Survey, Advanced Facility
Planning
Advanced Facility Planning Report.
Volume 1: Appendices A, B, C.
Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Sewer System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
Advanced Facility Planning Report.
Volume 2: Appendices Dl, D2.
Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Sewer System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
Supplemental Facilities Planning
Report. Easterly Separate
Sewer Area, Supplemental
Facilities Planning, Sewer
System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
CH2M-Hill
CH2M-Hill
CH2M-Hill
CH2M-Hill
1978
1978
Havens and Emerson, Inc.
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
Havens and Emerson, Inc.
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
Havens and Emerson, Inc.
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
Havens and Emerson, Inc.
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
1978
1981
1983
1983
1983
1983
iv
-------
Table 1. Facilities Planning Documents Relevant
to the Hilltop Planning Area (Continued)
TITLE
PREPARED BY
DATE
Public Participation Programs Report,
Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Supplemental Facilities Planning,
Sewer System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
Water Quality Sampling Report.
Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Sewer System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
Sewer System Evaluation Survey
Report. Easterly Separate
Sewer Area, Supplemental
Facilities Planning, Sewer
System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
Havens and Emerson, Inc. 1983
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
Dalton, Dalton, and 1984
Newport
Havens and Emerson, Inc. 1985
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
-------
The Heights FNSI also acknowledged that planning for the Cleveland
Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant had not been completed, but that planning
had demonstrated that flows from the Heights/Hilltop area should be trans-
ported for treatment at Easterly. Since 1984, USEPA has reviewed an envi-
ronmental assessment for sludge handling facilities for Easterly, but the
system improvements for control and treatment of wet weather overflows from
Cleveland's combined sewer systems have not yet been evaluated. Based on its
review, the USEPA issued a FNSI for solids handling at Easterly on April 17,
1985. Plans evaluated in this EIS, therefore, are not the final components of
the Easterly system. Combined sewer overflow (CSO) issues are to be resolved
during future planning segments.
Ohio EPA prepared an environmental assessment on the Hilltop Planning
Area in August 1985. The USEPA carefully reviewed this information and, on
April 2, 1986, issued a Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS on proposals to
construct interceptor sewers to serve the wastewater treatment needs of the
Hilltop Planning Area. This decision was based on concern for the environ-
mental and cost impacts of the project proposed by the NEORSD.
4. PROJECT NEED
Four problems with wastewater treatment facilities in the Hilltop FPA
were identified by i:he facilities planning process. These included:
o Wet weather sanitary sewer overflows from the
Beech/Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills BBW pumping complex;
o Infiltration and inflow to sanitary sewers in the area, many of which
are deteriorating with age and are located in common trenches with
storm sewers;
o Inadequate treatment of wastewater by a variety of small wastewater
treatment plants discharging to Euclid Creek and tributaries of the
Chagrin River;
o Onsite wastewater treatment facilities (largely septic leach fields)
in the unsewered portions of the Hilltop Planning Area. The majority
of these systems are overloaded and/or nearing the end of their design
life. Many onsite systems have problems with high clay content soils,
high water table, and shallow depth to bedrock. As a result, many of
the onsite systems have discharges that reach existing storm sewers
and drainage ditches. This contaminates tributaries of Euclid Creek,
the Chagrin River, and small ponds in the area such as Mayfair Lake.
VI
-------
A major focus of the proccess of preparing this EIS was to define the actual
wastewater treatment needs in the Hilltop area. Analysis of data provided by
NEORSD indicated that control and capacity problems with the BBW pumping
complex lead to wet weather sanitary overflows which discharge to local
streams. Infiltration and inflow (I/I) to community sanitary sewers cause
flow conveyance problems within the communities and within the BBW system.
This I/I problem is primarily due to common trench sewer construction, where
both storm and sanitary sewers were originally placed in the same trench. In
addition, area package plants are not meeting permit limits for effluent
discharged to local streams.
No documentation of problems from existing onsite systems in the areas
primarily located north of Wilson Mills Road is available. While site
conditions and the age of most systems indicate the possibility for problems,
additional facilities planning by NEORSD to determine the extent of the
problems will be necessary before any corrective action can occur.
The original facilities planning effort listed basement flooding as a
problem within the Hilltop area. During the preparation of this EIS, it is
determined that sewer maintenance on portions of the existing collector system
would help relieve this problem. The SSES outlined several relief sewer and
sewer rehabilitation projects which would increase the sewer capacity and
reduce the incidence of basement flooding in the area. These projects are all
local improvements and are not part of this EIS. With the exception of a few
homes around the pumping stations, the BBW complex is not the cause of
basement flooding in the area. Basement flooding around Beech Hill and Wilson
Mills pumping stations is a result of basement floor elevations located below
the overflow points of the pumping stations' wet wells. Most of these homes
have had plumbing modifications to correct the problem.
5. EIS ISSUES
Environmental, planning, and fiscal issues addressed in this draft EIS
were identified during USEPA review of the Heights/Hilltop Facility Plan and
Ohio EPA's related environmental assessment. These issues were first outlined
in USEPA's Notice of Intent (April 2, 1986) and further refined through public
vii
-------
comments at two scoping meetings held on June 18, 1986. The resulting issues,
which directly influenced the scope of the technical investigations in this
EIS, include the following:
o Impacts to natural habitat
o Impacts to wetlands
o Impacts to Euclid Creek
o Project costs and fiscal impacts
o Induced secondary growth
o Project reliability.
6. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation of the Hilltop FPA is one component of an overall, regional
facilities planning effort for the Cleveland metropolitan area. As such, the
history of development and refinement of alternatives for the Hilltop FPA is
interwoven with the development of alternatives for the overall Cleveland
area. Based on earlier and parallel facilities planning activities for the
overall Cleveland area, it was determined that flows from the Hilltop
Facilities Planning Area would be routed to the Easterly WTP, through the
Heights/Hilltop interceptor. In keeping with this regional approach, flows
from an area south and west of the Hilltop FPA, called Belvoir, were planned
to be routed through the Hilltop system and then to the Heights interceptor.
Approximately 202 million gallons per day (MGD) from the central Belvoir area
were planned to be routed to the Heights interceptor at Green Road, and 59 MGD
of flow from the eastern Belvoir area would be routed into the Hilltop system
along Richmond Road. In addition, the EIS analysis of system alternatives for
the Hilltop FPA used a worst-case scenario assuming that the most extensive
system of local sewers would be needed to replace package plants, to serve
unsewered areas, and to serve ultimate future growth. All alternatives also
were assumed to have capacity to convey the Belvoir flows.
Connection of the unsewered areas and future growth were included in the
analysis of each system alternative. The majority of growth will occur in the
northern areas of the basin. The addition of future residential and
commercial-industrial growth will add about 8.5 MGD (as projected by the
NEORSD) to the system, as total peak flow. Most of this flow will enter the
system near the Cuyahoga County Airport.
viii
-------
Four EIS system alternatives were evaluated for the Hilltop FPA. These
alternatives were developed based on those provided in the facilities planning
documents and the environmental assessment prepared by Ohio EPA. The four EIS
system alternatives for the Hilltop FPA are as follows:
o EIS-1
EIS-1 will replace the Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills pumping complex
with gravity interceptors. This was the alternative proposed by NEORSD during
the facilities planning process. Wastewater flows will be transported to the
Easterly WVTP via a newly constructed interceptor, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Local sewers needed to serve the presently unsewered areas with this alter-
native are shown in Figure 3. The eastern leg of EIS-1 will be a 48" diameter
sewer installed (open cut) primarily along SOM Center Road, and the western
leg will be a 42" to 54" sewer installed (open cut) in Richmond Road with
other spurs along Highland Road. The northern 48" leg of this alternative
will be layed (open cut) along the Cuyahoga-Lake County Line. Tunnel con-
struction will be used along the northern part of Richmond Road, Chardon Road,
and Euclid Avenue. The crossing of Euclid Creek near the intersection of
Chardon Road and Euclid Avenue will be constructed using a series of drop
manholes and open cut construction across the stream bed.
New pump stations and force mains would be constructed at the Scottish
Highlands (2) and Hickory Hills (3) Package Plant sites to remove these
treatment facilities from service with direct pumping to the gravity system.
Stark (c), Thornapple (L), Woods (M), and Suffolk Country Estates (N) Pumping
Stations would all remain in service with EIS-1. Sufficient capacity will be
available in the interceptor to remove Sleepy Hollow and Pleasant Hills
Package Plants from service. Bonnieview Storage Tank would be removed under
this plan. A variation of EIS-1 which included the Bonnieview Storage Tank
was also studied during the preparation of the EIS.
o EIS-2
EIS-2 consists of upgraded facilities at Beech Hill (A) and Wilson Mills
(B) pumping stations, and a new Richmond/White Pumping Station (D) as
presented in Figure 4. The local sewers required with this option are
included in Figure 5.
IX
-------
-------
on
£
£
(/i
<
LO
CO
>-
Qi
<
h-
z
<
LO
j
<
u
0
^
S
LU
u
c
-------
-------
LO
LO
U
z
z
D_
o
r\i
i
LO
xiii
-------
The facilities required for EIS-2 include new single force mains along
Wilson Mills Road and Richmond Road. The Beech Hill force main will consist
of approximately 8,,900 feet of 30" pipe, and the Wilson Mills force main will
consist of about 2,,000 feet of 36" pipe. About 13,400 feet of 30" pipe will
be required for the Richmond/White force main. The Beech Hill (A) and Wilson
Mills (B) Pumping Stations will be sized to 11.6 mgd and 24.2 mgd respec-
tively. The Richmond/White (D) Pumping Station was sized at 12.9 mgd. The
pumping portion of this alternative was designed for reliable operation
utilizing the latest in control technology. Each major pumping station (Beech
Hill, Wilson Mills, and Richmond White) should be designed with sufficient
capacity to handle the peak event with one pump out of service. Existing
buildings at Beech Hill and Wilson Mills could be used, with a new or expanded
structure required for Richmond/White.
Scottish Highlands (2) and Hickory Hills (3) Package Plants will be
eliminated by new pumping stations; however, they will require construction of
local gravity sewers before the flow can be collected. Several pumping
stations will continue to be used with this alternative, as shown on Figure 4.
Sufficient capacity would also be available to remove Sleepy Hollow and
Pleasant Hill package plants from service. The crossing of Euclid Creek along
Monticello Boulevard was assumed to be by a free standing pipe bridge
supporting twin 54" sewers.
o EIS-3
Alternative EIS-3 consists of upgraded facilities at Beech Hill pumping
station (A) and a new Richmond/White pumping station (D). EIS-3 is similar to
EIS-2, except that the Wilson Mills Pump Station is replaced with a gravity
tunnel. All other aspects are the same including pump station sizes,
controls, and the Euclid Creek crossing. This alternative is shown on Figure
6. The local sewers are shown on Figure 7.
xiv
-------
LU
0 <
I-
>
LU
O
D
O
x
02:
£: 0 < Z
t~ OQ &. ^°
| < >
£ u -
>-
— i
C£
LLJ
|—
CO
<
LJLJ
O
h-
2
2
2
<
_j
a.
Q.
0
1-
_j
_j
I
co
<
CQ
LU
U
<
C£
O
H
tn
2
O
i—
<
t^
Q_
Z
z>
Q.
"X
H
2
<
CO
Q
LU
1/5
O
D_
O
C*
Q.
2
<
2
LU
U
ct
o
LL.
r^
LLJ
en
ROPO
Q.
_j
LU
2
Z>
l
r^
c
LU
t/1
O
Q_
O
Qi
Q_
Qi
LU
£
LU
CO
>-
Cii
<
(—
2
<
CO
u
2
1—
CO
x
LU
<
LU
>
L/1
<
^r
^
O
Qi
U.
^
o
_1
u.
^
<
Lj..f
D_
xv
(CO)
a:
O
»'
1 Z
I °
(N
-------
(J
z
Z
Z
Q_
O
<
u
O
ro
i
XVI
-------
o EIS-4
This alternative consists of an upgraded Beech Hill pumping station (A)
combined with a new interceptor as shown in Figure 8. The local sewers are
included in Figure 9.
Beech Hill will be the only major pumping station included with this
alternative. Wastes will be pumped west along Wilson Mills Road via a 30"
force main, until it connects with a gravity sewer near Miner Road. From that
point, flow will continue via gravity sewers past Wilson Mills Pumping
Station, and then north to Highland Road. This 30" segment (open cut) will
connect with a 42" gravity line along Richmond Road (open cut) which will
continue north to Chardon Road. This 60" to 66" interceptor (tunnel) will
follow Chardon Road and Euclid Road west to Green Road where another 60" spur
will be added. The Chardon Road crossing of Euclid Creek will include several
energy dissipating manholes and an open cut across the stream bed.
Scottish Highlands and Hickory Hills package plants will be replaced by
pumping stations. Scottish Highlands force main will tie directly into the
interceptor, while Hickory Hills will require construction of local sewers
before it can be connected. Several existing pumping stations will still be
used with this alternative.
7. EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Each of the four EIS alternatives were evaluated against the following
five technical evaluation criteria:
o Cost - Total present worth of the alternative over a 20-year period.
This includes capital costs for materials and installation as well as
operation and maintenance costs.
o Implementability - The relative difficulty to construct each
alternative.
o Reliability - The dependability of each alternative with respect to
system failures.
o Energy Use - An analysis of the energy requirements for each
alternative.
o Feasibility - The ability of each alternative to convey the Hilltop
waste load.
xvn
-------
I
to
>
LU
D
O
x
h-
Q
LU
O
Q.
O
Q£
Q.
at
1/1 ^
u o
—
X
LU
LU
Q.
xviii
-------
0 U
"- O
LO
U
Z
<
_
O
xix
-------
A comparison of the four EIS alternatives, according to the five
evaluation criteria, is summarized in the following discussion.
o Cost
See Table 2 for a comparison of EIS alternative costs.
o Implementability
The alternatives which require open-cut construction across Euclid
Creek (EIS-1 and EIS-4) present some very unique construction problems
and would probably be more difficult to implement than EIS-2 and
EIS-3. These same alternatives also have several segments which
require deep (greater than 20 feet) open-cut construction which may
also present implementation problems because of the sheeting and
shoring required and also the excavation problems of the bedrock.
Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3 present less implementation problems than
EIS-1 and EIS-4; however, the Euclid Creek aerial crossing will be
needed. With proper design of this crossing, few implementation
problems should be encountered.
o Reliability
Extensive pump station control systems would be designed into
Alternatives EIS-2, EIS-3, and EIS-4 to provide good reliability for
these options. This control system would be designed with the ability
to monitor and control the system from one central location as well as
onsite. Separate power grids and backup diesel generators will be
provided to prevent shutdown from power failures. With these control
features, the reliability of these alternatives is very high.
Although Alternative EIS-1 provides main transport by a gravity
system, it does utilize existing pump stations which would remain in
service, and new stations which would be added at Scottish Highlands
and Hickory Hills.
With proper design considerations, the overall reliability of all the
alternatives is relatively good.
o Energy Use
Of the EIS alternatives, EIS-1 had the lowest energy costs at $49,600
per year. As would be expected, the alternatives which include the
use of major pump stations would have higher energy costs. EIS-4 had
an energy cost of $92,000 per year and was the second lowest. The two
least cost alternatives from a construction and O&M perspective, EIS-2
and EIS-3, had the highest energy costs of $192,900 and $176,400
respectively per year.
xx
-------
CO
*r4
CO
rH
(0
^2
4->
CO
o
u
CM
OJ
i
l"™1
.n
fO
H
1
CO
M
W
CO
1
CO
M
Cd
CM
1
co
M
W
^
0)
•rH
.-1 01
1 -r-t
CO C
M C
U O
CQ
J2
4-J
•tH
~
/-v
^
0)
>
Q)
•H
«H C
1 C
co o
M «
u
4-*
3
o
J3
4-J
m
o
•*_
CM
p*..
rH
».
O
\o
•co
VO
r»s.
O^
•s.
T— <
t*H
"tf"
w.
Cjs
>^-
O
CM
iH
».
O^
o^
T— 1
*s
5
v>
t~H
ON
m
•^
O
m
<— <
•x
o
r^
•CO
r^
rH
m
«k
o
0
».
CS|
t^.
•C/^"
J=
4-J
^4
o
^
^j
c
0)
CO
V
^4
Oi
rH
rt
4-1
•i-l
a
n)
O
ro
«-^
^J"
ON
CO
•s
CM -
m
•
M)
CM
«H
O
C
n)
c
OJ
4-J
c
•H
*
•a J3
c *-•
a) u
o
C £B
o
•M 4->
*•» e
n) m
U CO
(1> V
a. u
O Ou
v£>
•*
^
«H
O
•^
oo
•Q/>
^
CM
vO
•*
VO
f-H
CM
•>
v*O
VD
m
CM
•^
r^
CM
r^^
^
m
V£)
CM
•«
CM
CO
CM
•*
ON
ON
CM
ON
•*
p*^
00
^
O"\
J=
i-4
o
^
c
(U
CO
a/
u
a,
OJ
bO
n)
^
rH
n)
co
co
O
CM
in
0
m
m
•co
^
O*^
^o
^
ro
CO
as
*.
CO
^
f^.
CO
«.
CO
tH
co
f>
•CO
TH
T-H
•V
rH
-«^-
rH
*.
CM
NO
•co-
in
r-H
ON
^
CO
CO
^>
^o
•CO
JS
u
o
**
4J
c
QJ
co w
M Q)
Ox
rH
n)
o
H
XXI
-------
o Feasibility
Each system as designed has the feasibility to effectively transport
vastewater to the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant. Since no
significant advantages exist for any of the alternatives in this
category, no comparisons can be made.
8. COST-EFFECTIVE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE
Considering the current problems and conditions in the Hilltop area, this
EIS evaluated several options that would serve the needs of the area. Several
criteria were evaluated for each EIS alternative, including cost, implemen-
tability, reliability, energy use, feasibility, and environmental factors.
Since sufficient facilities planning to document need for local sewers to
serve the entire FPA has not been conducted, the EIS recommends an approach to
solve the documented existing needs. Based on the EIS analysis, Alternative
EIS-3 (shown in Figures 6 and 7) was selected as the best system alternative
to serve the entire Hilltop FPA.
Although EIS-3 was not the lowest cost alternative (see Table 2), it was
determined that removal of the Wilson Mills pumping station would be
environmentally advantageous to the system. As previously discussed, the
Wilson Mills pumping station has caused many of the probems for the existing
system. Therefore, EIS-3 was selected over the least cost alternative based
on this factor.
The analysis conducted in the EIS compared alternatives on the ability to
provide service to the entire Hilltop FPA (for transport of flows to the
Easterly WWTP) within the planning period. This was done to maintain the
level of detail used thoughout the facilities planning process, and to compare
all alternatives on equal terms. This analysis, however, was a worst case
analysis since it assumed that ultimate growth would occur and that all septic
systems, small pump stations, and package plants needed to be replaced by the
central and local sewer systems. In reality, only portions of the local sewer
system may need to be built to relieve these problems.
The EIS cost-effective system alternative would consist of upgraded
facilities at the Beech Hill pumping station (A) and Bonnieview storage basin,
xxii
-------
and an expanded Richmond/White pumping station (D) to serve the northern
areas. The Beech Hill pumping station would be sized at 11.6 MGD based on the
flows projected in the SSES, and the Richmond/White pumping station would be
sized at 12.9 MGD based <5n the connection of the unsewered areas, several
package plants, and ultimate growth. Approximately 8,900 feet of new 30" pipe
would be required for the Beech Hill force main, and about 13,400 feet of new
30" pipe would be required for the Richmond/White force main.
The Wilson Mills pumping station will be replaced by a new 60" gravity
sewer. Historically, the Wilson Mills pumping station has created problems
for the existing system. The majority of overflows from the existing system
result from capacity problems at the Wilson Mills station, which signals the
Beech Hill pumping station to shut down. By removing this problem source from
the system, the overall reliability would be greatly increased.
A new control system for the pump stations would also improve the
reliability of the entire system. Remote monitoring and control of each
pumping station by a central control computer will provide a continuous report
of all system functions. Central control will also respond to problems in the
system with corrective actions. Automatic onsite controls at each pumping
station would also contribute to the reliability of the system for EIS-3.
Manual controls for onsite operators would also be available at each station.
The major pumping stations would also be designed with sufficient pumping
capacity to handle the peak flow rate with one pump out of service. Coupled
with separate power grids and onsite backup power generators, the major
pumping stations for EIS-3 are designed for continuous reliable operation.
The Bonnieview facility would be upgraded with comminutors, grit removal,
6-inch water line, and odor control measures.
The EIS cost-effective system alternative includes provisions for
eliminating several package plants and small pump stations and all onsite
systems in the Hilltop area with local sewers (Figure 7). Under this worst
case scenario, Scottish Highlands and Hickory Hills package plants would be
eliminated by constructing pump stations and force mains to new local gravity
xxiii
-------
sewers; Richmond Park, Sleepy Hollow, and Pleasant Hills package plants would
be eliminated by gravity sewers tributary to local sewers. While Richmond
Mall, Franklin, Williamsburg, and Picker X-ray pump stations would be
eliminated, several pump'stations would remain in use. Before any of these
package plants, pump stations, or onsite systems can be eliminated, additional
facilities planning by NEORSD is necessary to show that elimination is
cost-effective.
The EIS analysis of EIS-3 includes a free standing pipe bridge supporting
twin 54" sewers for the crossing of Euclid Creek along Monticello Boulevard.
Actually, a single 66" pipe could be used with the existing 30" sewer which is
in place under the bridge if the existing pipe is found to be in good condi-
tion. This option would be less expensive than using twin 54" sewers, however
twin 54" sewers are used in cost-estimates as a worst-case assumption.
The projected costs for Alternative EIS-3 are provided in Table 3 and
Appendix F.
9. RECOMMENDED PLAN
Although EIS-3 is the cost-effective system plan for serving the entire
Hilltop area, a need to serve the entire area (specifically the unsewered
areas) has not been sufficiently demonstrated. This section will describe an
approach to serve the area's identified needs for the 20 year planning period.
The immediate needs for the Hilltop area are to relieve I/I problems in
community relief sewers and overflows caused by the existing BBW complex.
This will be done by implementing the recommendations for sewer construction
and rehabilitation outlined in the SSES and constructing modifications to the
existing BBW complex.
xxiv
-------
Table 3. EIS-3: Cost-Effective System Alternative Cost Summary1'4
Capital Costs ,
Transport System $25,825,572
Local Sewers 16,008,346
Total $41,833,918
Annual O&M Costs
Sewer Maintenance $ 49,600
Power 176,400
Labor 330,700
Miscellaneous 16,500
Total $573,200
Present Worth
Capital $41,016,293
O&M 5,788,345
Salvage 5,108,397
Net $41,696,2412
Table 4. EIS-Recommended Alternative
(A Component of EIS-3) Cost Summary1'4
Capital Costs
Transport System $26,131,1133
Annual O&M Costs
Sewer Maintenance $ 49,600
Power 176,400
Labor 330,700
Miscellaneous 16,500
Total $573,200
Present Worth
Capital $25,973,070
O&M 5,788,345
Salvage 2,954,361
Net $28,788,9642
1Costs shown in Tables 3 and 4 for EIS-3 do not include those costs for
Contract G already covered by the Heights FNSI ($8,395,683).
2See Appendix G for detailed costs.
All sewers under this alternative are considered to be interceptor sewers.
Costs were revised during additional evaluations performed in response to
comments on the DEIS; these are described in Chapter 8. These evaluations
did not shift the recommended alternative and therefore corrections were not
made throughout this document to reflect the additional evaluations in
Chapter 8.
XXV
-------
As previously discussed, the NEORSD is currently working with the com-
munities to coordinate several rehabilitation and relief sewer projects.
These projects were outlined in the SSES and included as a grant condition for
the Heights project. As'they are implemented, they will help relieve the I/I
and basement flooding problems. See Appendix I for several articles from
NEORSD's "Pipeline" newsletter, which describe some ongoing programs for sewer
rehabilitation.
Because of the problems created by the Wilson Mills pumping station, it
should be replaced by a gravity sewer (approximate capital cost of $7 million,
see Appendix G) as soon as possible. This would remove the main control
problem of the existing BBW complex. Downstream capacity along Monticello
Boulevard would also need to be increased to handle the full peak flow from a
5-year, 1-hour storm event in the Hilltop area. A 60" gravity sewer is
recommended for this segment. The existing 30" sewer over Euclid Creek at
Monticello Boulevard has sufficient capacity to handle this peak storm event.
Upgrading the Beech Hill pumping station (approximate capital cost of
$494,500, see Appendix G) and installing the control system (approximate
capital cost of $52,000, see Appendix G) could be done during the same time
frame as the Wilson Mills elimination. Along with upgrading the Beech Hill
pumping station, the force main should also be replaced (approximate capital
cost of $2.3 million, see Appendix G) as soon as possible. This will allow
the Beech Hill pumping station to operate at full design capacity without the
concern of pipe failure. The proposed improvements to Bonnieview, as included
in EIS-3, should also be implemented.
As shown in Figure 7, all of the proposed local sewers for the cost-
effective system alternative are tributary to the Richmond/White pump station.
Thus the system sizing of the pump station and force main in EIS-3 was such
that all onsite system flows were included. As discussed previously, this
need has yet to be established.
In order to solve the documented existing needs of the Hilltop area, the
Richmond/White pump station should be upgraded to 1.8 MGD and a 12" force main
to Wilson Mills Road constructed. With this configuration, Scottish Highlands
xxvi
-------
and Richmond Park package plants could be eliminated (if demonstrated to be
cost-effective by NEORSD) by a gravity sewer from Richmond Park to Richmond/
White (to eliminate Richmond Park) and a force main from Scottish Highlands to
the new gravity sewer, as shown in Figure 10. The Richmond/White pump station
would then convey the flows from the eliminated plants and flows from areas
now tributary to the pump station (see Section 2.4.2). Though facilities
planning by NEORSD to show the cost-effectiveness of package plant elimination
has yet to occur, the costs for this approach have been included (Appendix G).
Additional study of the onsite systems areas is needed before any local
sewers could be determined to be cost-effective. Innovative options such as
cluster systems, mound systems, and small diameter collection systems would
need to be evaluated in order to identify a cost-effective solution. Deci-
sions made for handling the unsewered areas, including areas currently
undeveloped, may affect the need for additional capacity at Richmond/White
pumping station. The recommended plan proposes sizing the pump station struc-
ture to accommodate pumping capacity for the future while only recommending
pumping equipment capacity for existing needs until planning can be completed.
Since the extent of needed local sewer coverages is unknown at this time,
an alternative solution (besides that proposed in system alternative EIS-3)
for removing the Hickory Hills package plant from service was also developed.
Flow from the Hickory Hills plant could be pumped to Beech Hill pump station
via an 8" force main. As with the elimination of Scottish Highlands and
Richmond Park, the costs were included for this option (Table A and Appendix
G) even though facilities planning by NEORSD needs to be done to establish if
this option is cost-effective. It should also be noted that these sewers
which eliminate package plants would be considered interceptor sewers and not
local sewers.
The Sleepy Hollow and Pleasant Hill package plants were not a focus of
any of the previous facilities planning efforts. Modification may be needed
on these plants, and they may eventually be removed from service by the
centralized system; however, this will depend on the extent of the local sewer
coverages and on future facilities planning to establish the cost-
effectiveness of that option.
xxv ii
-------
l/l
<
xxviii
I
-------
As previously discussed in this section, the existing sever under the
Monticello Boulevard Bridge now has capacity to handle the existing flows from
the area. Additional capacity for the aerial crossing will be needed when the
Eastern Belvoir flows enter the Hilltop system. This is currently planned for
1994. The costs for the segment to convey the Eastern Belvoir flows
($897,803) and for the aerial crossing of Euclid Creek ($948,750) were
included in Table 4 and Appendix G. These costs do not pertain directly to
solving the needs of the Hilltop FPA, but are included since decisions to
route the Belvoir flows through the Hilltop system were made prior to the EIS.
Only the incremental costs for handling Hilltop flows were included in Table 4
(and Table 3) for Contract G.
The net present worth cost of the ElS-recommended alternative the Hilltop
FPA is $28,788,964. The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs included in
Table 3 are the same as those included in Table 2 for the EIS-3 alternative.
Though the alternative to solve existing needs will obviously require somewhat
less O&M, the draft EIS does not refine the O&M figures beyond the system
level analyses.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SELECTED SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE
None of the four system alternatives considered in this EIS included
highly significant, adverse environmental impacts. As a result, selection of
the recommended action was not directly linked to any particular category of
environmental impact. Further, because many commonalities exist between the
four alternatives, the degree to which individual alternatives may be
distinguished, with respect to differential impacts, is reduced. It was often
found that one or two alternatives were preferable with respect to one
category of environmental impact, but less desirable with respect to another.
Overall, the cost-effective system alternative (EIS-3) was judged to be
slightly less impact sensitive than the other alternatives but the differences
were often subtle.
Construction of the cost-effective system alternative will result in some
localized short-term dust and noise impacts due to construction activities and
xxix
-------
demolition of the Wilson Mills pump station. This alternative will relieve
the nuisance of sewage overflows to creeks, which contribute to ambient odors.
Construction of this alternative will also result in erosion and subsequent
sedimentation in area drflinageways and streams. At a minimum, the Ohio
Department of Transportation requirements for erosion control will be
observed.
The cost-effective system alternative should result in a net improvement
of water quality in Euclid Creek and the Chagrin River due to the proposed
removal of three existing waste discharges from the Euclid Creek drainage
area (the Richmond Park, Scottish Highlands, and Pleasant Hills wastewater
treatment plants) and the elimination of two discharges from the Chagrin River
drainage area (the Hickory Hills and Sleepy Hollow plants). Adverse impacts
to water quality and stream biota resulting from construction of the cost-
effective system alternative should be temporary, associated with short-term
runoff of sediment and attached pollutants from construction activities. The
cost-effective alternative involves one major and five minor crossings of
Euclid Creek. The potential adverse impacts resulting from this sewer
construction include some nutrient and other pollutant inputs to the Euclid
watershed. The one major Euclid crossing in the cost-effective system
alternative is located at Monticello Boulevard east of Green Road. Adverse
impacts to water quality could occur if the new structure requires
construction in the waterway (e.g., abutments). These impacts can be
minimized by following proper sediment and erosion control practices adjacent
to the stream bed.
Floods with an expected 100-year return interval do not presently
inundate existing wastewater treatment facilities within the FPA. None of the
facilities proposed in the cost-effective system alternative is located in the
100-year floodplain.
Construction activities associated with the selected alternative could
impact wildlife and vegetation. The placement of sewer lines, construction on
and around pumping stations, and construction of new holding basins will
disrupt existing biota. No adverse impact on Federal- and State-listed
threatened and endangered species are anticipated to occur from the proposed
xxx
-------
work. Minimal impacts to riparian wetlands associated with Euclid Creek are
expected to occur from proposed stream crossings.
No relocation of existing residences in the FPA is expected to occur due
to construction and operation of the selected alternative. Most sever con-
struction of the selected alternative is proposed to occur within rights-of-
way of existing roads and will not significantly affect adjacent land uses.
Construction of sewers proposed under the selected alternative may temporarily
disrupt access to some local businesses. Improved water quality should
increase the potential for recreation in the Euclid Creek Reservation and the
Chagrin River Reservation. Construction activity involved with the Euclid
Creek crossing at Monticello Boulevard will temporarily limit the use of the
Euclid Creek Reservation for picnicking, biking, and passive recreational
uses. The existing Monticello Boulevard bridge, built in 1954, has an arched
design which complements the natural surroundings of the Euclid Creek
Reservation gorge. Construction of a free standing pipe bridge to carry the
sewer line across Euclid River would disrupt the aesthetics of the area both
during and after construction.
The selected alternative involves open-cut trenching and tunneling
including staging areas to construct regional interceptors which may
temporarily affect local traffic patterns. Any restriction of traffic flow
along Euclid Avenue will have significant short-term impacts to traffic flow,
especially during rush hours. Most other traffic impacts will be minor.
None of the construction for the selected alternative will directly
affect known sites of historic or archaeologic significance.
Analysis shows a demand in the Hilltop FPA for increased single and
multi-family units as well as commercial and industrial development.
Projected growth impacts of the cost-effective system alternative will be to
accommodate demand in areas with inadequate sewer service rather than inducing
growth from surrounding areas. Growth levels with the cost-effective system
alternative are not expected to contribute to any further long-term deteriora-
tion of air quality. Temporary inputs of sediment from construction of new
developments will cause short-term water quality degradation. Increased
xxx i
-------
nonpoint source pollution from urban runoff due to projected growth in the FPA
is not expected to significantly affect surface water quality. Secondary
development under any of the alternatives is not expected to affect the
100-year floodplain areas' within the FPA since the terrain is very steep and
is not conducive to development. A total of 36.7 acres of palustrine forested
wetlands, 54 percent of the forested wetlands within the Hilltop FPA, could be
destroyed by forecast levels of development. One acre of open water wetland
would also be lost to development in the FPA.
Development resulting from the cost-effective system alternative might
secondarily affect community facilities in the FPA by increasing demand for
schools, waste disposal, energy, and other municipal services. Projected
secondary impacts on most community facilities will not be significant.
Increased need for police and fire services will represent the greatest demand
on local jurisdictions for improved services. Additional households will also
increase traffic pressure somewhat on local roadways such as Richmond and SOM
Center Roads.
The estimated annual user costs for the ElS-recommended alternative
(component of EIS-3 to solve existing needs) are $207 annually. These user
costs should not be a significant burden on the users within the Hilltop FPA.
In the recommended plan to solve existing need (Figure 10) most of the
proposed local sewer lines shown in Figure 5-6 and associated with Alternative
EIS-3 are not retained because the need to serve much of the unsewered portion
of the Hilltop FPA has not been demonstrated. The local sewer lines retained
in the recommended plan (now termed interceptors) are principally for the
purpose of eliminating package plants (subject to demonstration by NEORSD that
eliminating them in lieu of plant upgrade is cost-effective). This recom-
mended interceptor system does not significantly extend central sewer service
beyond currently served areas and, as such, will not induce growth to the
Hilltop FPA. Portions of the Hilltop FPA with the highest growth potential
such as the airport vicinity are sufficiently close to existing regional
sewers to enable developers in these areas to provide connections with private
financing. Most of the larger, centrally located parcels of vacant land in
the FPA (those in Highland Heights) are large enough that the cost of
xxx ii
-------
providing connections or adding reserve capacity to regional severs could be
absorbed in the cost of site development. Finally, most of the smaller infill
parcels in the FPA are located in substantially sewered areas such as Mayfield
Heights. Many of the severs in these areas are currently being rehabilitated
or replaced. For these reasons, the growth inducement potential of the
recommended plan to solve existing needs is considered low.
xxxi11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1-1
1.1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.1.2 Areawide Planning and Project History 1-1
1.2 PROJECT NEED 1-7
1.3 LEGAL BASIS FOR ACTION 1-11
1.4 EIS PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1-14
1.5 ISSUES 1-14
2. EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 2-1
2.1 EXISTING CENTRALIZED FACILITIES 2-2
2.1.1 Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-2
2.1.2 Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-10
2.2 EXISTING PACKAGE PLANTS 2-12
2.2.1 Richmond Park Terrace Treatment Plant 2-12
2.2.2 Scottish Highlands Treatment Plant 2-15
2.2.3 Hickory Hills Treatment Plant 2-17
2.2.4 Sleepy Hollow Treatment Plant 2-17
2.2.5 Pleasant Hill Treatment Plant 2-18
2.2.6 Other Treatment Plants 2-18
2.3 SEWER SYSTEM 2-21
2.4 EXISTING PUMP STATIONS 2-28
2.4.1 Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills 2-28
2.4.2 Smaller Pump Stations 2-33
2.5 EXISTING UNSEWERED AREAS 2-35
2.5.1 Systems Used 2-35
2.5.2 Location 2-37
2.5.3 Problems 2-41
3. HISTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT 3-1
3.1 FACILITIES PLAN ALTERNATIVES/RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 3-3
3.1.1 Proposed Alternatives 3-4
xxxiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3.1.2 Evaluation of ESSSWFP Alternatives 3-13
3.1.3 Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative 3-23
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES/RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE 3-28
3.2.1 Alternatives Description 3-30
3.2.2 EA Evaluation of Alternatives 3-38
3.2.3 EA Recommended Alternative 3-43
3.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES 3-46
4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4-1
4.1 ATMOSPHERE 4-1
4.1.1 Climate and Precipitation 4-1
4.1.2 Air Quality 4-2
4.1.3 Noise 4-8
4.1.4 Odors 4-8
4.2 GEOGRAPHY AND SOILS 4-8
4.2.1 Topography and Physiography 4-8
4.2.2 Bedrock and Surficial Geology 4-9
4.2.3 Soils in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-11
4.3 WATER RESOURCES 4-15
4.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology 4-15
4.3.2 Floodplains 4-18
4.3.3 Water Use and Quality 4-18
4.4 TERRESTRIAL BIOTA 4-27
4.4.1 Terrestrial Vegetation and Landscape 4-27
4.4.2 Wetlands 4-30
4.4.3 Wildlife 4-31
4.5 AQUATIC BIOTA 4-35
4.5.1 Fisheries 4-35
4.5.2 Euclid Creek: General Habitat and Fisheries 4-44
4.5.3 Nearshore Lake Erie 4-46
xxxv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.6 ENDANGERED/THREATENED SPECIES 4-47
4.6.1 Plants 4-47
4.6.2 Birds and Mammals 4-47
4.6.3 Fish 4-49
4.7 DEMOGRAPHICS 4-49
4.7.1 Regional Population Trends 4-49
4.7.2 Hilltop Facility Planning Area Population
Projections 4-51
4.8 ECONOMICS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE 4-56
4.8.1 Local Economic Characteristics 4-56
4.8.2 Local Government Finances 4-58
4.8.3 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) 4-62
4.9 LAND USE 4-65
4.9.1 Existing Land Use 4-65
4.9.2 Recreation 4-69
4.10 TRANSPORTATION 4-72
4.11 ENERGY CONSUMPTION 4-73
4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-74
4.12.1 Historic Resources 4-74
4.12.2 Archaeologic Resources 4-75
5. EIS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5-1
5.1 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 5-1
5.1.1 Screening Criteria 5-1
5.1.2 Alternatives Evaluated 5-2
5.1.3 Elimination of Alternatives 5-3
5.2 EIS ALTERNATIVES 5-5
5.2.1 EIS-1 - ESSSWFP and Environmental Assessment
Recommended Alternative 5-7
5.2.2 EIS-2 - Combination Gravity Interceptor Sever and
Pump Station/Force Mains (3 Major Pumping Stations) .. 5-10
5.2.3 EIS-3 - Combination Gravity Interceptor Sewer and
Pump Station/Force Mains (2 Major Pumping Stations) .. 5-15
5.2.4 EIS-4 - Combination Gravity Interceptor Sewer and
Pump Station/Force Main (1 Major Pumping Station) .... 5-15
xxxv i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
5.3 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF EIS ALTERNATIVES 5-20
5.3.1 EIS-1 5-21
5.3.2 EIS-2 5-24
5.3.3 EIS-3 5-27
5.3.4 EIS-4 5-29
5.3.5 Comparison of Alternatives 5-31
6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 6-1
6.1 PRIMARY IMPACTS 6-1
6.1.1 Air Quality/Noise/Odors 6-1
6.1.2 Soils 6-2
6.1.3 Surface Water 6-12
6.1.4 Floodplains 6-17
6.1.5 Aquatic Biota 6-18
6.1.6 Terrestrial Biota 6-19
6.1.7 Wetlands 6-22
6.1.8 Demographics 6-22
6.1.9 Land Use 6-23
6.1.10 Economics 6-23
6.1.11 Fiscal Standing 6-24
6.1.12 Recreation 6-26
6.1.13 Transportation 6-29
6.1.14 Energy Resources 6-32
6.1.15 Cultural Resources 6-33
6.1.16 Public Health 6-34
6.2 SECONDARY IMPACTS 6-35
6.2.1 Demographics 6-35
6.2.2 Land Use 6-39
6.2.3 Sensitive Environmental Resources 6-40
6.2.4 Community Facilities 6-41
7. SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1
7.2 COST-EFFECTIVE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 7-3
7.3 RECOMMENDED PLAN 7-8
7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 7-13
7.4.1 Primary Impacts 7-13
7.4.2 Secondary Impacts 7-19
7.5 ESTIMATED USER COSTS 7-21
7.6 CONCLUSIONS 7-24
xxxvii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
8. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS 8-1
8.1 INTRODUCTION 8-1
8.2 COMMENT LETTERS 8-1
8.3 COMMENT RESPONSES 8-23
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A HILLTOP AREA PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
APPENDIX B EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST TO PUBLIC GROUPS AND OFFICES
APPENDIX C PACKAGE PLANT DATA
APPENDIX D COST ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX E OHIO WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY
APPENDIX F COST ANALYSIS OF EIS ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX G COST ANALYSIS OF EIS RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE TO
SOLVE EXISTING NEEDS
APPENDIX H ANNUAL USER COST COMPUTATIONS
APPENDIX I ARTICLES FROM THE NEORSD NEWSLETTER: PIPELINE
xxxviii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Hilltop, Heights, and Creekside Facility Planning Areas
and Associated Drainage Basins iii
2 Alternative EIS-1 x
3 EIS-1 Local Sewers xi
4 Alternative EIS-2 xii
5 EIS-2 Local Sewers xiii
6 Alternative EIS-3 xv
7 EIS-3 Local Sewers xvi
8 Alternative EIS-4 xviii
9 EIS-4 Local Sewers xix
10 EIS Recommended Alternative xxviii
1-1 Hilltop Facility Planning Area Jurisdictions 1-2
1-2 Hilltop, Heights, and Creekside Facility Planning Areas
and Associated Drainage Basins 1-3
1-3 Heights/Hilltop Interceptors Project Construction Schedule .. 1-8
1-4 Heights/Hilltop Interceptors Schematic 1-9
2-1 Existing Facilities 2-3
2-2 Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant Headworks Facility 2-6
2-3 Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant Preaeration and Primary
Set tling, 2-7
2-4 Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant Secondary Treatment 2-8
2-5 Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Facilities 2-9
2-6 Existing Package Plants 2-14
2-7 Overflow Locations 2-24
2-8 Dual Sewer Configuration 2-26
2-9 BBW Service Area 2-29
xxx ix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
2-10 Beech Hill-Bonnievi'ew-Wilson Mill (BBW) Schematic Diagram ... 2-32
2-11 Areas with Reported Water Quality Complaints 2-42
3-1 Alternative H-l 3-5
3-2 Activated Sludge/Nitrification p., 3-6
3-3 Alternative H-1A f... 3-8
3-4 Alternative H-2A and H-2B 3-9
3-5 Alternative H-3 3-11
3-6 Alternative E-1A and E-1A Hilltop Pump Station 3-12
3-6A Belvoir Drainage Area 3-26
3-7 Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative 3-29
3-8 Alternative 1 3-31
3-9 Alternative 2 3-33
3-10 Alternative 3 3-35
3-11 Alternative 4 T 3-37
4-1 Soil Associations in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-13
4-2 Cleveland Area Drainage Basins 4-16
4-3 Flood Boundaries in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-19
4-4 Locations of Water Quality Sampling Stations in the
Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-24
4-5 Groundwater Resources in the Hilltop Facility
Planning Area 4-26
4-6 Wetlands in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-32
4-7 Locations of Benthic Survey Sampling Stations in the
Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-37
4-8 Percent of Fauna at Benthic Survey Sampling Stations in the
Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-40
4-9 Existing Land Use in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area ..... 4-67
xl
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
4-10 Current Development Proposals and Zoning Classifications of
Vacant Land in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-70
4-11 Historic and Archaeologic Sites in the Hilltop Facility
Planning Area 4-76
5-1 Alternative EIS-1 5-8
5-2 EIS-1 Local Sewers 5-9
5-3 Alternative EIS-2 5-11
5-4 EIS-2 Local Sewers 5-12
5-5 Alternative EIS-3 5-16
5-6 EIS-3 Local Sewers 5-17
5-7 Alternative EIS-4 5-18
5-8 EIS-4 Local Sewers 5-19
6-1 Locations of Stream Crossings by Proposed Regional Sewers
in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 6-14
7-1 Alternative EIS-3 7-4
7-2 EIS-3 Local Sewers 7-7
7-3 EIS Recommended Alternative 7-11
8-1 Pipe Sup. Bridge 8-26
8-2 Steel Bridge/Concrete Footing Pipe Crossing 8-28
xli
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Facilities Planning Documents Relevant to the Hilltop
Planning Area iv
2 Cost Analysis xxi
3 EIS-3: Cost-Effective System Alternative Cost Summary xxv
4 EIS-Recommended Alternative (A Component of EIS-3) Cost
Summary xxv
1-1 Facilities Planning Documents Relevant to the Hilltop
Planning Area 1-5
2-1 Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Data 2-11
2-2 Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Data 2-13
2-3 Treatment Facilities Data Large Package Facilities 2-16
2-4 Existing Small Package Treatment Facilities 2-18
2-5 Community Separate Sewer Information 2-22
2-6 Hilltop Area Basement Flooding 2-27
2-7 Small Pump Stations 2-34
2-8 Building Restrictions 2-38
2-9 Septic System Effluent Quality 2-40
3-1 Alternative Designations 3-2
3-2 Weight of Ranking Criteria (ESSSWFP) 3-15
3-3 ESSSWFP Alternative Ranking 3-16
3-4 ESSSWFP Alternative Costs (Million $) 3-18
3-5 Sizes for the Recommended Plan 3-28
3-6 Environmental Assessment Present Worth Summary
(1982 dollars) 3-39
3-7 SWMM Model Run Results 3-47
4-1 Selected Climatological Data for Cleveland, Ohio 4-3
4-2 USEPA and Ohio EPA Ambient Air Quality Standards 4-4
xlii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table - Page
4-3 Air Quality Data for the Hilltop Facility Planning Area and
Surrounding Localities 4-6
4-4 Stratigraphic Units and Their Water-Bearing Characteristics
in the Vicinity of the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-10
4-5 Hilltop Facility Planning Area Soil Associations:
Characteristics and Limitations 4-12
4-6 Hilltop Facility Planning Area Water Quality Sampling Data... 4-23
4-7 Mammals with Known Ranges in the Vicinity of
Cleveland, Ohio 4-34
4-8 Species Diversities and Biotic Indices of Stream Benthic
Communities, Heights-Hilltop District 4-38
4-9 List of Endangered, Threatened, and Potentially Threatened
Species Reported in or Near the Hilltop, Ohio,
Facility Planning Area 4-48
4-10 ODUC Population Projections, 1980-2005 4-50
4-11 Population Projections: Hilltop Facility Planning Area
(FPA), 1980-2005 4-52
4-12 Hilltop Facility Planning Area Housing Units (HU) and
Persons Per Household 4-54
4-13 Demographic Characteristics of Local Jurisdictions in
the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-55
4-14 1980 Employment Comparisons for the Cleveland Area and Local
Jurisdictions in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area (FPA) ... 4-57
4-15 Median Income, Per Capita Income, and Poverty Rates in the
Hilltop Facility Planning Area 5-59
4-16 Summary of the 1984 Operating Budget for Each Municipality
in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-60
4-17 Financial Indicators for Bonded Debt for Local Jurisdictions
in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-63
4-18 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Annual Report 4-64
4-19 Land Use in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area 4-68
4-20 Cleveland Metropark Attendance, 1981-1985 4-71
xliii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
4-21 Public Recreation Areas in the Hilltop Facility
Planning Area 4-71
5-1 Control System Responses to Possible Malfunctions 5-14
5-2 Alternative EIS-1 Cost Summary 5-22
5-3 Alternative EIS-2 Cost Summary 5-25
5-4 Alternative EIS-3 Cost Summary 5-27
5-5 Alternative EIS-4 Cost Summary 5-30
5-6 Cost Analysis 5-33
6-1 Soils Impacts of Alternative EIS-1 6-4
6-2 Soils Impacts of Alternative EIS-2 6-6
6-3 Soils Impacts of Alternative EIS-3 6-8
6-4 Soils Impacts of Alternative EIS-4 6-10
6-5 Municipal Finance Analysis by Jurisdiction for the Facility
Planning Area 6-27
6-6 Comparison of Issued Building Permits with Housing Unit
Projections for Cities and Villages in the Hilltop Facility
Planning Area 6-38
6-7 Hilltop Facility Planning Area School Enrollments
and Capaci ty 6-43
6-8 City/Village Police and Fire Services in the Hilltop Facility
Planning Area 6-46
7-1 EIS-3: Cost-Effective System Alternative Cost Summary 7-9
7-2 EIS-Recommended Alternative (A Component of EIS-3)
Cost Summary 7-9
7-3 Estimated Annual User Cost for the EIS Recommended Plan
Plus Current Sewer Rates 7-22
xliv
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is published by the
Environmental Impact Unit of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
Region V. The Final Environmental Statement (FES) which forms the basis of
this FEIS was prepared under contract to USEPA by Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC), McLean, Virginia, and Triad Engineering
Incorporated, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. Staff from USEPA, SAIC, and Triad
Engineering involved in preparation of the FES/FEIS included:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
William Spaulding
David Siebert
Dale Luecht
Project Monitor
Assistant Project Monitor
Chief, Environmental Impact Unit
Science Applications International Corporation
Geoffrey Kay
Carl Mitchell
Doug Sarno
Candy Bartoldus
Margaret Kerr
Cindy Hughes
Jeffrey Heimerman
Marlene Stern
Dennis Borum
Dorothy LaRusso
Teresa Dowd
Doug Woods
Debbie Ryan
Alena Motyka
Diane Simmons
Triad Engineering
Project Administrator, Biologist
Project Manager, Planner
Soil Scientist
Biologist
Biologist
Editor
Editor
Biologist
Bibliographer, Editor
Transportation Analyst
Planner, Socioeconomist
Planner, Socioeconomist
Air Quality Analyst
Information Specialist
Project Coordinator
Thomas Meinholz
Michael Sylvester
Rick Goetz
Mark Miller
Senior Engineer
Senior Engineer
Project Engineer
Planner, Editor
xlv
-------
CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1.1 Introduction
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses plans prepared by the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, (NEORSD) to meet wastewater treatment
needs in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area (FPA) near the city of Cleveland.
The Hilltop FPA is located northeast of Cleveland, in northeast Ohio, on the
border of Lake and Cuyahoga Counties. The Hilltop Facilities Planning Area
includes all or parts of Richmond Heights, Highland Heights, Mayfield Heights,
Mayfield, Willoughby Hills, and Gates Mills (Figure 1-1). The area encom-
passes 20.4 square miles of which 46.6 percent (9.5 mi ) is drained by the
Euclid Creek system and 53.4 percent (10.9 mi2) is drained by the Chagrin
River. After crossing the western boundary of the planning area, Euclid Creek
flows west for approximately 3.0 miles to Lake Erie. The Chagrin River never
actually enters the planning area but flows approximately 7.4 miles beyond the
northern border to Lake Erie. The Euclid Creek drainage basin, covering
roughly 23 square miles, is considerably smaller than the Chagrin drainage
basin which measures 264 square miles. Approximately 42.2 percent of the
Euclid Creek drainage basin lies within the facility planning area while only
4.1 percent of the Chagrin drainage basin is included in this area (CRSD
1979a). The geographic relationship of the planning area to these watersheds
is depicted in Figure 1-2.
1.1.2 Areawide Planning and Project History
The NEORSD, previously the Cleveland Regional Sewer District, was formed
by court order in 1972 to conduct a program of pollution abatement in north-
east Ohio. Subsequently, the NEORSD was designated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) as the lead agency to provide a program for waste-
water management in Cleveland's Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant service
area. One segment of the resulting plan addressed the portions of the
Easterly service area with separate sewers. This plan was termed the Easterly
Separate Sewer Segment and generally encompassed suburban communities to the
east of Cleveland (Figure 1-2). Facilities planning was begun in 1977, with
1-1
-------
w
c
o
"^
o
.52
^
3
-J
(0
CD
<
D)
'E
c
u
•£
a
o
£
3
O)
-------
(A
_C
'55
CD
DO
9) a)
2 §>
W 03
* C
B
1 «
c *-
CO CD
o o>
^ c
JO
0.
>
o
CO
-------
the goal of eliminating problems with existing wastewater treatment and
conveyance systems in the Easterly Separate Sewer Area (ESSA). Originally,
ESSA facility planning included the Creekside area (also shown in Figure 1-2).
However, early in facilities planning, the NEORSD concluded that a regional
solution including the Creekside area would not be cost-effective and a
separate Creekside facility planning process was initiated. The remaining
area was termed the Heights/Hilltop Facilities Planning Area. A chronologic
listing of relevant facilities planning documents is provided in Table 1-1.
In 1981, a facilities plan was prepared by CH2M-Hill for the Heights/
Hilltop Facility Planning Area (NEORSD 1981). This planning area (Figure 1-2)
included all or portions of Cleveland, East Cleveland, Cleveland Heights,
Shaker Heights, University Heights, Mayfield Heights, South Euclid, Lyndhurst,
Richmond Heights, Highland Heights, Mayfield, and Willoughby Hills. Infil-
tration and inflow analyses in the facilities plan indicated need for a Sewer
System Evaluation Survey (SSES) to assess the extent of necessary sewer
rehabilitation. These studies and additional facilities planning for the
Heights/Hilltop FPA were initiated in 1981, and submitted to Ohio EPA in 1983.
During review of the 1983 submittal, it was determined by Ohio EPA that a
partitioned environmental assessment would be appropriate due to several
unresolved issues concerning alternatives in the Hilltop portion of the
project, as well as the extended project timeframe calling for completion of
the Hilltop interceptor in 1997 (NEORSD 1983d). As a result, facilities
planning activities were continued independently for the Heights and Hilltop
FPAs.
The USEPA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) on the
Heights Facility Planning Area on August 29, 1984 (USEPA 1984d). The Heights
interceptor covered by the FNSI will extend from the Easterly WWTP southward
through Cleveland, East Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, and
South Euclid. This FNSI approved a sewer segment along Green Road, between
Euclid Avenue and Monticello Boulevard, called Contract G, but acknowledged
that final sizing would depend on decisions made for the Hilltop FPA.
1-4
-------
Table 1-1. Facilities Planning Documents Relevant
to the Hilltop Planning Area
TITLE
PREPARED BY
DATE
Easterly Separate Sewer Segment
Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Volume 1 - Environmental
Inventory and Assessment
Easterly Separate Sewer Segment
Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Volume 2 - Infiltration
and Inflow Analysis
Easterly Separate Sewer Segment
Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Volume 3 - Sewerage Study
Easterly Separate Sewer Segment
Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Executive Summary
Advanced Facility Planning Report.
Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Supplemental Facilities
Planning, Sewer System Evaluation
Survey, Advanced Facility
Planning
Advanced Facility Planning Report.
Volume 1: Appendices A, B, C.
Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Sewer System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
Advanced Facility Planning Report.
Volume 2: Appendices Dl, D2.
Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Sewer System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
Supplemental Facilities Planning
Report. Easterly Separate
Sewer Area, Supplemental
Facilities Planning, Sewer
System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
CH2M-Hill
CH2M-Hill
CH2M-Hill
CH2M-Hill
Havens and Emerson, Inc.
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
Havens and Emerson, Inc.
and Dal ton, Dalton, and
Newport
Havens and Emerson, Inc.
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
Havens and Emerson, Inc.
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
1978
1978
1978
1981
1983
1983
1983
1983
1-5
-------
Table 1-1. Facilities Planning Documents Relevant
to the Hilltop Planning Area (Continued)
TITLE
PREPARED BY
DATE
Public Participation Programs Report.
Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Supplemental Facilities Planning,
Sewer System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
Water Quality Sampling Report.
Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Sewer System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
Sewer System Evaluation Survey
Report. Easterly Separate
Sewer Area, Supplemental
Facilities Planning, Sewer
System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning
Havens and Emerson, Inc. 1983
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
Dalton, Dalton, and 1984
Newport
Havens and Emerson, Inc. 1985
and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport
1-6
-------
The total estimated construction cost of the Heights interceptor sewer is
$93.1 million (1983 value). The total estimated costs of relief sewer and
sewer rehabilitation for all communities in the Heights/Hilltop planning area
amount to $97.8 million (USEPA 1984d). A condition of the grant for the
Heights project required that NEORSD work with the communities in the Heights/
Hilltop planning area to develop and implement programs for relief sewer
construction and rehabilitation. This grant condition covered all communities
in the Heights FPA and Mayfield Heights, Richmond Heights, Mayfield Village,
Gates Mills, and Highland Heights in the Hilltop FPA. The construction
schedule for the Heights project is presented in Figure 1-3 and the various
contracts in the project are illustrated in Figure 1-4.
The Heights FNSI acknowledged that planning for the Cleveland Easterly
Wastewater Treatment Plant had not been completed, but that planning had
demonstrated that flows from the Heights/Hilltop area should be transported
for treatment at Easterly. Since 1984, USEPA has reviewed an environmental
assessment for sludge handling facilities for Easterly, but the system
improvements for control and treatment of wet weather overflows from
Cleveland's combined sewer systems have not yet been evaluated. Based on its
review, the USEPA issued a FNSI for solids handling at Easterly on April 17,
1985 (USEPA 1985). Plans evaluated in this EIS, therefore, are not the final
components of the Easterly system. Combined sewer overflow (CSO) issues are
to be resolved during future planning segments.
Ohio EPA prepared an environmental assessment on the Hilltop Facility
Planning Area in August 1985 (OEPA 1985a). The USEPA carefully reviewed this
information and, on April 2, 1986, issued a Notice of Intent to prepare this
EIS on proposals to construct interceptor sewers to serve the wastewater
treatment needs of the Hilltop Facility Planning Area (USEPA 1986b). This
decision was based on concern for the environmental and cost impacts of the
project proposed by the NEORSD.
1.2 PROJECT NEED
The purpose of the proposed improvements to the Hilltop wastewater
collection and conveyance system is to solve the current problems in the
1-7
-------
H
Z
O
1
cc
0
S
2
N
i
1
m
3
3
i
«
2
S
I
i
I
a
S
_
(A
C
O
o
S2
o
4-1
a
a>
u
I
a
o
X
(A
+•>
.?
'55
X
CO
0)
CO
LO
00
a;
o
3
O
CO
1-8
-------
O
^
(0
0)
JC
O
V)
(A
O
+••
a
0)
o
0)
*j
a
o
X
(A
*J
O)
'5
I
*»
T—
0>
3
O)
-------
Hilltop area. These include pump station control problems, excessive I/I,
poorly operating package plants, and septic system failures. In addition,
decisions made during facilities planning for the Easterly Separate Sewer Area
(ESSA) must also be considered.
The most serious problem with the existing sewage transport system is the
operation of the Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills complex (BBW). During
periods of extremely wet weather, the Wilson Mills pumping station becomes
overloaded and signals the Beech Hill pumping station to shut down. Beech
Hill in turn signals a sluice gate to divert flow to the Bonnieview storage
basin. Although a majority of the flow is diverted to the storage basin, some
flow continues to the Beech Hill pumping station. This flow overflows from
the wet well and is discharged to a small tributary of the Chagrin River. If
pumping is not resumed at Beech Hill, the Bonnieview facility then becomes
full and eventually overflows.
These excessive flow volumes that occur during wet weather are a result
of I/I problems in the local collector systems. Many of these problems are
the result of common trench sewer construction (see Section 2.3). The Sewer
System Evaluation Survey (SSES) outlined several sewer rehabilitation and
relief sewer projects for the local communities which will help relieve a
portion of the I/I problem. The NEORSD is currently working with the
communities to coordinate these rehabilitation and relief projects.
Several package plants exist within the Hilltop Facility Planning Area
(FPA) and operate with varying degrees of efficiency as discussed in Section
2.2. These plants discharge poor quality effluent to area waterways and thus
have problems meeting the NPDES permit limitations.
The original facilities planning efforts listed basement flooding as a
problem within the Hilltop area. During the preparation of this EIS, it was
determined that sewer maintenance on portions of the existing collector system
would help relieve this problem. As previously discussed, the SSES outlined
several relief sewer and sewer rehabilitation projects that would increase the
sewer capacity and reduce the incidence of basement flooding in the area.
1-10
-------
These projects are all local improvements and are not part of the scope of
this EIS. With the exception of a few homes around the pumping stations, the
BBW complex is not the cause of basement flooding in the area. Basement
flooding around Beech Hill and Wilson Mills pumping stations is a result of
basement floor elevations lower than the overflow of the pumping stations' wet
wells. Most of these homes have had plumbing modifications to correct the
problem.
Failing septic systems within the Hilltop FPA were noted as another
problem throughout the facilities planning process. Since a complete study of
these problems has never been conducted, the actual extent of failing systems
in the area is relatively unknown. Although a complete study of existing
onsite systems has not been conducted for the Hilltop FPA, facilities planning
identified poor soils in the area, the relative age of the onsite systems, and
the fact that construction projects have been rejected because of no sewer
access as indicators that the existing onsite systems should be eliminated.
1.3 LEGAL BASIS FOR ACTION
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a Federal
agency to prepare an EIS on "...major Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment...." In addition, the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) has established regulations (40 CFR Part
1500-1508) to guide Federal agencies in determinations of whether Federal
funds or Federal approvals would involve a project that would significantly
affect the environment. USEPA has developed its own regulations (40 CFR Part 6)
for the implementation of the NEPA review. As noted above, USEPA Region V has
determined that pursuant to these regulations, an EIS was required for the
Hilltop project.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA, Public Law
92-500), as amended in 1977 by the Clean Water Act (CWA, Public Law 95-217),
established a uniform, nationwide water pollution control program according to
which all State water quality programs operate. OEPA has been delegated the
responsibility and authority to administer this program in Ohio, subject to
the approval of USEPA. However, the authority for determining whether
proposed actions are subject to NEPA is retained by USEPA.
1-11
-------
Federal funding for wastewater treatment projects is provided under
Section 201 of the FWPCA. The USEPA will fund 75 percent of the grant-
eligible costs for conventional collection and treatment facilities for
subsequent grant awards made to treatment works that received partial funding
prior to October 1, 1984. For grants awarded after October 1, 1984, Federal
participation will be for 55 percent of all grant-eligible costs (current
capacity at the time of the Step 3 award) and conventional gravity collection
sewers become ineligible for grant awards. For alternative collection systems
and treatment systems in small communities (e.g. pressure sewers, septic tank
effluent sewers, septic tanks, and soil absorption systems), the funding level
is 85 percent of the eligible costs for grant awards made prior to October 1,
1984, and decreases to 75 percent of all eligible costs for grants made after
October 1, 1984. The conventional sewer costs for which USEPA will not pro-
vide funding assistance are land and easement costs; sewers for which less
than two-thirds of the planned flow originated before October 28, 1972; sewer
laterals located in the street or in easements required to connect house
laterals with the sewer main; and house laterals for connection to an onsite
pumping or treatment system. Grant eligibility of the onsite portions of
alternative systems varies depending on their ownership and management.
Privately owned systems constructed after December 27, 1977, alternative
service for homes bu:Llt after this date, and new conventional systems are not
eligible for Federal grants.
The dispersal of Federal funds to local applicants is made via the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program administered
by USEPA. The Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Amendments
of 1981 became law (Public Law 97-217) on December 29, 1981, and significantly
changed the procedural and administrative aspects of the municipal construc-
tion grants program. The changes reflected in these amendments have been
incorporated into the USEPA manual, Construction Grants 1985 (CG-85) Municipal
Wastewater Treatment. Under the 1981 Amendments, separate Federal grants are
no longer provided for facilities planning and design of projects. The desig-
nation of these activities as Step 1, facilities planning, and Step 2, design,
are retained in CG-85. The Step 3 grant refers to the project for which grant
assistance will be awarded and will include an allowance for planning (Step 1)
and design (Step 2) activities.
1-12
-------
The CG-85 states that projects which received Step 1 or Step 2 grants
prior to the enactment of the 1981 amendments may be completed in accordance
with terms and conditions of their grant agreement except where statutory
changes require revisions or the grantee elects to meet new requirements.
Step 3 grant assistance includes a design allowance for those projects which
received a Step 1 grant prior to December 29, 1981. A municipality may be
eligible, however, to receive an advance of the allowance for planning or
design if the population of the community is under 25,000 and the State
reviewing agency (OEPA) determines that the municipality would be unable to
complete the facilities planning and design to qualify for grant assistance
(Step 3).
Communities also may choose to construct wastewater treatment facilities
without financial support from the State or Federal governments. In such
cases, the only State and Federal requirements that apply are that the design
be technically sound and that OEPA be satisfied that the facility will meet
NPDES permit standards and public health requirements. Any applicable local
ordinances would also have to be met.
If a community chooses to construct a wastewater collection and treatment
system with USEPA grant assistance, the project must meet all applicable
requirements of the Grants Program. The CWA stresses that the most cost-
effective alternative is the one that will result in a minimum total resource
costs over the life of the project, as well as meet Federal, State, and local
requirements. Nonmonetary costs also must be considered, including social and
environmental factors. The most cost-effective alternative is not necessarily
the lowest cost alternative. The analysis for choosing the most cost-
effective alternative is based on both capital costs and operation and
maintenance costs for a 20-year period, although capital costs are funded.
Selection of the most cost-effective alternative must also consider social and
environmental implications of the alternative. An alternative with higher
monetary costs but lesser social and environmental impacts may be selected
over an alternative that has low monetary costs but significant environmental
impacts.
1-13
-------
1.4 EIS PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
On June 18, 1986, the USEPA held two meetings in Highland Heights where
the decision to prepare an EIS for the Hilltop portion of the Heights/Hilltop
interceptor project was announced. The scoping meetings, which were adver-
tised to the general public and public officials, were held to gather public
input in developing the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS. The
NEORSD has assembled the Hilltop Area Public Advisory Committee (HAPAC) to
provide review and input during the EIS process. A list of the HAPAC members
is presented in Appendix A. A draft version of this Final EIS was circulated
for public comment (the distribution list for the Draft EIS is contained in
Appendix B). Public hearings were held in Highland Heights on August 12, 1987
at 1:00 and 7:00 pm for USEPA to receive comments in person on the Draft EIS.
Following the close of the 45-day comment period on August 27, 1987, this
Final EIS was prepared incorporating the results of public input on the Draft
EIS. Chapter 8 provides responses to comments raised during the public
comment period on the Draft EIS and at the public hearings held on August 12,
1987. After a comment period following release of this Final EIS, USEPA will
issue a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying the cost-effective,
environmentally sound alternative for the Hilltop FPA. This ROD will then
form the basis of a funding decision by the Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grants Program.
1.5 ISSUES
Environmental, planning, and fiscal issues addressed in this EIS are
summarized below. These issues were first identified during USEPA review of
the Heights/Hilltop Facility Plan and Ohio EPA's related environmental
assessment. Resulting issues were first outlined in USEPA's Notice of Intent
(April 2, 1986) and further refined through public comments at the two scoping
meetings held on June 18, 1986. These issues are discussed in detail in
Chapter 6, Environmental Consequences of Alternatives. Chapter 7, Conclusions
and Selected Alternative, identifies the most cost-effective and environ-
mentally sound alternative and recommends measures to mitigate negative
impacts of this selected plan. Chapter 8 provides responses to comments
raised during the public comment period on the Draft EIS and at the public
hearing held on August 12, 1987.
1-14
-------
Induced Secondary Grovth
The potential for each of the alternatives to affect the magnitude and
distribution of growth is evaluated. Past trends in development,
suburban land-use conversion, and the supply of vacant developable land
in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area and competing suburban areas near
Cleveland are evaluated. Current constraints to growth in the unsewered
portions of the Planning Area due to inadequate soils have limited growth
to date and may do so in the future. Impacts of forecast changes in the
magnitude and distribution of area growth and on the ability of the
affected jurisdictions to provide basic public services and
infrastructure are evaluated.
Project Costs and Fiscal Impacts
The impacts of each of the project alternatives on total project cost,
user costs, and the ability of the NEORSD to provide the local share of
project costs is evaluated. The ability of the Hilltop Facility Planning
Area's population to pay the projected project user costs is evaluated.
Impacts to Euclid Creek
The selected alternative may include a free standing pipe bridge across
Euclid Creek in the Euclid Creek Reservation. Impacts evaluated include
aesthetics, habitat modification, sedimentation, and erosion, as well as
the effects of these factors on water quality and downstream biota.
Impacts to Natural Habitat
Direct impacts of habitat loss and destruction along the proposed open-
cut sewer construction corridors and new facility locations for each
alternative have been estimated based on field visits and pre-existing
surveys. Potential mitigation for these impacts is identified for the
selected alternative.
Impacts to Wetlands
Existing Federal and State inventories of wetland areas were combined
with field inspections to identify potential impacts of proposed open-cut
sewer construction corridors for each alternative. The selected
alternative involves no direct impacts to wetlands. Future growth may,
however, affect wetlands in the Hilltop FPA.
1-15
-------
CHAPTER 2. EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
This chapter describes the wastewater facilities currently located in the
Hilltop Facility Planning Area (FPA) as well as the main centralized
facilities outside of the planning area. Both large (centralized) and small
(package plants) wastewater treatment plants are discussed as well as the
existing pump stations, sewer system, and unsewered areas. Figure 2-1 shows
the location of the facilities discussed in this chapter.
The major wastewater facilities associated with the planning area are the
Easterly and Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plants. The Easterly treatment plant
is one of three major wastewater treatment plants that serve the city of
Cleveland and it's suburbs. The Hilltop FPA is within the Easterly service
area. The Euclid plant is also important because transfer of waste to that
facility from the Hilltop planning area was proposed as an alternative for the
part of the Easterly Separate Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan
addressing the Hilltop area. The Euclid plant is owned and operated by the
city of Euclid.
Several small treatment facilities, known as package plants, are present
within the Hilltop FPA. These facilities include Richmond Park, Scottish
Highlands, and Hickory Hills, which are operated by Cuyahoga County, and
Sleepy Hollow and Pleasant Hill, which are operated by Lake County. Existing
pumping stations include the Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills (BBW) complex
and several others. These pumping stations serve certain portions of the
sewer area by lifting wastewater from low lying areas to gravity sewers in
higher areas.
The sewer system in the Hilltop FPA collects wastes from individual
sources and transports it to the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant (shown on
Figure 2-1). Several areas exist within the planning area which are not
served by the Easterly sewer system. Wastes from those areas are either
transported to package treatment facilities, or are treated with onsite sys-
tems such as septic tanks and leach beds.
2-1
-------
The following sections of this chapter provide information on the equip-
ment, performance, and condition of the existing facilities in the Easterly
service area, with a focus on the features directly related to the proposed
Hilltop interceptor. Figure 2-1 shows the location of the facilities
discussed in this chapter.
2.1 EXISTING CENTRALIZED FACILITIES
2.1.1 Easterly Wastevater Treatment Plant
The Easterly treatment plant was proposed in the 1920s to serve a portion
of the city of Cleveland. The combined sewer system existing before 1925
determined to a great extent the location of the three major wastewater treat-
ment plants. As in many older areas, a combined system existed with both
sanitary and storm water flows in one pipe. Two additional factors were con-
sidered in the final placement of the Easterly Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant at the intersection of East 140th Street and Lake Shore Boulevard.
First, a safe distance had to be allowed between the plant discharge to Lake
Erie and the drinking water intake for the city of Cleveland. Second, the
plant had to be located near the existing alignment and outlet of the Easterly
interceptor, as constructed in 1905 (NEORSD 1978c). The location of the
Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant is shown on Figure 2-1.
The original Easterly plant was designed to treat an average sewage flow
of 123 million gallons per day (MGD). Maximum hydraulic capacity for primary
treatment was 307 MGD, and for secondary treatment, it was 184 MGD (NEORSD
1978c). Primary treatment involves the removal of wastes which will settle
out or float, while secondary treatment is generally a biological breakdown of
soluble organic materials. The Easterly plant was expanded and renovated in
1968 and again in 1973.
The Cleveland Regional Sewerage District, now known as the Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewerage District (NEORSD), completed the Easterly Wastewater
Facilities Plan for Phase I improvements to the Easterly Wastewater Treatment
Plant in 1974. The improvements proposed included:
2-2
-------
UJ
o
c
a
4-> _* 01
000)
o -H --*
I/I X I/I
»
m M a
c z D a:
O £1 I
C TJ 0) X
1-4 c e
v o m n
> 6 "-i »
c ^H
c
u
(0
c in
b T}
o o
c o
c
3
O
o
.
-H 01
04-1
NG
W
1
o *
o
-------
o Electric power and air supply system
o Disinfection and discharge
o Effluent pumping station
o Return sludge system
o Service facility and site.
Expansion and upgrading to improve the plant's efficiency began in 1978
and is essentially complete. These improvements have increased Easterly's dry
weather flow capacity to 155 MGD with a wet weather or peak flow capacity of
330 MGD.
Service Area
The Easterly Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant serves approximately
540,000 residents, with a total service area of over 41,000 acres. This
service area includes 17,000 acres of combined sewers in the city of Cleveland
and 24,500 acres of separate sewers in the suburbs (NEORSD 1978c). The six
major interceptors that convey flow in the Easterly sewer district include:
o Easterly o Lake Shore Boulevard
o Doan Valley o East 140th
o Dugway (East and West) o East 152nd.
The communities served by this treatment facility include Mayfield,
Lyndhurst, Beechwood, Pepper Pike, Orange Village, Woodmere, Richmond Heights,
Highland Heights, Mayfield Heights, Shaker Heights, South Euclid, University
Heights, Cleveland Heights, East Cleveland, Gates Mills, Warrensville Heights,
Warrensville Township, and the city of Cleveland (NEORSD 1978c).
Existing Flows
The Easterly Regional Wastewater Plant serves the largest portion of the
separate sewer area within the city of Cleveland. The Easterly portion of the
separate sewer system contains approximately 2,800,000 linear feet of sanitary
sewer and serves nearly 24,500 acres. The communities within the Easterly
separate sewer area have a combined population of about 232,000 people;
however, not all are connected with the Easterly WWTP (NEORSD 1978c).
2-4
-------
Within the Hilltop Facility Planning Area, approximately 10 million
gallons a day (MGD) of separate wastewater sewage is generated and transported
to the Easterly plant (NEORSD 1978c). As previously stated, the peak flow
capacity at the Easterly plant is 330 MGD for secondary treatment. Dry
weather design capacity for this plant is 155 MGD.
An extensive flow monitoring program conducted as part of the Sewer
System Evaluation Survey established a peak wet weather flow rate to the
Easterly WWTP of 713 MGD (NEORSD 1985a). This study concluded that the
existing separate sewer system has insufficient capacity to transport this
peak flow and the result is frequent sewer overflows, bypasses, and basement
flooding. These problems occur throughout the ESSA including the Hilltop
area. More detail on these problems will be provided later in this chapter
with the discussion of the existing sewer system.
Treatment System
The existing Easterly plant layout is shown in Figures 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and
2-5. The Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant was initially built to remove
only grit and screenings. It was upgraded to an activated sludge plant (the
first on Lake Erie) in 1938. The plant was further upgraded and expanded from
1974-1976. The solids generated at this facility are pumped to the Southerly
WWTP for treatment (via a 13-mile force main).
The Heights and Hilltop projects are not the final components for the
Easterly system. Future planning for improvements for CSO control and treat-
ment will continue after this plan is completed.
The treatment steps currently used at Easterly are described in this
section and correspond to Figures 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5.
1) Screening and Grit Removal - In a typical treatment system, the initial
step involves removal of large suspended or floating materials which may
be potentially hazardous to the treatment system. This is accomplished by
using coarse screens or racks to remove solids such as sticks, rags, and
paper; and by allowing grit to settle out.
2) Comminutors - These devices are used to chop sewage solids into smaller
pieces so they do not clog pumps or interfere with other treatment
processes.
2-5
-------
I g? *
* s| g
u -° s! " " 3
I S
I i
H S
^ 5
I • X X Z
.HI.,
uii!
iii!
s
c«;
D
LLJ
^
2-6
-------
d
s-5:l
si II i i i llsli
SAiii-
UWUf
»• <« ^
CJUt
3s!
on
i
CN
C£
D
U
< !- >-
> z 5S
> < <
UJ _| ^
I— Q_ ^
^t-§f
^ | Q
^ 5 Z
£2 S3
wfl ««
a=
l!
:i
J
a _
r
\i
zs
U
a:
c^ /<^
UJ UJ
I- ¥
CO I—
<
UJ
'H
<
Cti
UJ
<
UJ
C£
Q-
2-7
-------
-
7 |§ <
-------
LLJ
UJ
"
I i
, '.
s s
H X
i!
i
!«i
1::
D
U
UJ U-l — '
to i— LJJ
i—5 P-
«fc
s;
<
T^T
33
:i
III
&
i s
I i
il"1"
"1
1
c
I
i!
i
•s5^
»:S
j;2o
6_
C3CH
n
d
•» s
. D D
'"• Z2
d
,
d
tO
b
5
M O
0
n n
«o
D
D
3
ft.
SpS g I !
HP 5 « g
o^^P^HSKia* 7 S
SBlk^gS^ S 8
1 E
-------
3) Primary Settling - In this treatment process, flow velocity is decreased
in 12 primary settling tanks. As the sewage flows through the tanks,
settleable solids are removed from the liquid fraction.
A) Aeration - The flow from the primary settling tanks is then introduced to
one of eight four-pass aeration tanks. Here the wastewater is mixed with
returned sludge and aerated under turbulent conditions. This process is
designed to encourage growth of microorganisms which will convert the
biodegradable organics into carbon dioxide, water, and more micro-
organisms. As the microorganisms grow, they form a mass which is removed
during the final settling process. A portion of these biological solids
are returned to the aeration tank as needed to perpetuate growth.
5) Final Settling - The waste fraction of the sewage along with the floccu-
lated microorganisms from the aeration tanks are allowed to settle out in
this step, with a portion being returned to the aeration tanks.
6) Disinfection - The final step in a treatment process is disinfection to
prevent the spread of disease caused by pathogenic bacteria and viruses.
The addition of chlorine (as a gas, or as a solid or liquid hypochlorite
compound) is the process most commonly used for wastewater disinfection in
the United States.
7) Discharge - The final treated wastewater from this facility is ultimately
discharged to Lake Erie.
Effluent Quality
Performance data for the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant as docu-
mented by the Ohio EPA are summarized in Table 2-1 (OEPA 1986a).
As shown, the Easterly WWTP generally operates within the NPDES permit
limits. Although the BOD limit is exceeded during the summer months, overall
the plant appears to operate efficiently.
2.1.2 Euclid Vastewater Treatment Plant
The Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant is owned and operated by the city
of Euclid and serves the city and several small developments in the Hilltop
FPA. The average daily design flow of this facility is about 18 MGD. The
city of Euclid reports that the sanitary sewers have a history of problems
associated with wet weather flow (as stated in the Easterly Separate Sewer
Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan) which are probably similar to the severe
infiltration and inflow problems which occur within the Easterly Wastewater
Treatment Plant service area (NEORSD 1978c). These problems result in exces-
sive flow volumes at the treatment plant during wet weather. The final efflu-
ent from the Euclid plant is discharged to Lake Erie.
2-10
-------
Table 2-1. Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Data
Month
1985 November
December
1986 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Augus t
September
October
AVERAGE
Flow
(MGD)
137.5
116.4
118.0
136.1
116.5
114.4
120.0
116.8
123.0
109.7
118.9
127.4
121.2
NPDES Limit
(30 day average)
BOD
(mg/1)
15.8
16.7
16.0
10.1
13.3
11.4
17.5
24.7
20.8
21.4
22.9
20.1
17.6
20
S.S.
(mg/1)
5.9
7.2
7.5
8.2
6.7
8.0
9.8
4.9
5.1
4.9
5.3
6.1
6.6
20
Fecal*
Coliform
(#/100 ml)
—
—
—
—
—
—
36.8
35.4
19.6
29.4
23.8
53.3
33.1
1,000
Total
Phosphorus
(mg/1)
0.28
0.33
0.34
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.31
0.18
0.23
0.29
0.21
0.28
0.27
1.0
Source: OEPA 1986a
*Note: Fecal Coliform was only monitored from May to October.
2-11
-------
Effluent data for this facility (OEPA 1986b) are included in Table 2-2.
As shown, this plant has a problem meeting the NPDES limits for BOD, SS, and
total phosphorus.
2.2 EXISTING PACKAGE PLANTS
These plants were originally built by developers and are now owned and
operated by the counties. Five large package treatment plants are present
within the planning area. The Richmond Park Terrace and Scottish Highlands
plants both have an average capacity of over 0.1 MGD. The Hickory Hills,
Sleepy Hollow, and Pleasant Hill plants are considerably smaller with average
capacities of less than 0.05 MGD for each plant. A summary of the available
information on each facility is contained in this section, as well as informa-
tion on the small package treatment facilities in the area.
2.2.1 Richmond Park Terrace Treatment Plant
The Richmond Park Terrace treatment plant is located on the grounds of
the Cuyahoga County Airport. The facility is owned and operated by Cuyahoga
County and serves about 950 residents of an apartment complex in Richmond
Heights. The total service area of this plant is approximately 3.7 acres
(NEORSD 1978c). The location of this facility is shown in Figure 2-6.
This plant has a design capacity of 0.198 MGD but currently operates at
an average flow of about 0.133 MGD. Treatment at this facility is by extended
aeration (NEORSD 1978c). An extended aeration process generally consists of
an aeration tank followed by a settling tank. In the aeration tank, waste-
water is mixed with sludge returned from the settling tank and aerated under
turbulent conditions.
This process encourages growth of microorganisms which transform the
organic fraction of the wastewater into carbon dioxide, water, and micro-
organisms. Extended aeration typically allows a long retention time in both
the aeration tank and the settling tank to improve the treatment efficiency.
All sludge generated in the settling tank is generally returned to the
aeration tank, and Che liquid fraction is discharged as effluent.
2-12
-------
Table 2-2. Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Data
1985
1986
(30
Month
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Augus t
September
October
AVERAGE
NPDES Limit
day average)
Flow
(MGD)
20.6
19.4
18.1
19.6
19.4
19.3
20.1
18.9
17.9
17.7
18.4
19.0
19.0
—
BOD
(rng/1)
8.8
17.2
23.4
35.9
32.4
24.0
20.7
19.0
14.1
18.4
9.9
10.1
19.5
12
S.S.
(mg/1)
18.9
32.3
40.3
67.3
54.2
36.9
32.3
36.2
15.3
8.2
14.7
13.3
30.8
12
Fecal* Total
Coliform Phosphorus
(#/100 ml) (mg/1)
0.68
1.31
1.29
1.67
2.03
1.81
12.1 1.47
26.9 1.33
13.2 0.87
15.9 0.45
0.55
0.47
17.0 1.16
200 1.0
Source: OEPA 1986a
*NOTE: Fecal Coliform was only monitored from May to August.
2-13
-------
l CUYAHOCA|CO. AIRPORT
MAYFIELD HEIGHTS
-N-
PftCKAGE PLANTS
Richmond Park
Scottish Highlands
Hickory Hills
Sleepy Hollow
Pleasant Hill
HILLTOP PLANNING AREA
Figure 2-6
EXISTING PACKAGE PLANTS
2-14
-------
Effluent from this plant is discharged to Euclid Creek. Data available
from November 1985 through October 1986 is summarized in Table 2-3. A monthly
summary of the plant data is contained in Appendix C. Available information
on the NPDES permit for this plant is also shown in Table 2-3. Compliance is
generally shown for all values except fecal coliform bacteria.
During site vists, the EIS project team noted that the facility appeared
to be in generally good condition. No severe odor problems were detected.
2.2.2 Scottish Highlands Treatment Plant
The Scottish Highlands treatment plant is located on Dundee Road in
Richmond Heights and is owned and operated by Cuyahoga County. This facility
serves a residential area of about 950 residents within Richmond Heights with
separate sewers. The location of this facility is shown in Figure 2-6.
The design capacity of this plant is about 0.122 MGD, and recent records
indicate that the plant normally treats about 0.118 MGD. Secondary treatment
at this facility is also by extended aeration.
Summarized effluent data (November 1985 through October 1986) for the
Scottish Highlands treatment plant and the NPDES permit values are included in
Table 2-3. A monthly summary of the plant data is contained in Appendix C.
This plant shows noncompliance for suspended solids and fecal coliform.
Discharge from this facility is to Euclid Creek.
The EIS project team also noted that this facility was in generally good
condition. The plant is situated near the edge of the steep Euclid Creek
ravine, which could limit the extent of expansion of this facility. No severe
odor problems were detected during the site visits.
2-15
-------
J
3
s
3
a
r~~t
3
CM
••a
Q
-3
•H
r™H
m m m
co -* co
in in in
co o CM o^
Q in CM in
i—l I—I CM «—I
CO
m CM o
a
-* O
s d
O O
3 3
s
O O O O O
3 I
a 3
HE!
a
o
4-J
nJ
4-1
$
a
w
S
^
* *
2-16
-------
2.2.3 Hickory Hills Treatment Plant
The Hickory Hills treatment plant is also owned and operated by Cuyahoga
County. It is located along the eastern edge of the study area on Hickory
Hills Road in Mayfield (see Figure 2-6). This plant serves about 287
residents of Mayfield Village.
The most recent available data (November 1985 through October 1986)
indicates that this plant has an average flow of 0.031 MGD. The design
capacity of this plant is 0.024 MGD.
Effluent data (November 1985 through October 1986) for this facility are
included in Table 2-3 along with the NPDES limits. A complete summary of the
plant data is contained in Appendix C. With the exception of dissolved
oxygen, the effluent is generally not in compliance with the permit. Effluent
from this plant flows to a storm sewer that discharges to the Chagrin River.
This facility is entirely enclosed in a building; however, during site
visits, the EIS project team did not detect any severe odor problems. The
facility was in generally fair condition.
2.2.4 Sleepy Hollow Treatment Plant
The Sleepy Hollow treatment plant is located in the northeast corner of
the study area along Martin Drive in Willoughby Hills as shown in Figure 2-6.
This facility is owned and operated by Lake County and serves approximately
118 people.
The design capacity of this extended aeration facility is about 0.010
MGD; however, recent records show that the plant treats an average of about
0.011 MGD. Effluent characteristics (November 1985 through October 1986) for
the Sleepy Hollow treatment plant are summarized in Table 2-3. Monthly
summary data for this facility are also contained in Appendix C. As shown,
the plant generally does not comply with the BOD or suspended solids NPDES
permit limits. Discharge from this facility is to a tributary of the Chagrin
River.
2-17
-------
The EIS project team noted that this facility appeared to be in somewhat
poor condition. No physical constraints were present that would limit
expansion of this facility. During the site visit, no odor problems were
detected.
2.2.5 Pleasant Hill Treatment Plant
The Pleasant Hill treatment plant is also located in the northeast corner
of the study area in Willoughby Hills, and is also owned and operated by Lake
County. This facility is located on Pleasant Hill Road (see Figure 2-6). The
service area of this facility consists of about 83 homes and small commercial
properties in Willoughby Hills (NEORSD 1978c).
As with the plants previously mentioned, this facility also has extended
aeration treatment. The reported design capacity of this plant is 0.040 MGD;
however, it currently treats about 0.046 MGD.
The effect of the excessive flow volumes at this facility can be seen in
the effluent quality. The high flow volumes reduce the retention time in the
plant, and thus reduce treatment efficiency. Table 2-3 contains a summary of
the operating data for November 1985 through October 1986. Monthly data is
also contained in Appendix C. At present, this facility is not covered by an
NPDES permit. As shown, this plant discharges relatively high concentrations
of BOD and suspended solids. Effluent from this facility is discharged to a
tributary of Euclid Creek.
The overall appearance of this facility was generally good as noted by
the EIS project team. During the site visit, the plant was being operated
with only half of the aeration tanks to treat the waste load. No significant
odor problems were detected.
2.2.6 Other Treatment Plants
In addition to the five package plants described above, there are several
small package plants and onsite treatment systems located within the Hilltop
area (NEORSD 1985a). Table 2-4 provides information on these plants.
2-18
-------
co
o
rt
rt
0)
M
a;
o
rt
rt
B
in
bo
C
•H
4->
(0
•H
I
CM
(0
I—(
J3
rt
B
QJ
W
O Q
rt O
cxae
rt ^
o
o
rt
o
o
O
rt
u,
M
G C G rt C C
OOO MOO
•H -H •!-( t| *•> -H -H (-1
4_i4->4-<(i;O4->4->aj
rtrtrt4->o
a)
MCCG GCCCG GGG G UCM
0> O O O OOOOO OOO O 0) O -J -H -H -H M -H H 4-1 -rt *-•
r>| 4-1 4-1 4-> (U4->4->4->4->4J 0) 0) OJ4->4-<4-' Q)4-> (U rH 4-> I—|
•Hrtrtrt*-|rtrtrtrtrt4J4-<4-'rtrtrt4->rt-i-J'Hrt-H
I *CMr-llO
oooooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
oo
oooooooo
oooooood
ooooooooooooooooooooo
CJOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Od « 05
O5
-O T3
(«(U
M M
01 (U
*^ *O 'O 'O T3
M >-l >-l )-l (-1
•O tJ T3 T3
T3 t) "O T3
---
GGca cGc<-j*-'
(U rt rt rt M 4->4->4->4->4->4->4->4->4->4->4->4-'4->4->
bObObObObObObObO bOM rHi—IrHrHi-l bObObObObObObObObObObObObObObObO
•H -H -H -H -H -H -H -H -H i—I r—( i—I rH rH t—I -H -H -i-t -H -H -H -H -H -H -H -H -i-l -H -H -H -H
0)
rt
H
w
4J
G
-H
rt
Vi
rt
Q
o
M
3
JZ
4-10
wa»t(
-Ht/)3
4JMJ3
Q.3U
rtO
rt
J3
0
>-i
3
.e
u
c-rt
aibotuai
ST3O4J
t^CXr-IGM
rH-HPQrtO)
l-i
(Urt
OS3
0»
bO
(U
bO
rtX>
rt
a.
w
OJO
OD3
C
e
-
4->rt
Urt*-"
cQouo'o>-i-< rt
MDQ
G
(U
N
cQot;QJcoW
sOJ-o
OiM
OOSBrt
ja-HOu
BG.
<3<«^»
4-'4-'r-<
cocoo
aia»o
^uoi
OO
O'H
-H>
>cn
i-i
osrtPQbou •c-H
a; J3 O
-------
13
(U
3
•H
4->
c
o
o
OT
dJ
O
(C
-i
O (U
•H 4->
V I
*^ ?^
c c
o o
(U 4->
rt nj 4-> rt
M M rH (-1
0) 0) -H 0)
C C
O O
•H -H M J-i
4-> 4-J CD Cl)
rt nj 4-1 4J
M ti (H F-H
-H -H
o eo o m o
i-i CD t-H 1-1 m
O CD O O O
O CD O O O
i-l i-H i-l «-l CM i-l O «-H
OO OOOOOO
OO OOOOOO
OOOOO 00 OOOOOO
rHcecccccccccccc
JSOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
tnOUCJUOUUCJOCJCjOUO
•rt -H -rt -H -H -H -H -H -H -rt -H -H -H -rl
OT61WWWOTWOTWWWWWWW
bObObObObObObObobObObobObObObO
•H -H -rl -H -H -H -H -H -H -H -H -H -H -H -H
caccccccccccccc
ooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOCJOOOOOOOO
o
a
o
wti
w
•rt
u
X!
u
CO
0)
rH
rt
oo
c
c o
O -H
CM
en
o
J5 bOTJ
^ O U PQ
c
o
1-1
4-i -H OO 0»OX!'l-'4J
U 4-1 QJ Q, O C 3
«l H oo
a 33
cd -H c
*-' H
co rt w c cy c bo ••••* d) oj
^ booooo4-ioa>Qu obo
3ccirtrt33 •rtB^^'*~'^^
a
r-
00
rt
o
oo
(U
o
o
00
u
0)
•o
o
o
a,
rt
S-l
CO
rt
i-l
u
o
rt
cJ B
•H Q>
CL (/)
(0 CO
rt cv
a
M !>»
cy 4-*
4->
«[ [ t-J
rt tu
B -H
3 4-<
a,
bO (U
C J3
•H 4->
w o
£>>
c
1-1
(U
Q>
I
z:
a;
4->
o
2-20
-------
In general, each of these facilities is a small treatment system which
serves one business (e.g., Bishop & Highland Marathon).
2.3 SEWER SYSTEM
The provision of sewer service in the Easterly Separate Sewer Area (ESSA)
was conducted under the jurisdiction of Cuyahoga County during most of the
system expansion. The communities directly adjacent to the city of Cleveland
were allowed direct connection to the city sewer system. Communities further
east and southeast (including the Hilltop area) that desired access had to
connect to a county sewer or negotiate with the communities that already had
access to the city system (NEORSD 1978c). The problems involved with
coordinating the communities, the county, and the city of Cleveland, as well
as the increasing pressure to improve wastewater collection and treatment
facilities, led to the formation of the Cleveland Regional Sewer District in
1972, now known as the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD).
Within the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant service area the majority
of sewers are separate sewers consisting of individual conduits for wastewater
and stormwater.
Generally, separate sewers in the ESSA are constructed in different
trenches as they currently are in Cleveland. However, prior to 1960, the
stormwater and sanitary pipes were constructed in the same trench; these are
called dual sewers (NEORSD 1978c). Finally, some of the sewers in the
Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant service area are combined sewers which
combine stormwater and wastewater flow within a single pipe. These facilities
and existing problems are described below.
The Easterly Separate Sewer Area (ESSA) serves nearly 24,500 acres and
connects to the combined system at over 12 locations. Length of sewers per
community and inch-diameter-miles of separate sewer in the Hilltop Facility
Planning Area (as listed in the Sewer System Evaluation Survey) are shown in
Table 2-5.
2-21
-------
Table 2-5. Community Separate Sewer Information
Community
Mayfield Village
Richmond Heights
Highland Heights
Mayfield Heights
Willoughby Hills
Gates Mills
TOTAL
Length (ft)
53,000
45,085
103,550
165,400
24,765
9,200
401,000
Inch-Diameter-Mile
N/A
N/A
N/A
184
288
N/A
Source: NEORSD 1983a
The major portion of sewage collected in the ESSA is transported to the
Easterly interceptor and the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant by the Doan
Valley, Dugway, East 152nd-Ivanhoe, and East 140th-Hayden Avenue interceptors.
Infiltration and Inflow
The majority (95%) of the sanitary sewers in the ESSA have a diameter of
8 to 24 inches. These smaller sewer lines are generally vitrified clay, while
the larger diameter sewers in the area are reinforced concrete pipe. Some
segmented clay block and brick sewers are still in service. Most of the
separate sewers were built prior to 1950, and the oldest portions were
constructed around 1915. Since 1950, nearly all of the separate sewer
construction in the Easterly district has occurred in the eastern portion of
the ESSA (NEORSD 1978b).
Wet weather overflows due to infiltration and inflow (I/I) are recognized
as a pollution problem in the Easterly Separate Sewer Area (ESSA) (NEORSD
1978b). Infiltration occurs when water in backfill material leaks into the
sanitary sewer through breaks and cracks in the pipe. Inflow, on the other
hand, occurs when stormwater reaches the sanitary sewer by direct connection
without first entering the backfill material (such as a directly connected
downspout). One major task of the facilities planning effort was to determine
the amount of I/I entering the sewer system. A flow monitoring study and a
2-22
-------
sewer system evaluation survey were conducted to define the extent of the
problem.
During the preparation of the facility plan, wastewater flow meters were
used to monitor 101 points within the ESSA over a 30-day period. Depth of
flow was recorded, and for the first time, flow conditions throughout the
system were observed simultaneously. The effects of inflow were evident even
during the lightest of the observed rainfalls. Inflow resulting from the
maximum rainfall event (approximately 1 inch per hour) during the monitoring
period caused sewage to back up in 64 of the 101 monitoring locations. A
fajrly uniform light rainstorm with an average intensity of one-quarter inch
per hour caused sewage backup in 28 monitoring locations. These results
indicate that the inflow problems are severe.
Although infiltration was observed throughout the sewer system, inflow
entering the sanitary sewer system appeared to be by far the most severe
problem in most areas. Therefore, a Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) was
judged to be necessary (NEORSD 1985a).
The SSES included extensive field investigations and mapping to identify
sources of extraneous flow within the separate sewer system. Approximately
700 short-term flow monitors were placed in individual manholes throughout the
study area. Long-term flow monitors were also installed at strategic
locations within the system.
The major problem found during the SSES was rapid infiltration (and not
inflow as originally believed), which is caused by storm sewers leaking water
into the sanitary sewers. Rapid infiltration occurs when stormwater leaks
from joints and/or cracks in the storm sewer, travels through backfill
material, and enters the sanitary sewer. This is particularly important in
dual sewer systems because of the close proximity of the storm and sanitary
sewers. Other sources include flow from roof drains and other direct
connections.
In the course of this study 162 overflows were identified in the separate
sewer system. Of these, 19 are in the Hilltop study area (see Figure 2-7).
2-23
-------
MAYFIELD
(ILLOUGHBY"HILLS;
MAYFIELD HEIGHTS
J?D
-N-
SEPARATE SEWER OVERFLOW
HILLTOP PLANNING AREA
SOURCE: NEORSD 1985a
2-24
Figure 2-7
OVERFLOW LOCATIONS
-------
Overflows are designed to provide relief for sewers with insufficient capacity
to handle the flow volume. During a period of excessively high flow, sewage
can escape from the system through one of these overflows.
Dual Sewers
The problem of infiltration is intensified by the fact that approximately
74 percent of the sanitary and storm sewers in the Hilltop area were
constructed in the same trench (dual system), while only 26 percent were
constructed in separate trenches. In the separate trench construction, the
center lines of the storm and sanitary sewer are laid about 8 feet apart, with
the storm sewer invert at least 2 feet higher than the sanitary sewer crown
(NEORSD 1978c).
Dual sewers are constructed in either a bench or over-and-under design as
shown in Figure 2-8. In the study area, 70 percent of these sewers are bench
type and 30 percent are over-and-under design. The construction of dual
sewers was stopped in about 1960 in favor of separate trench construction.
The main problem with dual sewers is they have an enhanced potential for the
infiltration of stormwater into the sanitary sewers because both pipes are
contained in the same trench (NEORSD 1978b).
As the name suggests, the bench design of dual sewers is characterized by
an excavation which allows placement of the storm sewer above and to the side
of the sanitary sewer. Access to the benched sewers is provided by individual
manholes located side by side—one for the sanitary sewer, and one for the
storm sewer.
In the over-and-under design of dual sewers, the storm sewer is
positioned directly over the sanitary sewer in the same trench. Common
manholes are used in this design. A removable steel or cast iron plate in the
lower half of the storm sewer provides access to the sanitary sewer below.
The opening size varies with the size of the storm sewer but is generally 24
by 30 inches (NEORSD 1978c).
2-25
-------
ill
GRANULAR
BACKFILL
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
BENCH TYPE CONSTRUCTION
=111
! COMMON
MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER
ACCESS
CHAMBER
*~" .*- r'.'sfr
OVER-AND-UNDER CONSTRUCTION
SOURCE: NEORSD 1985a
Figure 2-8
DUAL SEWER CONFIGURATION
2-26
-------
In both designs, the storm sewer invert is located approximately 1 to 2
feet higher than the sanitary sewer crown. Typical configurations for each of
these dual sewers is shown in Figure 2-8.
Basement Flooding
The Easterly Separate Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan (ESSSWFP)
noted basement flooding as a problem in the Hilltop area (NEORSD 1978c). A
study was conducted by Havens and Emerson in January 1987 for the Hilltop area
(Pohler 1987). Table 2-6, below, shows the results of this study.
Table 2-6. Hilltop Area Basement Flooding
Community Basements Flooded Each Year
Mayfield Village 15-20
Mayfield Heights 100
Highland Heights No Record
Richmond Heights No Significant Problem
Based upon discussions with NEORSD personnel, it was learned that the
majority of basement flooding problems in the Hilltop FPA are a result of
poorly maintained house laterals and collector sewers. Generally, these
poorly maintained sewers cause basement floods because of tree roots or other
obstructions which decrease the pipe capacity. Increased sewer maintenance
and repairs are currently underway to remedy the problem (Kennedy 1987c).
A few homes around Beech Hill and Wilson Mills pumping stations
experience basement floods because of design problems with the homes. These
homes were built with the basement drains below the level of the pump station
wet wells, and consequently have flooding problems when the level in the wet
wells rises.
Overall, basement flooding in the Hilltop area does not appear to be a
result of the main transport system. Proper maintenance of house laterals and
collector sewers should greatly reduce the problem.
2-27
-------
As discussed in Section 1.1.2, a grant condition to the Heights FNSI
required NEORSD to work with the area communities to develop programs for
relief sewer rehabilitation and construction. The NEORSD is currently working
with communities to develop the necessary programs to mitigate the problems of
infiltration and inflow and basement flooding.
2.4 EXISTING PUMP STATIONS
Areas adjacent to but at a lower elevation than the sewage system to
which they are tributary have sewage collected and pumped into the higher
elevation sewage system. Several pumping stations exist within the study
area. Major interbcisin transfer of sewage is accomplished by the Beech Hill/
Bonnieview/Wilson Mills pumping complex. Other smaller stations collect and
pump sewage from lower areas for transport to a treatment facility (NEORSD
1978c).
2.4.1 Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills
The Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills (BBW) complex is a three-element
pumping facility which consists of the Beech Hill pumping station, the
Bonnieview Storage Tank, and the Wilson Mills pumping station. The BBW
transfers flow from about 4000 acres of the Hilltop basin to the Easterly
basin (NEORSD 1978c). The system is operated by the NEORSD under a lease
arrangement with Cuyahoga County. The location of each element of the BBW
complex is shown in Figure 2-9.
Existing Equipment
The Beech Hill pumping station is located at 6830 Wilson Mills Road and
is housed in a ranch home-type structure. The pumping station is equipped
with four pumps. Two of the pumps are 10-inch-diameter and are rated at 2,700
gpm (3.9 MGD) againsit a total dynamic head of 126 feet. The other two pumps
are 12-inch-diameter and are rated at 6,200 gpm (8.9 MGD) against a total
dynamic head of 160 feet. The smaller pumps have 150 horsepower motors, while
the larger pumps are equipped with 350 horsepower motors (NEORSD 1978c).
Beech Hill may operate a maximum of two small pumps for a total of 5400
gpm (7.8 MGD), or one large pump for a maximum station output of 6200 gpm (8.9
2-28
-------
^-
wfiToUCHBY'HILLS
-N-
PUMPING STATIONS
Beech Hill
Wilson Mills
Stark
Richmond - White
Franklin
Hickory Hills
Mt. Vernon
Richmond Mall
williamsburg
Picker X-Ray
Aintree
Thornapple
woods
Suffolk Country
Estates
HOLDING - SETTLING
TANK - BONNIEVIEW
HILLTOP PLANNING AREA
BBW SERVICE AREA
2-29
Figure 2-9
BBW SERVICE AREA
-------
MGD). One of the larger pumps is maintained as a standby unit, a diesel-
driven generator provides emergency power to operate one small pump. Waste to
the Wilson Mills pumping station is transported through 8,880 feet of
24-inch-diameter cast iron pressure main.
The Beech Hill pumping station is coupled with the headworks of the
Bonnieview storage-settling tank which has a capacity slightly less than 1
million gallons. The storage tank is a circular, reinforced concrete struc-
ture with an aluminum dome to control odor. The headworks contain a grit
chamber, comminutors, grit transfer pumps and classifier, and diversion
facilities to the storage tank (NEORSD 1978c).
The Wilson Mills pumping station is located at 5457 Wilson Mills Road and
is also housed in a ranch home-type structure. This pumping station is the
third segment of the BBW complex. It is equipped with four pumps; however,
the control system only allows three to operate at one time. Two 8-inch pumps
rated at 2,750 gpm (4.0 MGD) (against an operating head of 52 feet), one
10-inch pump rated at 4,800 gpm (6.9 MGD) (at a head of 73 feet), and one
12-inch pump rated at 5,000 gpm (7.2 MGD) (at a head of 75 feet) serve this
facility. The 10-inch pump rated at 4,800 gpm is operated by a diesel engine
under emergency conditions. Sewage is pumped through 2000 feet of 24-inch
cast iron force main which discharges to a 24-inch concrete sanitary sewer.
The line then connects with a 42-inch sanitary sewer which joins the combined
system (NEORSD 1978c). A schematic diagram of the BBW complex is shown on
Figure 2-8. Sewage; is eventually treated at the Easterly Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
Currently, backup power at the Beech Hill and Wilson Mills pump stations
is provided by backup generators at each facility. Both of these generators
are outdated and could be upgraded with a newer system.
Process
The BBW operation is complex and is controlled by a 14-year-old Autocon
control system. Sewage from a commercial and residential area of about 2,500
acres flows to the grit removal and comminutor building at Bonnieview head-
works. During dry weather the sewage bypasses the storage tank and flows
2-30
-------
through a 30-inch sewer to the Beech Hill pumping station, where it joins flow
from a 400-acre area which is transported through a 15-inch line. The sewage
is pumped to Wilson Mills pumping station where flow from an additional
1000-acre service area (some from smaller pumping stations) enters the system
(see Figure 2-10) (NEORSD 1978c).
During wet weather, when the capacity of the Wilson Mills pumping station
is about to be exceeded, flow from the 30-inch line at Bonnieview is diverted
to the storage basin through a 30-inch overflow controlled by a fixed
set-point sluice gate. After the wet weather, the storage basin is emptied
back into the headworks and on to Beech Hill (see Figure 2-10) (NEORSD 1978c).
Problems
The majority of problems within the BBW complex result from excessive
flow volumes at Wilson Mills pump station during wet weather. When Wilson
Mills capacity is about to be exceeded it signals flow from the 30-inch sewer
line to be diverted to the Bonnieview storage tank. Although this storage
facility removes a major portion of the flow to Beech Hill, the 15-inch
gravity line to Beech Hill continues to fill the Beech Hill wet well, even-
tually overflowing to a small tributary of the Chagrin River. The overflow
sends raw sewage through a residential area, and is a concern to local
residents (NEORSD 1978c).
If pumping does not resume at Beech Hill, the Bonnieview facility will
also become full and overflow. Although the facility was designed to handle
up to a 1-year storm, it was reported to overflow about six times a year.
Overflow from the Bonnieview basin is partially treated. The storage tank
also acts as a settling tank to remove settleable solids, and the overflow is
equipped with scum baffles and weirs to trap floating solids. Additionally,
all the flow from this facility is chlorinated to kill harmful organisms
(NEORSD 1978c).
The sewers upstream of the Wilson Mills pumping station receive a severe,
short-duration surcharge during wet weather. This flow appears to be caused
by excess flows in the gravity sewers tributary to the Wilson Mills pump
2-31
-------
-------
station, compounded by the residual flow from the Beech Hill pump station
after shutdown. During the infiltration/inflow analysis, a light rain caused
the manhole upstream of Wilson Mills pumping station to surcharge over 3 feet
above the top of the sewer pipe. The largest rainfall event during the
monitoring period caused the cover of the manhole to be dislodged by sewage
backup (NEORSD 1978c).
Another major problem with the BBW complex is occasional ruptures in the
pressure mains. It was reported in the Easterly Separate Sewer Segment
Wastewater Facilities Plan, that the Beech Hill pumping station force main had
ruptured several times over the previous 5 years. During the repair period
(which may take as long as 2 to 3 days), raw sewage is bypassed to local
streams (NEORSD 1978c). Again, this creates a potential health problem which
is of concern to the local residents.
Part of the problem with the force mains is a result of mechanical joints
bearing directly on rock. Corrosion and encrustation have been reported along
the pressure main, and the general condition is rated as poor.
2.4.2 Smaller Pump Stations
Several smaller pumping stations are located throughout the study area.
These are generally constant-speed or package-type stations (NEORSD 1978c).
The majority of stations are owned and operated by Cuyahoga County. A summary
of the existing pumping stations is included in Table 2-7. The locations of
these facilities are shown in Figure 2-9.
Several of these small pumping stations join the previously discussed BBW
pumping complex. Williamsburg, Franklin, and Picker X-Ray feed into the
Wilson Mills pumping station. Aintree, Thornapple, and Mount Vernon account
for part of the flow that goes directly to the Beech Hill pumping station via
the 15-inch pipe (NEORSD 1978c).
The Richmond/White pump station does not connect with the BBW complex.
This station, located near the corner of Richmond and White Roads, is owned
and operated by Cuyahoga County and is equipped with two 250 gallons per
2-33
-------
co
C
0
•rl
4-1
rt
to
a.
B
cu
rH
rH
g
to
1
CM
rt
i-i x—'
to
CO
^ Q-t
0) B
J3 3
B 0,
3
25 ^^
o
£
•O -rl ^-N
cu cj s
*-> ,rt o.
rt D< ho
PS rt N-'
O
C
o
•H
rt
o
0
cy
B
rt
2
>H >i
CU t-i
* g
a -H
•rl M
J-l E— 1
60 .-J
-G Q)
O CU
o u
•o
CU rH
cy o
o w
vO OO
"•^ CO
*^ CM
i— i
CM CM
CO CO
*^ CM
^J *sf
W
3
CU
C
•rl
P-l
CU t->
•H
>1
u
j=
•H
M
f— |
*yj
(U
CU
O
-o
u
^J
v^.
2
^^
to
CSJ
oO
t— t
«^j-
•
G*
•
H
rH
U bOrH
^
rH *Q
rH CO
•H E5
S3 rt
•H
CO rH
•H
HI
•M
r*
rt
w
CU
rH
bOrH
3
J=>
OT
£3
W)
W *rH
T3 rH
O -H
•H
n
4_f
g
(d
W
(tJ
Q)
rH
>l
J3
M
£— |
K^
(U
(U
o
T>
M
•^J
X^
2
*^
C^
•fc^-
•H^
ro
•
CM
•
H
Ji
U
n)
O-i
-a
£
0
B
O
f4
*^
M
rt
0-,
'O
£3
o
S
f*
(J
•H
r**
*
g
•H
t-l
g_i
j^
(U
CU
CJ
T3
U
CO
CO
o")
i-H
CM
^3
r*H
co
>>
jz
B
3
to
4_»
rt
a
3
§
c
•rH
rH
j*^
r*
(d
£
j>,
rt
_g
•H
U
£_4
fStj
(U
CU
u
•o
u
CO
^3
•s^
^
CSJ
*^"
fv.
CvJ
rH
rH
cd
jrj
TJ
rj
0
B
CJ
C£
rH
rH
rt
*o
g
o
3
J*3
(j
•H
(^
>
•fH
a
•rl
J_|
bO
Jj
O
O
t-J
^
o
vO
px.
LO
CM
f— 1
LO
Cs|
CU
•H
j^l
Q
CU
C
>
ffj
CU
rH
G»
CX
rt
rj
Lj
O
H
^
>
•rt
C
•H
^1
bO
r*
o
o
».J
~3<
Q*'
C)
u
^
—
2
T— 1
lO
i-H
CM
^^
l/^
rH
•
P-.
•
E-1
rH
f— f
>r^
03
^»
U
O
CJ
tn
to
rH
•H
m
t*1*
U
Q
JS<4
{J
•H
(U
O
2
^
V.
2
C^
^^
10
CM
^^
(^
[^
CU
4-1
•H
g
4_)
n)
T3
O
B
CJ
p-
CU
4->
•H
g
1
C3
o
3
jUj
(j
•H
M U)
OJ 0)
•rt srt
a c
•H J«J -H
M O (J
bo o bo
rt u rt
X pq J3
0 O
0-0
CU
*J r* K^
»% 4-4 r%
^ ^ O ^ 0^
^ c ^ c ^
O 2 BQ 2 U
vO vO vO -^ ^3
v^
2
r- 1 \o vO ^1 C5
vO *^ LO "^ LO
rH rH 5S
CM CM CM CM CM
00 CO ^^ cO CO
CO CM ON 00 v*0
rH rH
M
rt
> C
CU O
rH rH -rl
3 -rl 4->
o (d td
« t-l U
H 0
rH d) (U L( t*
rH C > 0 -rl
•H -H -rl U U
S rH IJ Q
CO CU CU ^
•u B *J O rt
•
4— i
w
c >>
o rt
o c 03
U IH 1
(U ^^
S^ Q) J>
rH 0) M
O M 4-* (D ^^
14.) 4_i rj j^ J_(
l^| Cj 3 CJ (d
3 -H O -H 4J
CU
rH
fft f I
TO \J
rH 00
•H r*
> i-H
rt
a
O cd
c o
4_t
rt
Q
(U
1 CJ
^
-------
minute pumps that currently pump between 105,000 gallons per day (gpd) and
135,000 gpd from a light industrial area just east of Cuyahoga County Airport
to the Euclid wastewater treatment plant. A diesel generator is available for
standby power. During an inspection of the station, Cuyahoga County personnel
provided a summary sheet of recommended minor improvements for the pump
station. These recommendations included repairing the one time lapse meter
and the magnetic flow meter; acquiring two new cycle counters and pump delays;
and replacing the comminutor.
2.5 EXISTING UNSEWERED AREAS
2.5.1 Systems Used
A significant portion of the study area is not connected to the Easterly
sewer system. The previously discussed package plants and small onsite
treatment systems serve parts of this area. The remaining population is
served by septic systems. Typically, a septic system is comprised of a septic
tank and a drainage field. The septic tank acts to remove solids from the
wastewater, while the drainage field is designed to distribute the liquid
portion. Properly designed septic systems will effectively decompose wastes
which are present in the liquid portion before any environmental contamination
can occur.
According to a study conducted by Havens and Emerson in 1985, 75 percent
of the Lake County portion and over 80 percent of the Cuyahoga County portion
of the Hilltop area have substandard septic tanks. Most of the septic tanks
were constructed when standards differed from those required today. The
Cuyahoga County Board of Health reports that the average age of the systems in
Cuyahoga County is about 32 years old (NEORSD 1987).
The Havens and Emerson report also indicated that within the Hilltop
area, approximately 1380 homes have septic tanks of only 500-gallon capacity.
The remaining systems in the area consist of about 950 homes with 750- to
1750-gallon tanks, and 360 homes with 1500- to 2000-gallon tanks (Hudson
1985a).
2-35
-------
The Cuyahoga County Health Department and previous planning reports and
soil surveys for the Hilltop area state that the soils have a slow permea-
bility which results; in somewhat poor drainage, soil wetness, seasonally high
groundwater tables, and ponding water, especially in the winter and spring.
This results in a severe limitation in the disposal of effluent from a septic
tank. Cuyahoga County conducts a soil permeability test for each new septic
tank permit applicant. All the tests within the Hilltop area have classified
the soils as either severely or very severely limited for the disposal of
effluent from septic: tanks. The Lake County Board of Health does not conduct
their own onsite soil testing. They use the guidelines set for Lake County by
the United States Department of Agriculture, which state that the entire
Hilltop area is severely limited for septic tank effluent disposal (NEORSD
1987).
According to the Havens and Emerson report, poor soils in the area have
caused local health departments to institute strict regulations for new septic
tanks. The Lake County Health Department, for example, has required (since
1973) that all new homes must have two 1000-gallon septic tanks with a
1000-foot drainage field in a 24-inch trench or a 600-square foot subsurface
filter plus a 500-foot evaporation bed. The overflows from the leach field
must be connected to a storm sewer or a year round flowing stream. Cuyahoga
County outlawed all drainage fields in 1973, and now requires at a minimum a
500-gallon dosing tank connected to a 1000-gallon septic tank (size will
increase with number of bedrooms in the house). The subsurface filter must
have a minimum of 1000 feet in a deep trench. All overflows must be connected
to a continuous flowing stream or storm sewer.
As a result of these restrictions, new home septic tank construction in
the Hilltop area has been severely limited. The Havens and Emerson study
found that since 1980 only 15 new permits had been issued in the Lake County
area, with only three new permits issued in the Cuyahoga County area. The
lack of storm sewers or a continuously flowing stream in the Cuyahoga County
area severely limited the available sites for new septic tank construction
(Hudson 1985a).
2-36
-------
Table 2-8 provides a list of construction projects which have been denied
permits within the last 10 years in Lake County (from the 1985 Havens and
Emerson report) and exemplifies the construction limitations in the overall
Hilltop area. Numerous proposals for subdivisions and commercial areas have
also been rejected in the same time period within Cuyahoga County (see Table
2-8) due to poor soils, no flowing stream, or no sanitary sewers according to
the Cuyahoga County Health Department as reported by Havens and Emerson.
Proposals for package wastewater treatment plants have also been rejected by
the OEPA as not complying with the regional Heights/Hilltop plan (Hudson
1985a).
The Twinsburg office of the OEPA specifically rejected a proposed 28,000
gpd package wastewater treatment plant for the Sayle Farm subdivision in Lake
County. It was noted that the area was covered under the Facility Planning
Area in the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's Easterly Separate Sewer
Facilities Plan. The facilities plan called for the elimination of package
plants in the area with eventual flow routing to the Easterly Wastewater
Treatment Plant (Hudson 1985a).
The Havens and Emerson report also stated that as a result of these
actions, construction has been severely restricted in the Hilltop area. Files
for rejected projects were difficult to locate for Cuyahoga County, but a
partial list of major stalled projects is also included in Table 2-8 (Hudson
1985a).
No data is available on the actual effluent quality of the septic systems
in the Hilltop area. Typical effluent quality for septic systems is shown in
Table 2-9. Estimates of average pollutant concentrations from septic systems
in the study area were made by Havens and Emerson, Inc., in 1985 and are
included in Table 2-9.
2.5.2 Location
The unsewered portions of the study area are generally large parcels of
land mostly in older developments. Much of the area is subdivided into very
deep narrow lots with short road frontage. Although the unsewered portion of
2-37
-------
Table 2-8. Building Restrictions
Type of Facility
Date Reason for Rejection
Lake County*
Church
Church
Retail/Office
Commerical
Subdivision
Community Hall
Commerical
Retail
Subdivision
Office
Subdivision
Commerical
Commerical
1984 Poor soils, no flowing stream,
no sanitary sewers. Does not
comply with the Regional
Plan.**
1984 Poor soils, no flowing stream,
no sanitary sewers. Does not
comply with the Regional Plan.
1983 Poor soils, no flowing stream,
no sanitary sewers. Does not
comply with the Regional Plan.
1980 Poor soils, no flowing stream,
no sanitary sewers. Does not
comply with the Regional Plan.
1980 Does not comply with the
Regional Plan.
1980 Does not comply with the
Regional Plan.
1979 Does not comply with the
Regional Plan.
1978 Does not comply with the
Regional Plan.
1978 Does not comply with the
Regional Plan.
1976 Does not comply with the
Regional Plan.
1974 Does not comply with the
Regional Plan.
1974 Does not comply with the
Regional Plan.
1973 Does not comply with the
Regional Plan.
2-38
-------
Table 2-8. Building Restrictions (Continued)
Type of Facility
Date Reason for Rejection
Office
1972
Subdivision 1972
Subdivision 1967
Cuyahoga County - Incomplete Lisjt***
1980
Housing complex in Mayfield
Village - 45 acre parcel
Housing complex for aged in
Mayfield Village - 42 acre
parcel
Subdivision in Mayfield
Village - 40 acre parcel
Commercial Development in
Mayfield Village - Don Ray
Products
Does not comply with the
Regional Plan.
Package plant not large enough.
Poor soils, no stream.
Poor soils and no flowing stream
1976 Limited sewer capacity
1978 Poor soils and no flowing stream
1981 Poor soils and no flowing stream
Commerical-Industrial Park - 1981
Richmond Heights
Limited sewer capacity
* Compiled from the planning files at the Lake County General Health
District (Sheldon Munnings, R.S., Supervisor, 105 Main St.,
Painesville, Ohio).
** Regional Plan refers to the Heights/Hilltop Facilities Plan.
*** List compiled from information supplied by:
- Mr. Gus Amendola, Building Director, Mayfield Village
- Mr. Bernie Samac, Building Director, Highland Heights
- Mr. Felix DeSantis, Building Inspector, Richmond Heights
Source: Hudson 1985a
2-39
-------
Table 2-9. Septic System Effluent Quality1
Parameter
BOD (5-day)
Suspended Solids
Total Nitrogen
Inorganic Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Ortho Phosphate
Fecal Coliform
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-P
mg/l-P
#/100ml
Septic Tank
Effluent2
130
54
51
36
14
11
650,000
Filter Bed
Effluent
9
7
-
21
-
7
700
Estimated Hilltop
System Effluent
50
30
40
30
12
9
10,000
Hudson 1985a
20tis and Boyle 1976
Boyle and Otis n.d.
2-40
-------
the Hilltop area is recognized as the only area within the Easterly Separate
Sewer Area with the potential for development, the narrow lots serve as a
deterrent to future growth (NEORSD 1978c).
Most of the residences north of Wilson Mills Road in Richmond Heights and
Highland Heights do not have sanitary sewers (see Figure 2-11). Other
scattered unsewered developments are located in Mayfield Heights and
Willoughby Hills (NEORSD 1978c).
2.5.3 Problems
Many onsite systems have problems with high clay content soils, high
water tables, and shallow depth to bedrock according to the Environmental
Assessment. As a result, most of the onsite systems have discharges that
reach existing storm sewers which serve as collectors for these wastes.
Consequently, poor quality effluent is discharged to tributaries of Euclid
Creek and the Chagrin River, as well as to small ponds in the area (OEPA
1985a).
The 1985 Havens and Emerson report also stated that over 75 percent of
the systems in the area have substandard septic tanks. Also, the age of the
systems (reported to be an average age of 32 years) may create some treatment
problems.
The files of the Cuyahoga County Health Department indicate that there
were nine water quality complaints filed in 1984 within the Hilltop service
area. In 1983, there were five complaints filed. The complaints were all in
regard to improperly treated wastewater being discharged to roadside ditches
and creeks. Likewise, similar complaints were filed with the Lake County
Health Department, four in 1984 and seven in 1983 (Hudson 1985a). The area
for which these water quality complaints were filed are shown in Figure 2-11.
A benthic survey performed by Environmental Resource Associates in 1984
for the Heights/Hilltop area streams describes several instances of water
quality degradation as a result of improperly treated waste inputs (ERAI
1984). Most sections of the stream within the unsewered area north of Wilson
2-41
-------
LYNDHURST
L
MAYFIELD HEIGHTS
KD.
3000 6000
FEET
SCALE
A WATER QUALITY COMPLAINT
— — HILLTOP PLANNING AREA
AREAS WITH SEPTIC SYSTEMS
SOURCE: HUDSON 1985d
FIG: 2-11
AREAS WITH REPORTED WATER
QUALITY COMPLAINTS
2-42
-------
Mills Road showed some signs of domestic sewage wastes. One portion of a
Euclid Creek tributary showed severe degradation changes in a 50-foot span.
"Septic conditions mixing with waters from Station 1 (50 feet upstream) create
an intolerable habitat for many clean-water forms and marginal habitat for
others. The conductivity increased by nearly 40 percent and dissolved oxygen
was reduced by nearly 20 percent."
In November 1982, the Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineering Department
conducted an evaluation of Mayfair Lake in Richmond Heights (CCSED 1982).
Findings of the study indicated that 224 on-lot treatment systems within the
lake watershed contributed about 0.040 MGD of effluent to the lake. Many of
the systems are relatively old and predate current septic tank standards
according to the report.
2-43
-------
CHAPTER 3. HISTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
This chapter describes the historical development of alternatives for
providing sewer service to the Hilltop Facility Planning Area (FPA), from the
1978 Easterly Separate Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan (ESSSWFP)
prepared by CH2M Hill to the Environmental Assessment prepared by OEPA in
1985. The organization of this chapter includes a review of the alternatives
presented in each document, the analysis of alternatives, and the selected
alternative of each study. Because the alternatives are referenced
differently in the two documents, the transition is confusing even though some
of the sewer routes are the same. In an effort to clarify this situation, a
brief overview is presented in this introduction prior to a complete discus-
sion of the alternatives in the remainder of this chapter (see Table 3-1).
The facilities plan (ESSSWFP) developed several transport and treatment
systems for the Hilltop area. These alternatives were: H-l and H-1A
(subregional wastewater treatment plant); H-2 and H-2B (transport to Easterly
WWTP); and E-1A (upgrade of the BBW pumping complex). Of these alternatives,
the ESSSWFP recommended alternative H-2B (transport to Easterly WWTP) as the
best choice for service to the Hilltop area. The reasons for this choice
included:
o Low monetary costs
o Low energy requirements
o High reliability
o Relative ease of operation.
After the ESSSWFP was completed, several other reports were developed
that addressed the final design of this system (H-2B). These documents
included the Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES), the Advanced Facilities
Plan (AFP), and the Supplemental Facilities Plan (SFP). Several alignment
changes were made in the final design of alternative H-2B based on the
conclusions in the AFP, SFP, and SSES. These changes included:
o An extension south along Richmond Road to collect flows from the
Eastern Belvoir drainage area
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. Alternative Designations
Description
ESSSWFP
Environmental
Assessment
In-Basin Treatment Plant
Transport to
Easterly WWTP
Pumping to Euclid WTP
BBW Upgrade -
Transport to Easterly WWTP
Pumping Station
Transport to Easterly
WWTP (2 pumping stations)
Transport to Easterly
WWTP (1 pumping station)
No Action
H-l
H-2A
H-2B
H-3
E-1A
E-1A + Another
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
3-2
-------
o An extension along Green Road to collect flows from the Central
Belvoir drainage area
o Inclusion of several storage basins to reduce peak flows to the
Easterly WWTP.
During a review of the facilities planning process (ESSSWFP, SSES, AFP,
and SFP), the OEPA prepared an Environmental Assessment for the Hilltop area.
The Environmental Assessment (prepared in 1985) evaluated four alternatives
for sewer service to the Hilltop area. Alternative 1 (transport to Easterly
WWTP) was the same as the final alignment of alternative H-2B, the recommended
plan of the facilities planning process. Alternative 2 (upgrade of BBW
complex) was the same as alternative E-1A from the ESSSWFP including a pumping
station to serve the unsewered areas. Alternatives 3 and 4 were developed by
NEORSD's consultant specifically for the Environmental Assessment and
represent combinations of alternatives 1 and 2. The Environmental Assessment
comparison of alternatives also selected transport to Easterly WWTP
(alternative 1) to serve the Hilltop area.
3.1 FACILITIES PLAN ALTERNATIVES/RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Several alternatives for sewer service were developed and analyzed by
CH2M Hill in the 1978 Easterly Separate Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities
Plan (ESSSWFP) (NEORSD 1978a, 1978b, 1978c). Recommendations for service
within the Creekside service area and parts of the Easterly service area were
included in the alternatives but are not within the scope of this report. Of
the alternatives, only the following were specific to the Hilltop Facilities
Planning Area.
H-l - A subregional wastewater treatment plant located north of the Cuyahoga
County Airport, including flow from the Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson
Mills (BBW) pumping complex.
H-1A - A subregional wastewater treatment plant located north of the Cuyahoga
County Airport, excluding the BBW pumping complex.
H-2 - The Hilltop branch of the Heights interceptor to transport flow to the
Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant.
H-3 - A regional sewage pumping station located north of the Cuyahoga County
Airport to transport flow to the Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant.
3-3
-------
E-1A - The Hilltop branch of the Heights interceptor to transport flow to the
Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant, including an upgraded BBW pumping
complex.
3.1.1 Proposed Alternatives
The following sections provide a more detailed description of each
alternative proposed in the ESSSWFP for the Hilltop FPA.
Alternative H-l - In-Basin Treatment
Treatment within the Hilltop FPA was proposed in alternative H-l. This
alternative would include capacity to serve the entire Hilltop area, including
flow currently transported by the BBW complex.
A 12.75 MGD wastewater treatment plant was proposed for alternative H-l,
as shown in Figure 3-1. A large amount of existing infiltration and inflow,
as well as flow from the more densely populated area of the BBW, would be
treated (NEORSD 1978c).
Several treatment methods were evaluated in conjunction with this
alternative. The ESSSWFP recommended a process that involved activated sludge
followed by two-stage nitrification, filtration, disinfection, and post
aeration, as shown in Figure 3-2, as the preferred treatment alternative.
Although a single-stage nitrification system would be less expensive, the two-
stage system was recommended because:
o It is questionable whether or not a single-stage nitrification system
would function adequately during the cold weather to meet the ammonia
limits.
o There is more control, flexibility, and reliability in operating a
two-stage system.
o Two-stage nitrification systems have been found to operate well in
cold climates.
Alternative H-1A - In-Basin Treatment
Alternative H-1A is similar to alternative H-l; however, only flows from
areas not currently served by the BBW complex would be treated at the in-basin
3-4
-------
I
I
>
I-
UJ
1-
3-5
-------
z
O
i-
<
u
7
o o «- in
VV A\
Q
LU
I-
U
00 CO CM
-------
plant. Consequently, only a 2.75 MGD plant was planned for this alternative,
as shown in Figure 3-3 (NEORSD 1978c). This alternative was only developed
for service to the northern areas for use with alternative E-1A.
The treatment process for this alternative was the same as for H-l, as
shown in Figure 3-2.
Alternative H-2 - Transport to Easterly
Transportation of flow from the Hilltop service area to the Easterly
Wastewater Treatment Plant was proposed in this alternative. Two
modifications (H-2A and H-2B) were proposed to transfer flow from the Hilltop
basin as shown on Figure 3-4. Flow from the entire Hilltop area would be
transported by a primarily gravity system (although several pump stations
would still remain). The BBW complex would be eliminated with either
alternative (H-2A or H-2B).
Alternative H-2B included the same alignment as alternative H-2A, with
the exception of the tunnel proposed in alternative H-2B at Chardon Road. The
proposed tunnel would begin south of Euclid Avenue at Euclid Creek and follow
Chardon Road to Richmond Road for connection to the Hilltop sewer system north
of the county airport (NEORSD 1978c).
Alternative H-2A presented a downstream modification of the original
Northeast Suburban Interceptor proposal. This modification was recommended to
obtain a better gradient eastward to Euclid Avenue at Euclid Creek. From the
Euclid Creek bridge on Euclid Avenue, the sewer would continue northeast along
the east branch of Euclid Creek as originally proposed, but would terminate
north of the Cuyahoga County Airport.
Alternative H-2A would be located along the east branch of Euclid Creek
between Euclid Avenue and Richmond Road which contains a gorge that is nearly
200 feet deep at some locations (NEORSD 1978c). The steep gorge walls along
this reach are natural and undeveloped and provide an irreplaceable, unique
and natural habitat. Access for construction equipment along the steep walls
is extremely limited; and consequently, construction of this alternative would
be very difficult (NEORSD 1978c). The problems involved with constructing
3-7
-------
-
1 t
2 z
tt <
i- ^
Q Q
LU LU
LD 1>1
o o
CL a.
O O
U
Z
<
—I
Q_
0.
O
I-
<
i
LU
0^ ^^^
, ^
6' <
>
~j
&
3-8
-------
CO
CN
i
X
O
Z
<
<
-------
alternative H-2A led to the development of alternative H-2B, a tunnel in
Chardon Road between Richmond Road and Euclid Avenue.
Alternative H-3 - Pumping to Euclid
This alternative proposed transfer of wastewater flow from the Hilltop
service area to the Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant. The transportation
system would include a sewage pump station located north of the Cuyahoga
County Airport, about 4,000 feet of force main, replacement of 18,000 feet of
sanitary sewer, and future expansion of the Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Alternative H-3 is shown in Figure 3-5.
According to the ESSSWFP, limited area is available for expansion of the
Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant. Also, the city of Euclid's sanitary sewers
have a history of problems associated with wet weather flow, which could
preclude implementation of this alternative (NEORSD 1978c).
Alternative E-1A - BBW Upgrade
In alternative E-1A flow from the BBW sewage pumping complex would be
transported to the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant through the Easterly
service area by existing separate and combined sewers, as shown in Figure 3-6.
This would provide Eor the continued transport of flow from the BBW to the
Easterly plant. Improvements to both the pumping and transport systems were
suggested to increase the reliability of this option (NEORSD 1978c).
Improvements proposed for continued transfer of flow by the BBW are as
follows:
o Remove 30 percent of the infiltration and inflow (I/I) from the BBW
service area.
o Increase capacity of Beech Hill pumping station to 14 million gallons
per day (MGD) and Wilson Mills pumping station to 23 MGD.
o Build parallel pressure mains for both Beech Hill and Wilson Mills
pumping stations.
o Build standby power generators for both pumping stations.
o Replace sewer from Bishop Road to Wilson Mills pumping station.
3-10
-------
LLJ
u
UJ
3-11
-------
o
f-
Q_
5
D
Q_
a.
O
h-
U
Q
Z
r-
i
LU
LU
1
LU
U
U
Z
z
z
Q Q
LU LU
to co
o o
0. 0.
o o
Q. a.
3-12
-------
o Build transport conduit from Green Road to Wilson Mills force mains.
o Increase capacity of Belvoir interceptor and Heights interceptor.
3.1.2 Evaluation of ESSSWFP Alternatives
This section provides an explanation of the methods used in the ESSSWFP
to evaluate the alternatives and recommend the most cost-effective plan.
The ranking of the alternatives on cost-effectiveness included not only
monetary costs but also environmental and resource impacts and technical
benefits. The evaluation was based on ranking each alternative with respect
to a uniform set of criteria.
3.1.2.1 Facilities Plan Criteria
To compare the various alternative plans, the following criteria were
used.
Economic
Monetary Cost - Dollar or monetary cost of an alternative (in this case
total present worth), which included both capital cost expenditures and
operation and maintenance cost over a 20-year period.
Net Energy Consumption - The use of natural resources of each alternative
based on consumption of energy.
Environmental
Overall Water Quality - Local and regional water quality effects (includ-
ing Lake Erie) involved with each alternative.
Bypassing and Overflow - The ability of alternative plans to provide
downstream capacity for wet weather flows and to reduce the quantity of
sewage overflow.
Disturbance of Flora and Fauna - Disturbance of the natural environment
by the construction and operation of the various alternatives.
Conflict with Cultural Resources - A measure of the impact of each alter-
native on historic and archaeologic resources.
3-13
-------
Technical
Utilization of. Existing Facilities - The use of existing structures and
equipment, both within and outside the service area.
Adaptability to Higher Effluent Standards - A judgment of the ability,
through future; modification of each alternative, to meet a higher quality
effluent with minimum amount of disruption, additional facilities, and
cost.
Reliability - Reliability of the alternatives with respect to equipment
failures.
Ease of Operation - The relative ease of operation for each alternative
based on the mechanics of operation and required increase in operational
staff.
Implementation - The difficulties of implementing each alternative such
as acquiring right-of-way and land, disruption of traffic flow, and
general public acceptance.
Jurisdiction - Requirements for intergovernmental agreements or contracts
and the complexities of financing the local portion of each alternative.
Flexibility
Flexibility - The physical ease and monetary cost of meeting changes in
future growth, and the sensitivity of the cost-effectiveness ranking to
various population ranges.
3.1.2.2 Comparison of ESSSWFP Alternatives
For the final analysis in the Easterly Separate Sewer Segment Wastewater
Facilities Plan (ESSSWFP), each of the previously discussed criteria was
weighted according to its importance. The values ranged from 1 to 4, with 4
ranking as the most important. The weighted values for the Hilltop service
area are shown in Table 3-2.
The alternatives were then rated based on their overall effect on each
criteria. Letter grades were assigned in each category. Each grade
corresponded to a numeric value as shown in Table 3-3 ("A" having a score of
4.0, "A-" having a score of 3.7, etc.). The higher the score, the more
beneficial the alternative is within the category (NEORSD 1978c). The
ESSSWFP's assignment of grades was subjective in that no clear guidelines were
ever developed for assigning them.
3-14
-------
Table 3-2. Weight of Ranking Criteria (ESSSWFP)
Weight Used for Evaluation3
Criterion Hilltop
Monetary Cost 4
Energy Consumption 3
Water Quality 3
Bypassing & Overflow 3
Flora and Fauna 3
Cultural Resources 2
Existing Facilities 2
Adaptability to Higher Effluent Standards 3
Reliability 4
Ease of Operation 3
Implementation 2
Jurisdiction 3
Flexibility 4
"From 1 to 4 as relative importance increases.
Source: NEORSD 1978c
3-15
-------
&
S
4!
^
CO H O
2
51
3
CL,
8-
O 00
U e CQ ca
ei
CDCT,
OOO-.
pq pq pq pq pq pq
„ CM oi
o o
.vo .
pq
PQ cQ U pq pq PQ pq oq pq pq d Q
in
-
• • • •oo'O • »o o • •
<<<:<: Q o
PQ Q
-------
Each letter grade value was multiplied by the weight value for the
category to develop the final analysis. By summing all the products, a final
numeric value was generated which could serve as a final comparison for the
alternatives. The grades and values are shown in Table 3-3.
A discussion of the factors involved with assigning grades in each
criteria in the ESSSWFP is contained in the following sections.
Economic Evaluation
In order to determine the most cost-effective alternative plan for
serving the entire Hilltop service area, two flow conditions were
investigated. The area south of Wilson Mills Road is currently served by the
BBW complex, while the area north of Wilson Mills Road is now served by small
treatment plants, pumping stations, and onsite systems (NEORSD 1978c).
Alternative H-l (in-basin treatment) would provide service to the entire
Hilltop area, while alternative E-1A (BBW upgrade) would only serve the area
south of Wilson Mills Road. Therefore, in order to compare alternatives on
the basis of serving the entire Hilltop area, various alternatives for serving
the area north of Wilson Mills Road were analyzed and the most cost-effective
plan was used in conjunction with alternative E-1A.
The three alternatives developed for the north portion of the basin were
alternative H-1A (in-basin treatment excluding BBW), alternative H-3 (pumping
to Euclid), and an additional Hilltop pumping station (located near Richmond
and White Roads). The additional Hilltop pumping station was selected by the
ESSSWFP as the best choice for service to the northern part of the Hilltop
area. The additional pumping station was used in conjunction with alternative
E-1A (BBW upgrade) to provide service for the entire Hilltop service area.
Since alternatives H-l, H-2A, and H-2B already provided service for the entire
area, the combination of E-1A and the Hilltop pumping station was required so
all alternatives were compared on a similar service area (NEORSD 1978c).
Alternative H-l (in-basin treatment) was found to have the highest
capital cost and present worth of the major Hilltop alternatives. The BBW
3-17
-------
upgrade (E-1A), including the Hilltop pumping station, was found to have a
slightly higher present worth value than transport to Easterly (alternative
H-2B). However, the cost of energy required for alternative E-1A pumps was
not escalated. The ESSSWFP concluded that the increase in the cost for energy
will probably exceed cost increases for other facilities planning items, and
consequently the present worth of alternative E-1A would actually exceed the
present worth of alternative H-2B by an even greater amount (NEORSD 1978c).
Alternative H-2B is a capital intensive plan and would be affected only
indirectly and to a lesser extent by rising energy cost.
Alternative H-2B (transport to Easterly) would require additional local
interceptor capacity above that required for alternative E-1A (BBW upgrade)
(NEORSD 1978c). This incremental cost was considered in the cost-effective
analysis of the two alternative plans.
The total cost for alternative H-2A (interceptor in Euclid Creek) was not
developed because oE the extreme difficulty of constructing this alternative
due to the steep gorge walls.
The estimated capital cost and present worth value for the Hilltop
alternatives are shown in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. ESSSWFP Alternative Costs
(Million $)
Item
Capital
Present Worth O&M
Total
Present Worth Salvage Value
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
Alternative
H-l
$35.2
$14.3
$49.5
$(2.5)
$47.0
H-2B
35.2
3.1
38.3
(4.6)
33.7
E-1A
32.4
4.8
37.2
(2.2)
35.0
Source: NEORSD 1978c
3-18
-------
Environmental Evaluation
Overall Water Quality. Alternatives in which Hilltop flow would be
transferred to other service areas for treatment would provide the greatest
improvement in the water quality of the Hilltop service area streams.
However, proposed interbasin transfers can be detrimental to the overall water
quality of the study area if the facilities in the receiving basin are not
adequately sized for the transfer of wet weather flow. The ESSSWFP stated
that the addition of wet weather flow from the transport alternatives (H-2A
and H-2B) and the BBW upgrade (E-1A) would exceed the 200 MGD capacity of the
headworks at the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant (the 200 MGD maximum
capacity is now 330 MGD as a result of expansion) (NEORSD 1978c).
The projected design flow would not be realized until the local systems
were improved to allow transport of the design flow to the interceptor system.
According to the ESSSWFP, the frequency of bypassing at the headworks would
increase over the years as local system improvements were implemented. The
development and expansion of detention/treatment facilities at the Easterly
plant over this same time period would help alleviate the impact of increased
bypassing (NEORSD 1978c).
Because of the potential wet weather overflow at the Easterly plant
associated with alternatives H-2A, H-2B, and E-1A flows, these alternatives
without detention/treatment would result in less overall water quality
improvement than alternative H-l (in-basin treatment). With adequate
detention/treatment at the Easterly plant, these alternatives would be
favored over in-basin treatment. In ranking the Hilltop alternatives, it was
assumed by the ESSSWFP that the detention/treatment facility would be built at
the Easterly plant (NEORSD 1978c).
Bypassing and Overflow. According to the ESSSWFP, bypassing and sewage
overflows are limited to the BBW portion of the Hilltop service area.
Bypassing is not extensive throughout the service area, but local flooding and
overflow adjacent to the regional pumping station can be extreme. The
overflow associated with the BBW would be alleviated by implementing any of
the proposed plans according to the ESSSWFP (NEORSD 1978c).
3-19
-------
Overflow in the Easterly area would be aggravated by additional flows
from the Hilltop service area particularly during intense storm events.
Alternative H-2B (transport to Easterly) would divert Hilltop flow from
existing Easterly sewers, therefore limiting the effect of increased flow to
the Easterly plant.
Disturbance of Flora and Fauna. The facilities plan concluded that
alternative E-1A (BBW upgrade) would cause the least disturbance of flora and
fauna because the proposed improvements would involve mostly renovation of
existing facilities and construction of new facilities in existing street
right-of-ways (NEORSD 1978c).
Alternative H-l (in-basin treatment) would involve extensive construction
on an undisturbed natural area north of the Cuyahoga County Airport, and would
therefore cause more disturbance to the flora and fauna of the basin than
alternative E-1A. Alternative H-2B (tunnel in Chardon Road) would require
open-cut installation of the sewer in the area north of the county airport,
which would result in a disturbance similar to that caused by alternative H-l.
Alternative H-2A, an open-cut sewer installation in Euclid Creek, would cause
severe disturbance to the flora and fauna existing along the stream and was
not recommended for further consideration by the ESSSWFP (NEORSD 1978c).
The H-1A flow alternative (in-basin treatment excluding BBW flow) would
require construction of new facilities north of the county airport.
Alternative E-1A plus the Hilltop pumping station would require over 12,000
feet of force main in addition to the pumping station construction. E-1A plus
the Hilltop pumping station force main would be contained almost entirely
within existing streets. However, more disturbance to vegetation would result
from E-1A and the Hilltop pumping station and force main construction than
from the onsite construction of alternative H-1A according to the ESSSWFP.
Alternative H-3 (pumping to Euclid) would require the same site work as E-1A
plus the Hilltop pumping station. The H-3 force main, although shorter than
E-1A and the Hilltop pumping station force main, would require crossing Euclid
Creek. Alternative H-3, therefore, has a higher potential for disturbance of
flora and fauna than the E-1A alternative (NEORSD 1978c).
3-20
-------
Conflict with Cultural Resources. The ESSSWFP concluded that none of the
major Hilltop alternatives present potential conflicts with archaeological and
historical resources.
Technical Evaluation
Utilization of Existing Facilities. Alternatives E-1A (BBW upgrade),
E-1A plus the Hilltop pumping station, and H-3 (pumping to Euclid) would make
the best use of existing facilities according to the facilities plan.
Alternative H-2B (transport to Easterly) would transport flow to the
Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant, but would require substantial new
construction. Several existing pumping stations would remain in service with
this alternative.
Alternatives H-l and H-1A (in-basin treatment) would require all new
facilities. The collection system proposed by the facilities plan for the
Hilltop service area would eliminate several existing wastewater facilities.
The existing sewers would be used where possible (NEORSD 1978c).
Adaptability to Higher Effluent Standards. The interbasin transfer
alternatives E-1A, H-2B, H-3, and E-1A plus the Hilltop pumping station would
be more adaptable to higher effluent standards because they provide treatment
at regional plants, according to the ESSSWFP (NEORSD 1978c). The cost
allocation to the Hilltop service area for improvements to the Easterly or
Euclid plants would be less than the improvements required for the in-basin
treatment facilities.
Reliability. Alternative H-2B would provide the least potential for
mechanical failures according to the facilities plan. However, several
existing pumping stations would remain with this option and present some
potential for equipment failure.
The in-basin treatment facilities alternatives H-l and H-1A would
continue to provide some degree of treatment under most equipment failure
conditions.
3-21
-------
Alternatives Ei-lA, H-3, and E-1A plus the Hilltop pumping station would
be more severely affected by equipment failure (NEORSD 1978c).
Ease of Operation. The in-basin treatment alternatives, H-l and H-1A,
would require more operator time and a larger increase in operation and
maintenance staff than the other alternatives.
The BBW upgrade alternative (E-1A) would require some increased operator
time over that required with the existing BBW complex because of the
additional Hilltop pumping station.
Alternative H-2B (gravity flow to Easterly) would require an increase in
maintenance staff and maintenance time but presents the greatest ease of
operation compared to the other alternatives according to the ESSSWFP (NEORSD
1978c).
Implementation and Jurisdiction. Alternatives E-1A (BBW upgrade), H-2B
(transport to Easterly), and E-1A plus the Hilltop pumping station are
proposed as regional facilities. Portions of the area to be served by these
alternatives are not within the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewerage District
(NEORSD) service area.
Financing through the NEORSD would be easier than through special assess-
ment districts (which would be required for the nonregional facilities). The
local interceptor sewers proposed in alternative H-2B were included as
regional facilities. Alternatives H-l (in-basin treatment), H-1A (in-basin
treatment excluding BBW flow), and H-3 (pumping to Euclid) were proposed as
local facilities. The local alternatives would serve more than one community
and would therefore require the formation of a special assessment district for
their implementation (NEORSD 1978c).
The ESSSWFP concluded that the regional facilities presented slightly
less difficulty in implementation and jurisdiction than the local
alternatives.
3-22
-------
The ESSSWFP also stated that the BBW upgrade, alternative E-1A, would
cause considerable inconvenience to the public through traffic congestion,
dust, noise, and other sewer construction-related problems, but to a lesser
extent than the lower segment of the gravity alternative, H-2B (NEORSD 1978c).
Flexibility Considerations
According to the facility plan, alternatives H-l (in-basin treatment) and
E-1A (BBW upgrade) presented greater flexibility in serving a larger popula-
tion than projected. It was also stated that the capacity of alternative H-1A
(in-basin treatment excluding BBW flow) would be much more difficult and
expensive to increase than the capacity of either alternative E-1A or H-l
(NEORSD 1978c).
The cost-effectiveness of alternative H-2B (transport to Easterly) is not
dependent on projected population. Because a large quantity of flow is
currently transferred by the BBW, the Hilltop alternatives are less sensitive
to changes that may result from alterations in projected population. The
ESSSWFP felt that the high cost of rock excavation required for sewer instal-
lation in the Hilltop basin also decreased the sensitivity of the Hilltop
alternatives to population. That is, within limits, a change in sewer
diameter in the Hilltop service area would have very little effect on the
total cost of transport facilities (NEORSD 1978c).
3.1.3 Facilities Plan Recommended Alternative
Based on the information presented in the previous section and the
summary in Table 3-3, the Easterly Separate Sewer Segment Wastewater
Facilities Plan (ESSSWFP) recommended alternative H-2B (transport to Easterly)
for service to the Hilltop area. From the analysis, the reliability, low
energy costs, ease of operation, and removal of bypasses and overflows were
major factors in recommending this alternative (NEORSD 1978c). The cost
comparison on present worth was previously presented in Table 3-4.
3.1.3.1 Further Analysis and Final Alignment of the Recommended Alternative
This section contains a summary of the additional studies which were
completed on the recommended alternative. These studies included a Sewer
3-23
-------
System Evaluation Survey (SSES, published in 1985) (NEORSD 1985a), an Advanced
Facilities Plan (AFP, published in 1983) (NEORSD 1983a, 1983b, 1983c), and a
Supplemental Facilities Plan (SFP, published in 1983) (NEORSD 1983d).
Once the ESSSWFP recommended alternative H-2B for service to the Hilltop
basin, an AFP was prepared to expedite design and implementation of the
interceptor system (NEORSD 1983a). This work was done concurrently with a
SSES which further analyzed system problems (NEORSD 1985a).
Preliminary results from the SSES program showed that inflow and infil-
tration (I/I) were considerably greater throughout the Easterly Separate Sewer
Area (ESSA) than had been anticipated in the ESSSWFP. Large portions of the
existing sewer system are constructed in the dual system (as discussed in
Chapter 2) with the storm drains and sanitary sewers in the same trench. This
type of construction is prone to excessive leakage from the storm drain into
the sanitary sewer and is one of the primary sources of I/I.
The ESSSWFP had estimated a peak rate of 393 MGD to be delivered to the
Easterly WWTP if peak wet weather flows from the entire ESSA were summed
(NEORSD 1978c). A preliminary summation of the flow data collected by the
SSES suggested the ipeak flow could be as high as 926 MGD.
The EPA Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) was used in the AFP to
determine the route of peak wet weather flows through the Heights/Hilltop
interceptor system and to obtain an estimate of the attenuated peak flow rate
that would be delivered to the Easterly WWTP (NEORSD 1983a).
The attenuated peak flow rate experienced at Easterly (from the AFP SWMM
analysis) was 713 MGD. This value for peak flow was considerably less than
the 926 MGD suggested in the SSES, but was large enough to cause concern about
the design of the interceptors. This created numerous additional easement and
clearance problems, and a considerable increase in expected costs for the
project (NEORSD 1983a).
3-24
-------
Alignment changes were made in portions of the Heights/Hilltop intercep-
tors as a result of the AFP, along with recommendations to reroute peak flows
from the ESSA through the interceptors in such a way as to further reduce the
peak flow rate experienced at Easterly (NEORSD 1983a). Altering flow routes
changes travel time and causes peak flows to arrive at critical junctions in
the interceptor system at different times. Contracts G and H were added
during this rerouting to transport flows from the Belvoir area (which is south
of the Hilltop Facility Planning Area), as shown in Figure 3-6A.
After the alignment changes (both inside and outside the Hilltop area)
were incorporated into the SWMM analysis, the attenuated peak flow rate
delivered to the Easterly WWTP was decreased to approximately 599 MGD. All of
the peak flow rates resulted in conveyance problems in designing the down
stream segments of the Heights/Hilltop interceptor system and created the need
for massive changes to the Easterly WWTP headworks and outfall.
A preliminary AFP analysis of costs associated with modifications of
Easterly to handle peak wet weather flows from the ESSA showed a significant
increase in cost for flows in excess of 400 MGD. Therefore, a means of
regulating the ESSA peak flows to a maximum value of 400 MGD was determined to
be desirable in the development of a feasible project (NEORSD 1983a).
The problems associated with modifying the headworks and outfall capacity
generated a storage concept, which was significantly different than the
originally selected alternative. The storage concept regulated the peak flow
rate reaching Easterly by diverting flows above a set rate to storage, with
return to the interceptor system after the peak subsided. Several preliminary
proposals were made as part of the AFP efforts concerning the location and
volume of off-line storage basins. Storage in one large basin at Easterly was
not feasible due to land constraints onsite and nearsite, and because a basin
near the WTP would not reduce the size of interceptors (NEORSD 1983a).
Storage at each of the approximately 20 input points to the interceptor system
also was not feasible because of operation and maintenance problems associated
with the number of basins and due to land acquisition problems in the highly
urbanized corridor followed by the interceptors.
3-25
-------
CQ
0)
0)
O)
(0
c
2
CQ
CO
0)
3
O)
3-26
-------
Four preliminary areas were found for locating off-line storage basins
upstream in the Heights/Hilltop interceptor system. These areas were near the
intersections of Richmond Road and Swetland Boulevard, Green Road and
Monticello Boulevard, Belvoir Boulevard and Euclid Avenue, and Coventry and
Superior Roads. Upstream mini-system flows from the SSES analysis were coded
into the SWMM, and flows generated by the model at key locations were used to
size interceptors upstream of the basins. Storage basin volumes were
proportioned according to the ratio of summed upstream mini-system flows to
the 926 MGD total. Basin volumes were then revised in subsequent SWMM runs
until the peak flow delivered to Easterly was 400 MGD. Interceptors
downstream of the basins were sized to convey the SWMM generated peak flows
limited by the basins.
The preliminary storage alternative analysis indicated that some type of
storage would be cost-effective. As a result, additional detailed planning
was conducted for off-system storage of flows in excess of 400 MGD. This
additional planning effort culminated in the creation of a Supplemental
Facilities Plan (SFP) (NEORSD 1983d). The SFP provided hydraulic and physical
orientation of the proposed storage basins, the environmental and
archaeological ramifications of each basin site, and the revised interceptor
alignments resulting from the rerouting of flows and incorporation of the
storage basins into the Heights/Hilltop interceptor system.
The recommended plan for the Heights/Hilltop FPA included storage basins
at the Cuyahoga County Airport, in Lake View Cemetery near the southwest
corner of Coventry and Superior Roads, and along Green Road north of
Monticello Boulevard. The size of the basins is related to the success of the
rehabilitation program outlined in the SSES. Sizes and costs which were
presented in the recommended plan are based on the effects of this rehabili-
tation effort. If rehabilitation does not result in the projected reduction
of flows, the basins could be enlarged. Since the basins are the last item to
be built in the system, the effectiveness of the rehabilitation program will
be known.
The construction contracts from the Advanced Facility Plan (AFP) for the
final recommended alignment for service to the Hilltop area are shown in
3-27
-------
Figure 3-6. Contract G and Contract 4 are also shown because they are
important in later Environmental Assessment analyses. The Lake View Cemetery
storage basin is not shown because it is dedicated to Heights interceptor
flows and is not part of the Hilltop plan. The design flow capacity of each
component shown in Figure 3-7 is included in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5. Sizes for the Recommended Plan
Contract
4
5
F (Eastern Leg)
(Western Leg)
G
H
Airport Basin
Component
Conveyance
Conveyance
Conveyance
Conveyance
Conveyance
Conveyance
Storage
Size
236/66 MGD1
66 MGD
45 MGD
70 MGD
202 MGD
59 MGD
1.5 MGD
Pipe Diameters
102/66 in.
60 in.
48 in.
54 in.
60 in.
42 in.
*236 MGD downstream of Green Road and 66 MGD upstream.
Source: NEORSD 1983d
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES/RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The Ohio EPA review of the facility plan was documented in an
Environmental Assessment (OEPA 1985a). Four alternatives to serve this basin
were reviewed in the Environmental Assessment based upon the original
facilities plan alternatives. Alternative 1 is the same as the final
alignment of alternative H-2B (transport to Easterly) from the facilities
planning process, and alternative 2 is very similar to alternative E-1A (BBW
upgrade) from the ESiSSWFP. Alternatives 3 and 4 are combinations of these
3-28
-------
I-
<
z
Q
LJJ
o
U
LU
Cki
Z
<
_j
Q.
U
<
O
Z
H-
U
Z
O
u
o
fwl
3-29
-------
other alternatives developed by NEORSD and requested by OEPA. The revised
alternatives include:
Alternative 1 - Gravity Interceptor Sewer with Small Pump Stations
Alternative 2 - Combination Gravity Interceptor Sewer and Pump Stations/Force
Mains (3 Major Pumping Stations)
Alternative 3 - Combination Gravity Interceptor Sewer and Pump Stations/Force
Mains (2 Major Pumping Stations)
Alternative 4 - Combination Gravity Interceptor Sewer and Pump Station/Force
Main (1 Major Pumping Station).
A separate assessment (i.e., Finding of No Significant Impact) was
completed for the Heights interceptor prior to the start of the Hilltop
Environmental Assessment (USEPA 1984d). In the Heights Environmental
Assessment, the leg of the interceptor that will be routed down Green Road
from Euclid Avenue to Monticello Boulevard, Contract G, was included with the
understanding that the sewer diameter and construction cost would be dependent
on which alternative was ultimately selected for the Hilltop area. Therefore,
Contract G was also included in the cost analysis of the Hilltop alternatives
even though it was previously discussed and conceptually approved.
3.2.1 Alternatives Description
Alternative 1 - Gravity Interceptor Sewer with Small Pump Stations
This alternative is shown on Figure 3-8, and the costs are included in
Appendix D. This alternative is the same as the final alignment of
alternative H-2B from the facilities planning process (NEORSD 1978c).
Alternative 1 would consist of a 48" diameter gravity sewer from the
Beech Hill/Bonnieview pumping station north via small side streets and SOM
Center Road to the Cuyahoga County/Lake County line. The sewer would follow
the county line west from SOM Center Road to Bishop Road. The sewer would
then be routed from Bishop Road to Richmond Road through the Cuyahoga County
Airport (OEPA 1985a).
Another leg of this alternative would consist of branches from the Wilson
Mills and Williamsburg pump stations. These sewers would converge in a 30"
3-30
-------
u
LU
f-
O
z
H
u
Z
O
u
O
r«i
3-31
-------
sewer in Highland Road where the flow would be transported west to Richmond
Road. The Richmond Road sewer would be a 42" to 58" diameter gravity sewer
from Anderson Road north to Swetland Boulevard.
A 60" diameter gravity sewer would be routed north along Richmond Road to
Chardon Road, and southwest along Chardon Road to Euclid Creek. A 48"
diameter sewer would cross Euclid Creek and a 66" sewer would follow Euclid
Road southwest to Green Road. A 102" diameter sewer would continue along
Euclid Road from Green Road to Ivanhoe Road (OEPA 1985a).
A 60" to 66" diameter gravity sewer would be required for Contract G.
Also included with this alternative would be a leg to connect the Richmond
Park package plant with pump stations and force mains at Scottish Highlands
and Hickory Hills package plants to eliminate these point source discharges
(OEPA 1985a). Thornapple, Woods, and Suffolk Country Estates pump stations
would all remain in service under this alternative.
A 0.75 million gallon storage basin would be constructed on the Cuyahoga
County Airport property.
While not proposed for Federal funding as a part of the Heights/Hilltop
interceptor project, local collector sewers were included in the Environmental
Assessment cost analysis (OEPA 1985a). These sewers would be necessary to
serve existing unsewered areas and future development, and would enable the
elimination of several small pump stations.
Alternative 2 - Combination Gravity Interceptor and Pump Stations/Force Mains
(3 Major Pumping Stations)
This alternative is shown in Figure 3-9, and the costs are included in
Appendix D.
A 24.2 million gallons per day (MGD) pump station would be constructed at
the existing Wilson Mills pump station site, and twin 24" diameter force main
sewers would be constructed along Wilson Mills Road to discharge to the
gravity sewer along Monticello Boulevard (OEPA 1985a).
3-32
-------
3-33
-------
An 11.6 MGD pump station would be constructed at the Beech Hill pump
station site, and twin 18" diameter force main sewers would be constructed
along Wilson Mills Road to discharge to the new Wilson Mills pump station.
The Bonnieview storage basin would be rehabilitated.
A new 12.9 MGD pump station would be constructed near Richmond Road and
White Road, and twin 18" diameter force main sewers would be constructed along
Richmond Road to discharge to the gravity sewer along Monticello Boulevard.
This alternative also involves a gravity aerial crossing of Euclid Creek
along Monticello Boulevard. The Environmental Assessment analysis assumed a
worst-case condition which would require a new free standing pipe bridge to
support twin 54" sewers.
This alternative would also include a 66" to 78" diameter gravity sewer
along Green Road (Contract G) from Monticello Boulevard to Euclid Avenue.
Additional gravity sewers would be constructed along portions of Monticello
Boulevard and Wilson Mills Road (OEPA 1985a).
With this alternative, the proposed Green Road storage basin and
associated facilities would need to be larger than what is required for
alternative 1 because of the elimination of the Airport storage basin.
Also included in the Environmental Assessment cost analysis for this
alternative were local collector sewers to serve existing unsewered areas and
future development, and enable the elimination of several small pump stations
and the Richmond Park package plant (OEPA 1985a). The Scottish Highlands and
Hickory Hills package plants would be eliminated by constructing pump stations
and force mains to discharge to the new local collector sewers. Several pump
stations (Aintree, Thornapple, Mt. Vernon, and Woods) would need to be
renovated with this alternative.
Alternative 3 - Combination Gravity Interceptor and Pump Stations/Force Mains
(2 Major Pumping Stations)
This alternative is shown in Figure 3-10, and the costs are included in
Appendix D.
3-34
-------
3-35
-------
This alternative is similar to alternative 2, except that the Wilson
Mills pump station would be eliminated and replaced by an additional section
of gravity sewer.
Contract G would remain the same as in alternative 2. Gravity sewer
supplementation would be constructed along Monticello Boulevard and Wilson
Mills Road. A 60" diameter sewer would be tunneled below Monticello Boulevard
and Wilson Mills Road to eliminate the Wilson Mills pump station. Two 54"
gravity sewers would also be required for the aerial crossing of Euclid Creek
along Monticello Boulevard.
The Green Road storage basin would need to be slightly larger than what
would be necessary for alternative 2. All other features would be the same as
alternative 2.
Alternative 4 - Combination Gravity Interceptor and Pump Station/Force Main
(1 Major Pumping Station)
This alternative is shown in Figure 3-11, and the costs are included in
Appendix D.
This alternative combined features of a gravity interceptor system along
with rebuilding the Beech Hill pumping complex.
The Beech Hill/Bonnieview pumping complex would be rebuilt, and twin 18"
diameter force main sewers would be constructed along Wilson Mills Road to
discharge to a gravity sewer along Richmond Road.
A 30" diameter gravity sewer would be routed west from the Williamsburg
pump station along Highland Road to Richmond Road. A connecting leg would
also run north from the Wilson Mills pump station along Franklin Boulevard and
Meadowlane Drive to Highland Road. A 42" to 58" diameter gravity sewer would
follow Richmond Road from Anderson Road to Swetland Boulevard.
A 60" diameter gravity sewer would be routed north along Richmond Road to
Chardon Road and southwest along Chardon Road to Euclid Creek. A 48" diameter
sewer would cross Euclid Creek, and a 66" sewer would follow Euclid Road
3-36
-------
£
LLJ
Tt-
LU
>
r- H
7 <
m z
U <*
z <
< °*
1 <
-u U
^ 2
^ z
O z
Q Q
LLJ LLJ
C/^ CO
o o
CL. OL
O O
a£ c*.
3-37
-------
southwest to Green Road. A 102" diameter sewer would continue along Euclid
Road from Green Road to Ivanhoe Road (OEPA 1985a).
A spur from the Richmond Road sewer would connect to the Richmond Park
package plant. The Scottish Highlands package plant would require a pump
station and force main to connect to the Richmond Road sewer.
Local collector sewers to serve existing unsewered areas and future
development, and to enable the elimination of several pump stations, are
included in the cost analysis. The Hickory Hills package plant would be
eliminated by constructing a pump station at the plant site and a force main
sewer to connect to a local collector sewer along SOM Center Road (OEPA
1985a).
The Aintree, Thornapple, Mt. Vernon, and Woods pump stations would
require renovation with this alternative.
A 0.30 million gallon storage basin would be constructed north of the
Cuyahoga County Airport.
Contract G would include a 60" to 66" diameter gravity sewer that would
be routed from the intersection of Monticello Boulevard and Green Road up
Green Road to Euclid Avenue (OEPA 1985a).
3.2.2 EA Evaluation of Alternatives
Table 3-6 presents a summary of the present worth costs for the four
Hilltop Environmental Assessment alternatives.
3-38
-------
Table 3-6. Environmental Assessment Present Worth Summary (1982 dollars)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Capital Present
Worth $83,901,300 $65,046,855 $67,930,455 $76,424,345
Operation and
Maintenance
Present Worth $ 1,257,300 $ 6,941,565 $ 5,884,400 $ 2,638,700
Salvage Present
Worth $ 9,283,990 $ 5,961,900 $ 6,764,880 $ 7,995,595
Total Present
Worth $75,874,610 $66,026,520 $67,049,975 $70,427,565
Source: OEPA 1985a
Along with cost considerations, the Environmental Assessment cost-
effectiveness analysis also considered the environmental and implementation
factors associated with each alternative. These factors are discussed below.
Alternative 1
According to the Environmental Assessment, one of the beneficial
environmental factors associated with this alternative would be the
elimination of several point source discharges. The Scottish Highlands,
Richmond Park, and Hickory Hills package plants would be eliminated (Scottish
Highlands and Hickory Hills would be replaced with pump stations), reducing
the pollution load to local streams. The Wilson Mills/Beech Hill/Bonnieview
pumping complex would be removed from service, eliminating pollution loads to
local streams from overflows of these facilities during storm events.
Sanitary sewer overflows during storm events, along with the back up of sewage
into some residences, would be minimized as a result of this alternative in
conjunction with recommended sewer rehabilitation and relief sewer
construction (OEPA 1985a).
3-39
-------
This alternative would have the lowest power demand, as full advantage
would be taken of gravity flow rather than pumping. Also due to maximizing
gravity flow, this alternative may be less subject to interruptions in service
due to power failure or mechanical breakdown. It would also provide for a
conveyance system with a longer useful life.
The Environmental Assessment also stated that alternative 1 was the most
acceptable to the public in the Hilltop area. The problems associated with
the existing pump stations, and the public expectation that eventually the
pump stations would be abandoned, has resulted in local preference for a
gravity interceptor, rather than a solution that would utilize new pump
stations and force mains. It should be noted, however, that even with this
alternative not all pump stations will be removed.
Adverse environmental factors would include traffic disturbance along
Richmond Road, SOM Center Road, Highland Road, and Wilson Mills Road during
sewer construction. The sewer along Euclid Avenue and Chardon Road would
consist of tunnel construction, and the only areas of disturbance would be at
several access shaft locations (OEPA 1985a).
Extensive disturbance would occur where the alignment is routed outside
road rights-of-way, particularly along the Cuyahoga County/Lake County line.
This route, between Bishop Road and SOM Center Road, would traverse various
stages of wooded growth. Most of this route would traverse abandoned
agricultural fields which have been taken over by brush forest vegetation,
generally between 15 to 20 years old. The construction easement would be 40
feet wide (OEPA 1985a).
Alternative 1 would provide an easily accessible sewer through undevel-
oped land. This would result in lower cost local sewers than for the other
alternatives and would enable development to occur most readily.
Alternative 2
As stated by the Environmental Assessment, the beneficial environmental
factors associated with this alternative would include the elimination of
3-40
-------
several point source discharges. The Scottish Highlands, Richmond Park, and
Hickory Hills package plants would be eliminated (Scottish Highlands and
Hickory Hills would be replaced with pump stations), reducing the pollution
load to local streams. The Wilson Mills/Beech Hill/Bonnieview pumping complex
would be replaced with expanded, more reliable facilities, eliminating wet
weather pollution loads which result from pump station overflow. A new pump
station would be constructed near Richmond and White Roads to enable existing
and future flows from the lowest portion of the Hilltop area to be routed to
the new gravity sewer along Monticello Boulevard. Sanitary sewer overflows
during storm events, along with the back up of sewage into some residences,
would be minimized as a result of this alternative in conjunction with
recommended sewer rehabilitation and relief sewer construction (OEPA 1985a).
This alternative would have the highest power demand, as three major pump
stations would be utilized. Also, pump stations rely on the proper operation
and maintenance of mechanical components and do not have as long a useful life
as gravity sewers.
The Environmental Assessment noted that this alternative was the least
acceptable to the public in the Hilltop area, because of the problems
associated with the existing pumping stations (OEPA 1985a).
Traffic disturbances during the construction of this alternative would
not be as extensive as with alternative 1, because most street construction
would involve force mains, which are typically smaller in diameter and
shallower than gravity sewers, and take less time to construct.
This alternative does not involve interceptor sewer construction outside
road rights-of-way, and would result in less disturbance to natural areas.
Pump station construction and operation would result in a minor disturbance to
residential areas.
Alternative 2 would provide capacity for future development. Local sewer
costs would be greater than for alternative 1 since the interceptor/force main
construction would be less extensive.
3-41
-------
The sewer along Monticello Boulevard would require an aerial crossing of
Euclid Creek and would result in an aesthetic impact to the Euclid Creek
Reservation (OEPA 1985a).
Alternative 3
With alternative 3, the Wilson Mills pump station would be eliminated.
This would eliminate the largest of the pump stations, and as such reduce
energy demand, increase reliability, and increase public acceptability. Aside
from this change, the environmental considerations are the same as for
alternative 2 according to the Environmental Assessment (OEPA 1985a).
Alternative 4
This alternative would eliminate the Wilson Mills pump station and the
need for a new pump station near Richmond and White Roads. Alternative 4 had
the lowest energy demand of all alternatives except alternative 1. Equipment
in the Beech Hill/Bonnieview pumping complex would be replaced, and this would
be the only major pump station in the Hilltop area. Due to the reduced number
of pump stations, this alternative would be considered the most reliable of
all but alternative 1, and would possibly be more publicly acceptable than
alternatives 2 and 3 according to the Environmental Assessment (OEPA 1985a).
Traffic disruption along Richmond Road, Euclid Avenue, and Chardon Road
would be the same as alternative 1. Traffic disturbance along Wilson Mills
Road from force main sewer construction would be similar to alternatives 2 and
3. Disturbance to natural areas would not be a direct impact of this
alternative, as all construction would be along roadways and at the Beech
Hill/Bonnieview sites (OEPA 1985a).
The Monticello Boulevard sewer, and associated aerial crossing of Euclid
Creek, would not be necessary with alternative 4.
This alternative would provide for capacity to serve future development,
but would not provide for a sewer through undeveloped land.
3-42
-------
3.2.3 EA Recommended Alternative
Of the four alternatives analyzed in the Hilltop Environmental Assess-
ment, alternative 1 was recommended for the Hilltop Facility Planning Area.
Although this alternative had a present worth approximately $9.8 million more
than the least cost alternative (alternative 2), the Environmental Assessment
made the recommendation based on:
o A longer useful life of the gravity system
o Public sentiment against major pumping stations
o Minimal energy, operation, and maintenance requirements for the
gravity option.
The proposed alternative is discussed by individual construction contract
in the following paragraphs. The segments discussed also correspond to the
various segments shown on Figure 3-8 with one exception. After the Hilltop
Environmental Assessment cost analysis was completed, the portion of Contract
4 from Ivanhoe Road along Euclid Avenue to Green Road was redesignated as part
of Contract 3 and is no longer included as part of this alternative (OEPA
1985a).
Contract 4
This contract involves construction of a 66" diameter pipe and is
designed for a peak flow of 66 million gallons ger day (MGD). The downstream
end of Contract 4 begins at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Green Road.
The interceptor will be tunneled below Euclid Avenue from the intersection of
Euclid Avenue and Green Road to Euclid Creek. The Environmental Assessment
estimated capital cost of this contract at $7.5 million (OEPA 1985a).
Contract 5
This contract involves construction of a 48" to 60" diameter sewer and is
designed for a peak flow of 66 MGD. The downstream end of Contract 5 begins
on the west side of Euclid Creek, near Chardon Road, and involves open-cut
construction of a 48" diameter sewer across the stream. East of Euclid Creek,
a 60" sewer will be tunneled below Chardon Road. This sewer will be oversized
3-43
-------
at 60" because it is impractical to construct an extensive tunnel of smaller
diameter. The sewer will continue below Chardon Road and will turn south
along Richmond Road to Swetland Boulevard. The Environmental Assessment
estimated capital cost for this contract at $16.16 million (OEPA 1985a).
Contract F
This contract involves construction of several sewers ranging from 54" to
30" in diameter and designed for a peak flow of 70 MGD for the western leg and
45 MGD for the eastern leg. Also included are smaller spurs to pick up
package plants and pump stations. All sewer construction in Contract F will
be by open-cut construction methods (OEPA 1985a).
The western leg of Contract F begins at Richmond Road and Swetland
Boulevard. This section involves construction of a 54" to 42" diameter sewer
along Richmond Road from Swetland Boulevard to Highland Road. A 30" diameter
sewer will be placed along Highland Road from Richmond Road to Meadowlane
Drive. A 30" diameter sewer will be placed south along Meadowlane Drive to
Radford Drive and Kenbridge Drive to the Wilson Mills pump station. From
Meadowlane Drive, a 21" to 18" diameter sewer will be placed east along
Highland Road and south along Pinehurst Road to the Williamsburg pump station.
Both the Wilson Mills and Williamsburg pump stations will be eliminated (OEPA
1985a).
The eastern leg of Contract F begins at Richmond Road, approximately
2,000 feet south of Highland Road. This section involves construction of a
48" diameter sewer eastward through the Cuyahoga County Airport to Bishop
Road. From Bishop Road to White Road and SOM Center Road, the 48" diameter
sewer will generally follow the Cuyahoga County/Lake County line. A 400'
section will be tunneled below Interstate 271. From White Road, a 48"
diameter sewer will be routed south along SOM Center Road to Thornapple Drive.
The sewer will then turn east along Thornapple Drive to Oakwood Drive, south
along Oakwood Drive, across Wilson Mills Road, to the Beech Hill pump station
(OEPA 1985a).
Included with this contract will be a 12" sewer to pick up the Richmond
Park package plant, east of Richmond Road. The Scottish Highlands package
plant will be eliminated with a pump station and force main discharging to the
3-44
-------
Richmond Road interceptor. The Hickory Hills package plant will be eliminated
with a pump station and force main discharging to the SOM Center Road
interceptor.
The estimated capital cost of Contract F from the Environmental
Assessment was $26.4 million (OEPA 1985a).
Contract H
This contract involves open-cut construction of a 42" diameter sewer from
Richmond Road and Highland Road south along Richmond Road to Anderson Road.
This sewer will be designed to transport a peak flow of 59 MGD from the East
Belvoir area (not part of the Hilltop area).
The Environmental Assessment estimated capital cost of this sewer at
$3.54 million (OEPA 1985a).
Contract G
This contract was initially included in the Heights Environmental
Assessment (OEPA 1985a). However, due to the Hilltop area selected
alternative not being finalized at the time, sizes were presented as a range.
With alternative 1 selected, the sizes could then be developed.
Contract G will begin at the intersection of Green Road and Euclid
Avenue. A 66" diameter sewer will be tunneled below Green Road south for
1,600 feet. From this point along Green Road the sewer will be a 60" diameter
sewer constructed using open-cut methods. The sewer will terminate at Green
Road and Monticello Boulevard.
The estimated capital cost of this sewer was $7.38 million (OEPA 1985a).
Storage Basins
The storage basins will be the last components of the proposed facilities
to be constructed. Their need and size will be dependent on the eventual
flows entering the interceptors upon completion of the sewer rehabilitation
and relief sewer construction (OEPA 1985a).
3-45
-------
The selected alternative for the Hilltop area included construction of a
0.75 million gallon storage basin on the Cuyahoga County Airport property.
Both the western and eastern legs of Contract F will be able to feed into the
basin during peak flow conditions. The basin will require about 0.6 acres of
the airport property, and will be placed below ground level. When flows
subside in the interceptor sewer, the stored water will be pumped into the
interceptor for treatment at the Easterly WWTP.
The estimated capital cost of the storage basin in the Environmental
Assessment was $2.54 million (OEPA 1985a).
3.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Because of the broad coverage of alternatives developed throughout the
facilities planning process, no new interceptor routes were developed during
the EIS process. Several variations of the alternatives already discussed in
this chapter were examined in the planning process before the final alignments
were determined. The following section describes these alternative routes.
The Supplemental Facilities Planning Report (SFP) studied four variations
of the recommended alternative before deciding on the final alignment shown on
Figure 3-6 (NEORSD 1983d). Presented below is a brief description of the four
variations:
o Bishop Road Alignment without Anderson Road Diversion - Consisted of
Contract F, but the western leg of Contract F was routed down Bishop
Road from the county line to Wilson Mills Road.
o Richmond Roa.d Alignment without Anderson Road Diversion - Consisted of
Contract F but did not include Contract H. The western leg of
Contract F was routed down Richmond Road and across on Highland Road.
o Bishop Road Alignment with Anderson Road Diversion - Consisted of the
same arrangement as Bishop without Anderson, but also included a
branch west on Wilson Mills Road to Richmond Road and then south to
Anderson Roa.d.
o Richmond Road Alignment with Anderson Road Diversion - Consisted of
the same arrangement as Richmond without Anderson, but also included
Contract H.
3-46
-------
The SWMM model was run for each of these alternatives with the following
results (NEORSD 1983d).
Table 3-7. SWMM Model Run Results
Flow at Easterly WWTP Construction Cost
($1,000,000)
Bishop w/o Anderson 713 MGD $19.4
Richmond w/o Anderson 625 MGD 19.5
Bishop w/Anderson 599 MGD 27.4
Richmond w/Anderson 599 MGD 23.2
The alternatives which included the Anderson Road Diversion were favored
over the other alternatives because of the reduction in peak attenuated wet
weather flow to the Easterly plant. Since the Richmond with Anderson
alternative was estimated to be $4.2 million less expensive than the Bishop
with Anderson alternative, the Richmond alignment was chosen. This final
alignment, shown on Figure 3-7, is the previously defined recommended alter-
native. The other alternatives were dropped from further consideration.
The Anderson Road diversion collects flow from the East Belvoir area (NEORSD
1983d).
An alternative developed by the NEORSD, in response to OEPA comments, was
the routing of the northern part of Contract F along White Road instead of
across open areas as proposed in the recommended alternative (NEORSD 1984b).
The final conclusion of the NEORSD was that the White Road route would be
about $2.0 million more expensive than the county line route. This conclusion
was drawn based on the fact that the White Road route would require
construction in pavement, while the county line route would not. The White
Road route, however, does remain as a viable alternative to the cross-country
section.
Another modification of the recommended plan that was examined by the
NEORSD was the routing of the eastern leg of Contract F (across Highland Road
from SOM Center to Richmond Road) in place of the county line route. Since
segments of Highland Road will already be disturbed by the western leg of
3-47
-------
Contract F (Richmond to Williamsburg pump station), the additional cost to
increase the pipe size may be minor. However, the depth of the interceptor
may require tunneling which will increase the costs (Stumpe 1986b).
A possibility which was developed during the EIS process involves the use
of the Bonnieview storage facility with the recommended alternative. In the
previous documents (ESSSWFP and Environmental Assessment), Bonnieview would be
eliminated, and a new storage facility would be built near the county airport
for this alternative (NEORSD 1978c, OEPA 1985a). Since Bonnieview is already
a gravity-fed tank, it could remain in service. From the SSES results, the
peak flow rate within the eastern leg of Contract F would be reduced from 40.6
MGD to 11.6 MGD by including this basin (NEORSD 1985a). By reducing the peak
flow rates, the interceptors could be down sized, and a preliminary summation
of peak flow volumes indicates that the Airport storage basin could also be
eliminated. These modifications would decrease the overall cost of the
recommended alternative.
As previously discussed, modifications of the alternatives were developed
in the Environmental Assessment. Since these alternatives show potential as
viable cost-effective options, they will also be addressed in the EIS
analysis.
3-48
-------
CHAPTER 4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
4.1 ATMOSPHERE
4.1.1 Climate and Precipitation
The climate of the Cleveland/Hilltop area is characterized as
continental; however, the climate is strongly influenced by Cleveland's
location along the shores of Lake Erie. The area receives abundant
precipitation, about 34 inches annually, distributed rather evenly throughout
the year. Winds, for the most part, are from the south and southwest and
average 11 mph. Damaging winds sometimes occur during summer thundershowers.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
relative humidity remains about 60 to 80 percent throughout the year (NOAA
1976).
Winters are generally marked by cold, Canadian polar air masses traveling
south and east. Passage over Lake Erie modifies the air mass temperature
somewhat and supplies abundant moisture, resulting in frequent snowfalls.
The average seasonal snowfall amounts to 51.5 inches, with 10 to 11 inches
recorded monthly during December through January, and 5 to 6 inches during
November. Maximum snowfall rates of 17.4 inches in 24 hours and 30.5-inch
monthly totals have been recorded. Seasonal snowfall totals have ranged from
30 to 75 inches. Average winter temperatures range from about 22 degrees at
night to 35 degrees during the daytime (NOAA 1976).
The summer season has the greatest amount of precipitation, and local
flooding may occur. Maximum precipitation rates occur with summer thunder-
storms. Record falls include 1.2 inches during a 10-minute period,
2.21 inches in 1 hour, 3.02 inches in 2 hours, and 4.97 inches in 24 hours.
An average of 16 thunderstorms occur annually, primarily from April to
September (NOAA 1976). The USEPA (1984a) states that for southwest Cleveland,
"of the mean annual precipitation, about one-third runs off to streams. Thus
evaporation, transpiration, and infiltration account for about two-thirds of
the precipitation value." Values for the Hilltop Facility Planning Area (FPA)
would be comparable due to the similarity of climate in southwest Cleveland to
that of the FPA.
4-1
-------
Spring and fall represent transitional periods. The last day of freezing
temperatures typically occurs in late April, and the first frost occurs in
early November.
More detailed climatological data is provided in Table 4-1.
4.1.2 Air Quality
The Cleveland/Hilltop region lies within the Metropolitan Cleveland
Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) as designated by USEPA. The
region is subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and those
imposed by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). Ohio EPA has
designated standards identical to the NAAQS. These standards are listed in
Table 4-2.
Areas wherein the NAAQS have not been attained are designated as non-
attainment areas. In such areas, the State is required to develop permit
requirements that will serve to bring the area into compliance with NAAQS.
Specifically, permit requirements for major stationary sources (i.e., new or
modified sources with the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year of a
regulated pollutant) that will contribute to the non-attainment problem must
demonstrate a high degree of emission control and obtain emission reductions,
offsets, or tradeoffs for problem pollutants (Federal Register 40 CFR Part 51,
July 1, 1984).
Currently, Cuyahoga County is designated as non-attainment for three
gaseous pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide
(SO,) (Kovatch 1986). However, the county is in compliance with NAAQS for
S02; the standard has not been exceeded for a number of years. A request to
redesignate the county to attainment for S02 has been submitted to USEPA.
With regard to ozone and CO, the most recent violation of the standard
occurred in 1983, which was an unusually hot and dry year (Kovatch 1986).
In addition, portions of Cleveland and industrial Cuyahoga County are
designated as non-attainment for total suspended particulates (TSP). The TSP
non-attainment region is bounded by 65th Street, Denison Road, and Broadview
4-2
-------
o
Z
O
*
•a
c
CO
I
O
(0
+•>
(0
O
15
jO
o
4-1
(0
•a
0)
M
O
O
c
c
g
0
1
a
"3
2
Q.
(ft
|
0
«
T3
e
$
^ (/)(/)(/) co 03 w co co w a)
CMCMCM*-OO> COCOOOCMCM O
CO ^O Oi CO ^™ ^3 ^5 ^5 ^™" ^^ C3 ^^ ^3
en o ^t r^ eg o OOOCOIOCM m
»-
^f^com^o oo*~ococo co
60O(O^tCMO OOOOOCMO O
»-CMCM*- VCMCOCO
CMCMCOCM'r-O OO»-CO«O»- IO
Ot-OCMOO OOOOIO^ -r-
i- f- i- V i- IO
cocor^cMr»o oo o eg 5 eg o o
CM CM CM CM CO ^t CM CO CM CO CM CM •*
SRSSSt SSS5SC «
o o o ^ i- T- t-ooooo o
C^ ^D C5 C& ^5 ^5 ^^ OJ CO ^O ^^ t^5 ^O
^,.... «3»»0,<0« .
to co in oi 0 oo tnoor^
CMCMCOCOCOCO COCOCMCMCMCM ^>
CO
-"•»<»- -<«°" 5
m
o
D
O
CO
4-3
-------
(A
TJ
(0
T3
C
CO
+J
"J5
3
o
k.
<
•»->
!5
£
LU
0
c
(0
LU
CO
D
cvi
JQ
Ul f
31 *
CD tn
3
in
-------
Road to the west; the Penn Central Railroad tracks on the south; East 71st and
79th Streets to the east; and Lake Erie to the north (Kovatch 1986). Both the
24-hour and annual average TSP standards were exceeded in Cuyahoga County.
The Ohio EPA has established numerous air quality monitoring stations
throughout the State. Within the Cleveland AQCR, the following pollutants are
monitored: TSP at 55 sites, PM-10 (particulate matter of less than 10 micron
diameter) at five sites, lead at four sites, sulfate at six sites, S02 at 15
sites, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) at three sites, CO at six sites, and ozone at
12 sites.
Air quality data for sites in and near the Hilltop Facility Planning Area
are summarized in Table 4-3. There is a significant difference in air quality
between those sites in the industrial sections of Cleveland—especially those
areas designated as non-attainment for TSP as described above—and sites
within the FPA or adjacent areas to the south and east. Roughly stated,
pollutant values within the facilities planning region are about one-half the
maximum values recorded in industrial sections of Cleveland.
With regard to TSP, there were no violations of the annual standard or
the 24-hour primary standard outside of Cleveland from 1983 to 1985. There
were, however, several violations of the 24-hour secondary standard for TSP at
sites within and near the FPA including Beachwood, Eastlake, Willoughby Hills,
Mentor, and sites in Geauga and Lake Counties. Sulfur dioxide values outside
of Cleveland are also significantly less than those of the industrial regions
with the exception of one elevated 3-hour S02 reading at Eastlake. All
measured values are below the applicable standards. One-hour maximum CO
values are significantly higher at Cleveland than at the Lake County
monitoring site, but 8-hour maximum values are similar, and violations of this
standard have been recorded at both sites. The 1-hour ozone standard has also
been violated at both the Lake County and Cleveland sites. In the case of
this pollutant, the Lake County site has recorded maximum values slightly
greater than those recorded in Cleveland. This may be attributed to the
transport and photochemical oxidation of ozone precursors (NO and reactive
hydrocarbons) generated within the major metropolitan areas. Comparative
values for N0x and lead are not available, but it would be expected that
values in the Hilltop FPA would be less than those measured within Cleveland.
4-5
-------
Table 4-3. Air Quality Data for the Hilltop Facility
Planning Area and Surrounding Localities
Pollutant
(Units)
Avg. Time
TSP
(ug/m3)
Annual
TSP
(ug/m3)
24-hr
S02 3
(ug/m3)
Annual
Year
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
Cleveland
101.1
116.1
122.6
East lake
41.5
40.2
45.8
Beachwood
49.1
50.0
46.6
Cleveland
354
357
564
East lake
198
103
114
Beachwood
236
152
121
Cleveland
62.9
60.6
63.3
Willoughby Hills
34.7
Euclid
49.1
47.8
Mayfield
36.8
36.6
Willoughby Hills
188
Euclid
121
132
Mayfield
84
96
Cuyahoga Co.
24.1
Cuyahoga Co. Geauga Co.
48.0
53.2 52.3
56.0 57.4
Lake Co. Mentor
50.5 34.4
Solon
37.4
36.7
Cuyahoga Co. Geauga Co.
221
122 183
150 339
Lake Co. Mentor
234 173
Solon
87
82
East lake
32.8
33.9
33.1
4-6
-------
Table 4-3. Air Quality Data for the Hilltop Facility
Planning Area and Surrounding Localities (Continued)
Pollutant
(Units)
Avg. Time
S°2 3
(ug/m3)
24-hr
so2
(ug/m3)
3-hr
CO
(mg/m3)
1-hr
CO
(mg/m3)
8-hr
Ozone
(ug/m3)
1-hr
N0x
(ug/m )
Annual
Lead
(ug/m3)
3-mo
Year
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
1985
1984
1983
Cleveland
292
348
252
Cleveland
1045
712
548
Cleveland
24.7
24.3
20.6
Cleveland
10.0
10.8
14.2
Cleveland
212
231
300
Cleveland
55.9
53.5
52.6
Cleveland
0.34
0.38
0.42
Cuyahoga Co.
8
Cuyahoga Co.
230
Lake Co.
12.3
15.7
19.7
Lake Co.
7.7
10.2
12.3
Lake Co.
249
284
310
East lake
125
296
166
East lake
256
1158
265
For downtown areas, the maximum value of several downtown sites is reported.
Source: OEPA 1984, 1985b, and 1986b.
4-7
-------
A 1984 study of aerosol pollutant transport and dry deposition in the
Lake Erie basin (USEPA 1984b) indicates that the general area may be affected
by atmospheric deposition of several pollutants. These include iron, lead,
zinc, cadmium, copper, chromium, nickel, sulfate, and phosphorus. It is not
clear what amount of these atmospheric pollutants have man-made sources in the
Cleveland area.
4.1.3 Noise
No specific data on ambient noise levels are available for the Hilltop
Facility Planning Area.
4.1.4 Odors
No specific data on ambient odors are available for the Hilltop
Facility Planning Area; however, ambient odors become a nuisance with wet
weather sanitary sewer overflows and backups to basements. Complaints are at
times noted, especially in conjunction with overflows to Euclid Creek (Bell
1986).
4.2 GEOGRAPHY AND SOILS
4.2.1 Topography and Physiography
Cuyahoga County occupies parts of two different physiographic provinces,
the glaciated Appalachian Plateaus Province on the south and east, referred to
as the Allegheny Plateau, and the Central Lowland Province on the north and
west, referred to eis the Lake Plain (Winslow et al. 1953). The Lake Plain is
composed of the Eastern Lake and Till Plains sections and occupies a belt
approximately 3 miles wide, parallel to the Lake Erie shore. The Hilltop
Facility Planning Area (FPA) lies within the Allegheny Plateau, which borders
the Lake Plain on the south and rises above it in a prominent escarpment
(White 1980). The escarpment is not a single or steep cliff but a composite
feature as much as 3 miles wide against which a series of end moraines were
deposited (White 1982). The escarpment crosses the county in a
northeast-southwest diagonal.
4-8
-------
Topography northwest of the escarpment is relatively flat and rises
gradually to the southeast from an elevation of about 620 feet above mean sea
level (MSL) to little more than 700 feet above MSL at the base of the escarp-
ment. The top of the escarpment is approximately 900 feet above MSL, and the
Allegheny Plateau rises from the top of the escarpment to between 1,050 and
1,200 feet in elevation in the vicinity of the Hilltop study area (NEORSD
1978a).
Surface water drainage within the Hilltop study area occurs principally
by the Chagrin River and Euclid Creek, which eventually drain into Lake Erie.
The Chagrin River has deeply dissected the northwestern edge of the Allegheny
Plateau and provides the area's greatest topographic relief. The Chagrin
River Valley lies as much as 200 feet below the present land surface (NEORSD
1978a). Euclid Creek is located west of the Chagrin River. It follows a
course through a steep-sided ravine that is roughly parallel to Chardon Road.
4.2.2 Bedrock and Surficial Geology
Bedrock of the Allegheny Plateau in northeastern Ohio consists of
Mississipian and Devonian systems (Table 4-4). The formations composing these
systems will be discussed in descending order from land surface. The
individual units in the following groups have similar water-bearing
characteristics: (1) the Cuyahoga group of Mississippian age, (2) the Berea
sandstone of Mississippian age, and (3) the shales and interbedded sandstones
of the Bedford shale of Mississippian age and the Ohio and Chagrin shales of
Devonian age (Winslow et al. 1953).
The Cuyahoga group is approximately 425 feet in thickness and
lithologically consists of shale with interbedded sandstone. Wells generally
yield sufficient water for domestic purposes; as much as 10 gpm may be
developed. The thickness of the Berea sandstone averages 60 feet in Cuyahoga
County. This formation consists of coarse- to medium-grained porous sandstone
and serves as one of the best aquifers in the county. Yields of up to 100 gpm
may be developed. The Bedford, Ohio, and Chagrin shales immediately underlie
the Berea sandstone. Lithologically, these layers are greater than 700 feet
thick and consist of shale with thin calcareous sandstone layers throughout.
4-9
-------
Cl
•H
4-J
"> cd
"LJ ®
i-l
4-J "^
<•> bO
TO rl
i-l .lj
Id 3
^ C
u cd
bO rt .
C
T1 >>
i-l 4-j
cd .r-i
CQ >r_j
,' <->
LJ z.
**. TO
(U TJL,
•*-J
OJ cx
C* o
rH
"S r~'
£ M
H
(U
*^^ r^
S *-*
(d
»4-l
o
4~>
"'""' ^>
G 4-J
**^ *H
_0.H
"|£
bo <"
•H "5
4«J
id c
"H
4-*
CO
•
*^f
1
»X>
T3
Cd rH
CO C
•H
!>•» fj
td 4-j
u
bo XI
4-J
"S ">
td
TJ bO
O -H
4-> 4J
cd
E C
3 iJ
•H CU
TJ 4-1
01 rH
Ol
rH
rH
•H
> 01
T3 rH
cd cd
Ol .«"j
2: co
cu
a,
w
OT
co
OT
•rH
z:
Ol
i-i
Ol >>
4H Id
•H B
3
o- B
id cu
bo
OT
•H 0
4-1
M
G cd
•r-i
r~*
-o o
Ol 3
CU B
0
rH CO
0) cd
>
T3 O
0) OT
rH
C Ol
-o
G
OT
Ol
cd 4J
rH Cd
C
0) O
0 U
OT CJ
"c G
cd O
OT i-l
.,-f
>•>
IT) 4-J
IJ. O
bo
1 W
Ol Ol
3 G
rH O
•
cu
a.
o
Ol
>
•
W
fl
o
•H
•M
Q)
M
o
c
o
Ol
c
o
w
•o
S
w
^">
cd
bO
1
Ol
3
rH
•°
T>
0)
£
•H
m
bD
i
Ol
c
•r-t
fa
CU
rH
i-H
•H
>
OT
a.
i-i
cd
x:
CO
^
cd
i-i
bO
i
o>
3
rH
r-|
4_t
•H
Jj
-a
CU
*o
T3
_2 .
M Ol
01 rH
4-j cd
C X!
•H CO
OT CU
1-4 rH
01 M
>> M
cd -H
rH 4-4
Ol
C
o
4->
w
T3
G
cd
w
Oi
c
o
4-J
0» M
rH T3
M G
OT Id
•H OT
4-1
rH
>. id
cd co
M id
bO XI
1
C OT
cd 01
4-1 3
O rH
*-> O
G
>%M
cd
M
bo *
1 O>
01 rH
3 cd
rH X!
m OT
O)
rH
rH
•H
>
Ol
bO 0)
G rH
id cd
O OT
•
OT
i-l
0)
"E
Ol
E
Q)
rH
cd
r^
OT
•o
G
cd
4-1
C
CU
4-J
X
Ol
rH
cfl
Ol
M
cd
(U
bO
l-i
cd
1— 1
M-l
o
i-l
4H
•H
3
CJ*
cd
S
T3
0)
i-l
1
G
id
4-J
4-J
r~|
bO
•H
rH
O
4-f
>>
rt
j_(
bO
4->
fj
r- 1
cd
U Cu
Ol -H
4-1 O
(y *rt
> G
j3
4-J B
c
01 T3
•H G
o td
•H
MH rH
4H Id
P -H
W U
4-*
*"O W
rH 3
CU T3
•H C
>>-H
rH rH
rH Cd
01 B
£* t/)
'O ^
C 0
M
3
O
^i
O
CU
•o
cy
c
•H
cd
l»J
bO
Ol
M
i-l
O
CJ
0 •
4-J d)
c
1 O
E ^
3 OT
•H "&
01
>.
cd
E
B
Cu
bO
(^
0
rH
4H
O
OT
"O
<-( •
•H CU
&H CU
o
. cu
OJ ^
w cu
bO-O G
•H
J
01
o
M
T3
G
id
OT
cd
cu
i-i
cu
m
0) cd
E OT
1
cd
o
rH
cd
u
G
•H
x;
4-J
T3
C
CO
01
rH
cd
X!
M
K*1*
cd
i-i
bo
1
CU
3
rH
ea
4-1
cd
4"^
4-J
CO
Ol
OT
G
Ol
rH
0)
C
o
4-1
OT
-o
G
id
OT
OT
3
O
Ol
i-l
dstone
c
cd
M
i— i
cd
M
cd
XI
CO
B
O
4-(
O
4_>
c •
0) i-l
•*> (1)
O XI
•H E
Xj 0)
aining In certain areas, these formation,
4-1
C
0
o
Ol
rH
cfl
x:
OT
OT
3
O
G
•H
E
3
•H
XI
rsJ,
CJ
id
rH
cq
are completely unproductive for
groundwater. Generally, however,
supplies of 3 to A gpm may be
developed.
*
CO
c
o
•H
4_j
Ol
i-i
CJ
C
o
CJ
01
4-1
•H
I-l
^^
CU
cd
CO
G
O>
O
U
3
O
co
4-10
-------
In certain areas, these formations are unproductive; however, domestic
supplies of 3 to 4 gpm may be developed (USDA 1980).
Surficial material overlying bedrock in Cuyahoga County consists of
glacial deposits resulting from several ice advances during the Pleistocene
Epoch. Evidence exists that the ice of the third glacial stage, the
Illinoian, advanced at least once over Cuyahoga County. However, the majority
of the glacial deposits in the county are from the Wisconsin stage. The Hiram
Till mantles bedrock, and earlier drift to a depth not greater than 10 feet in
most places (Winslow et al. 1953). It is the most clayey till in northeastern
Ohio, and pebbles are sparse and cobbles rare. The Hiram Till is the parent
material from which the silty loam soils common to northeastern Ohio
originate.
4.2.3 Soils in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area
Information about the soils within the planning area was obtained from
Cuyahoga and Lake Counties, Ohio Soil Surveys (1979 and 1980). The following
is a general discussion of the soil association within the planning area. For
further details on the soil characteristics the previously listed publications
should be consulted.
Soils within the Hilltop FPA consist of the following six soil
associations: Urban Land-Mahoning, Urban Land-Mitiwanga, and Wadsworth-
Rittman, in Cuyahoga County and Tioga-Euclid-Orville, and Darien-Mahoning and
Mahoning-Ellsworth in Lake County. Table 4-5 describes soil characteristics
and land use limitations for these associations; Figure 4-1 illustrates these
associations in the Hilltop FPA.
Urban land is an area where more than 80 percent of the surface is
covered by streets, parking lots, buildings, and other structures. As a
result, the soils are obscured such that identification is not possible (USDA
1980).
Mahoning soils are somewhat poorly drained and have slow or very slow
permeability. These soils formed in glacial till or tillplains. They have
slopes that range from 0 to 6 percent. A perched seasonal high water table is
at a depth of 12 to 30 inches and depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches.
4-11
-------
CO
c
o
•H
4-1
rd
4-1
•H
E
•H
J
T3
C
rd
CO
o
•H
4-J
CO
•H
i-l
CU
4-J
O
rd
M
rd
XI
o
• •
CO
c
o
•fH
4-1
rd
•H
O
o
CO
to
>
4-J
•H
rH
•H
CJ
rd
b*
CX
O
4-1
1— 1
rH
«(— 1
DC
m
i
Sl"
CU
i—l
XI
rd
H
CO
o>
4-J
rd
•H
o
o
CO
CO
<3
rH
•H
O
c/>
1
TJ
•iH
rH
O
3
w a>
1 rH
rd rH
bO'H
0 >
•H 1-1
H 0
1 XI
bO 4-J
c IH
•H O
G >
O CO
X) rH
rd rH
a w
1
XI
4->
U G
O rd
> E
CO 4-1
T3 4-1
rd -H
E* M
bO
1 G
G -H
CU G
•H O
i-l X!
rd rd
Q a
T3
C rd
rd bo
J G
rd
G >
rd -H
X> 4-1
I-l -H
r> a
-a
rd bo
,J G
•H
C G
rd O
Xi XI
i-i rd
» a
CO
o
•H
4-1
CO
•H
i-l
CU
4-1
o
rd
l-i
rd
XI
0
T3
CU
X!
X!
co o
i-H IH
1 O>
k£> CX
T3
O>
0 Xi
ro O
1 IH
CM CU
rH CX
•o
01
O XI
CO O
1 IH
CM Ol
rH CX
bO
•H ^^
S3 CO
O>
rH Xi
rd o
C G
O -H
CO >-'
rd
cu o>
CO i-H
Xi
o rd
4J H
X! IH
4-1 CU
CX 4->
01 rd
Q >
0
v£>
A
m
rH
1
m
o
\O
A
O
v£>
1
o
-*
0
st
1
0
CM
0
v£>
/\
^
O
o
>H
T3
CU
PQ
O *-N
4-1 CO
cu
X! Xi
4J O
CX C
O> -H
Q ^
o
4-1
4-1
rd
&
01
B
O
CO
4-J
rd
>
cu
o
CO
4-1
rd
XI
>
cu
B
O
CO
4-1
rd
XI
>
cu
B
O
CO
4-1
rd
X!
>
0)
B
O
CO
4-J
rd
XI
>
01
B
O
CO
cu
bo
rd
G
•H
rd
t-i
Q
rH
rH
CU
>
:>,
r-l
cu
4-J
rd
i-i
o>
-o
o
B
P^
rH
iH
O
o
CX
>>
O rH
4-1 CU
4-1
>, rd
rH IH
M CU rH
0 T3 rH
O O O)
CX B &
^
rH
IJ
O
O
CX
>>
rH
I-l
O
O
CX
>>
rH
iH
O
O
CX
>
O
rH
CO
O
J-1 >>
rH
CU CU
4-1 4-1
rd rd
iH iH
CU cu
T3 T3
O O
B B
>
O
O rH
4-> CO
> >>
O IH
rH CU
CO >
*
01
0 *->
4-1 rd
i-l
> ru
0 T3
i-H O
co B
>
o
O rH
4-J CO
> >*
O IH
rH 01
CO >
CU
4-1
rd
i-i
cu
T3
O
B
>
0
O rH
4-J CO
> >>
O U
i-H CU
CO >
y^V
>> M
4J 3
•H O
rH X!
•H \
XI CO
rd cu
cu xi
E 0
IH C
CU -H
CM -«^
&
O
rH
CO
•>.
•• CO
cu co
IH 0)
Oi G
> 4J
oi cu
CO >
**
" CO
CU CO
M CU
CU G
> 4J
CU CU
to >
*>
>>
o
rH
CO
^
" CO
01 to
iH CU
CU G
> 4-1
oi cu
CO &
o
o
4-1
•s
•• co
cu co
M CU
01 G
> 4-P
01 CU
CO >
o
• • 4J
cu
iH XI
CU 4-1
> CX
cu cu
CO T3
>»
rH
>
0
rH
to
• •
cu •
IH CO
0) O
> M
01 Oi
CO CX
o
•H
4-1
CX
cu
oo co
T3
IJ rH
o cu
<4H -H
4H
bO
C Xi
•H O
*-< rd
rd CU
03 J
C
o
•rH
4-1
rd
rH
o
o
IH
01
CX
> 0
O -H
O rH 4-J
4-> co rd
rH
X! - O
4-> J»i O
CX O IH
CU O CU
T3 IH CX
G
O
•H
4-1
rd
rH
0
O
iH
01
CX
>
O C
rH O
CO -iH
4-1
- rd
>>rH
Ol O
>» 0
rd IH
rH CU
0 CX
CO
CO
01
G
4-1
0)
>
»*
J*
o
o
I-J
CO
CO
cu
G
4-1
0)
>
CO
T3
o
o
rH
4H
•*
•• CO
cu co
IH CU
cu c
> 4-1
cu cu
to >
" CO
a> co
IH cu
01 C
> 4-1
Ol Ol
co >
*l
" CO
cu to
in CU
CU G
> •*->
01 01
co >
o
o
4-1
•t
" CO
01 CO
M CU
cu c
> 4-1
01 Ol
CO >
o
• > 4-1
cu
^ X!
Ol 4-J
> CX
Ol Ol
CO T3
" CO
01 CO
iH CU
Ol G
> 4-1
CU Ol
to >
&
0
rH
rH
rd
X!
co
CO
iH G
o o
UH -H
4-1
bo rd
G >
•H rd
*-> o
rd X
OJ PL)
cu
>
rd
a
CO
^4
rd
XI
4-J
3
o
•s
0)
ll
M
3
4-J
X
01
4-< Ol
bo
- rd
cu a.
OL, CX
O -H
rH rH
to to
>>
cu
>,
rd
rH
O
CO
CO
cu
c
4-J
cu
>
*t
^
o
o
I-l
XI XI
bo bo
•H -H
X! XI
O O
o o
box!
•H bO
O O
B rH
XI X!
bO bO
•H -H
XI XI
X!
bO
•iH
XI
O
-HO
cu
4-1
rd
t-i
X! CU
hO-O
•H O
XI B
XI XI
bO bO
•H -H
XI XI
C CU
o cu
•H 4-1
CO CO
o
l-i T3 CU
!_i 0) J-1
O 4-> 0)
O rd IH
o o
UH o a
O G O
3 O
-ixj
co o o
•H
Qt
rd
a
•H
bO
rd
i-i
4-1
CU
x;
G
•H
XI
>
O
rd
rd
ex
•H
bo
rd
eu
X!
ru
>
o
X)
rd
cu
4->
rd
i-i
cu
T3
o
B
CO
X)
rd
cu
M O
cu co
CM ON
rH
I
G ON
rd r--
E ON
-H
cu
co o
T) >-l
rd 3
C* O
4-12
-------
Ol
CJ
J-l
3
o
oo
4-13
-------
These soils are severely limited as sites for septic tank absorption fields
and sewage lagoons by the seasonal high water table and slow or very slow
permeability. The risk of corrosion in these soils is high for both uncoated
steel and concrete (USDA 1980).
Mitiwanga soils are somewhat poorly drained and exhibit moderate
permeability. These soils, formed in glacial till and residual bedrock, have
slopes that range from 0 to 6 percent. A perched seasonal water table is at
depths of 12 to 30 inches, and bedrock is at depths of 20 to 40 inches. These
soils are severely limited as sites for septic tank adsorption fields and
sewage lagoons by the seasonal high water table and shallow depth to bedrock.
The risk of corrosion in these soils is high for uncoated steel and moderate
for concrete (USDA 1980).
The Darien-Mahoning soil association in Lake County consists of somewhat
poorly drained soils having slow to very slow permeability. These soils
formed in glacial till, and slope ranges from 0 to 12 percent. A perched
seasonal high water table and bedrock at depths of 40 to 60 inches severely
limits septic tank adsorption fields and sewage lagoons (USDA 1979). The risk
for corrosion in these soils varies greatly, but can be high for both uncoated
steel and concrete.
Wadsworth-Rittman association soils are nearly level to sloping and range
from somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained. The Wadsworth soils
are deep, somewhat poorly drained, and range in slope from level to 6 percent.
The Rittman soils are also deep, but are moderately well drained and exist on
slopes that range from 2 to 12 percent. Both soils in this association have
very shallow perched water tables and are limited for septic leach fields and
shallow excavations because of wetness. The risk of corrosion is high in
these soils for both uncoated steel and concrete.
The Mahoning-Ellsworth association consists of soils formed in glacial
till, and range in slope from level to 70 percent. These soils have low to
very low permeabilities and are limited because of slope and wetness for most
uses. Corrosion risk is moderate to high for both uncoated steel and
concrete.
Tioga-Euclid-Orville association soils are deep, range from somewhat
poorly to moderately well drained, and exist on nearly level land. Use
4-14
-------
limitations for shallow excavations and septic leach fields is severe
primarily because of wetness. These soils are also limited for these uses
because of the potential for flooding, cutbank caving and slope slippage. The
severity of any of these limitations is relative to the soil's topographic
location and position on the flood plains. The risk of corrosion to uncoated
steel and concrete ranges from low to high depending on the soil type and
topographic location.
4.3 WATER RESOURCES
There are three major water resources in the study area: Lake Erie, the
Chagrin River, and Euclid Creek. One small lake, Mayfair Lake, is also
located in the FPA. The physical characteristics of these resources are
discussed below.
4.3.1 Surface Water Hydrology
The proposed interceptor system is designed to carry wastewater to the
Easterly WWTP, which discharges treated effluent into the Central Basin of
Lake Erie. The Central Basin extends along the northeast Ohio shore and is
the largest of three basins in Lake Erie, covering approximately 6,300 square
miles. Its average water depth is about 60 feet, with a maximum depth of
84 feet (NEORSD 1978b).
The average lake level normally varies from just below 572 feet during
winter to 573 feet in late spring and early summer. The average level is
572.3 feet above mean sea level. The lowest average monthly recorded level
was 567,5 feet in February 1936. Northeast Ohio contributes only 1.3 percent
of the total inflow, whereas approximately 83 percent of the total inflow
comes from the Detroit River (NEORSD 1978b).
The Hilltop Facility Planning Area (FPA) lies entirely within the
drainage basins of two stream systems: the Chagrin River and Euclid Creek
(see Figures 1-2 and 4-2). The Chagrin River is the principal river system in
the area, extending for approximately 48 miles and draining 267 square miles
(OEPA 1986d). The river itself lies outside the Hilltop FPA, but 10.9 square
miles or 53.4 percent of the planning area drains into small Chagrin River
tributaries. A large portion of the Mayfield and Gates Mills communities lie
within the Chagrin River basin.
4-15
-------
Legend
• County Boundaries
River Basin Boundaries
Figure 4-2. Cleveland Area Drainage Basins
Source: NEORSD 1978a
4-16
-------
Euclid Creek is a much smaller system, extending for only 9.5 miles and
draining an area of approximately 22.6 square miles (OEPA 1986d). Approx-
imately 46.6 percent of the Hilltop FPA lies within the Euclid Creek drainage
area. This includes most of the communities of Richmond Heights, Highland
Heights, and Willoughby Hills. Euclid Creek is formed by the confluence of
two branches (east and west) about 3 miles from its mouth at Lake Erie. The
west branch drains South Euclid (outside the FPA), then flows northwesterly
through Cleveland Metropark's Euclid Creek Reservation, forming the western
boundary of the Richmond Heights area. The east branch drains most of the
Euclid Creek portion of the Hilltop FPA. Small streams tributary to the east
branch flow northwesterly from Wilson Mills Road, joining the east branch just
north of Cuyahoga Airport. The stream then flows southwesterly to its con-
fluence with the west branch about 0.8 miles upstream of Euclid Avenue (USDI
1979a, 1984).
Euclid Creek is gaged near its mouth (USGS Gage 04208690). Two periods
of record exist for this gage: one extends from May 1977 to September 1980
and the other from October 1983 to the present. Flows at this gage have
ranged from a daily minimum extreme of 2.0 cubic feet per second (cfs) on
October 2, 1983, to a maximum of 7,440 cfs on August 31, 1975 (USGS 1986).
For the 1984 calendar year, the mean discharge was 56.2 cfs; the maximum
discharge was 1,160 cfs; and the minimum discharge was 4.9 cfs. Low flow
periods generally occur in August and September.
The Hilltop FPA's one lake, Mayfair Lake, is located on a tributary to
the east branch of Euclid Creek. According to the Cuyahoga County Sanitary
Engineering Department (CCSED), this 4-acre impoundment drains approximately
610 acres (CCSED 1982), including much of Highland Heights and portions of
Richmond Heights. The tributary area is used primarily for residential
development with limited commercial and public land uses.
The Mayfair Lake dam was originally built by the former Brotherhood
Country Club in about 1942. The lake was constructed for recreational pur-
poses, but development in the watershed has accelerated the lake's eutrophica-
tion, limiting uses in recent years. The lake is now primarily used for
boating, fishing, and ice skating. Sediment deposition in the southern end of
the lake has formed a delta, limiting boating in this area (CCSED 1982).
4-17
-------
4.3.2 Floodplains
Information on floodplains in the FPA was obtained from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program. This
agency distributes maps delineating flood boundaries for 100- and 500-year
floods. Figure 4-3 shows these boundaries within the FPA. Differences
between the 100- and 500-year boundaries are small and, due to the scale of
the map, the boundaries are not delineated separately. The flood boundaries
closely follow streambeds (Zone A). There is little development in these
areas. The majority of the FPA is characterized as an area of minimal
flooding (Zone C) (FEMA 1978a, 1978b, 1979, 1981, 1985).
4.3.3 Water Use and Quality
4.3.3.1 Surface Water
Ohio water quality standards that apply to all waters of the State and
the State antidegradation policy are shown in Appendix E. In addition to
these criteria, all rivers and lakes in the State have use classifications.
These use classifications are protected by a set of numerical and narrative
standards (OEPA 1986c).
Lake Erie
Lake Erie is the major surface water body in the area and is used for
domestic water supply, industrial cooling water, and recreation. Four public
water supplies obtain water from Lake Erie in areas several miles north of
Cleveland Harbor (Cleveland Crown, 106 MGD; Cleveland Division, 110 MGD;
Cleveland Baldwin, 100 MGD; Cleveland Nottingham, 98 MGD). In addition,
several industries and utilities obtain cooling water from Lake Erie in the
Cleveland Harbor area (SAIC 1986). Public water supplies in the Hilltop FPA
are discussed in Section 4.3.3.3.
Angling in the Lake Erie portions of Cleveland is undergoing a revival.
Activity is concentrated around the marinas and breakwater walls, particularly
near Cleveland Harbor (SAIC 1986). Creel census data indicate that the most
commonly caught fish in the outer harbor are carp, goldfish, and shad.
However, anglers fishing from shore in this area also commonly catch yellow
4-18
-------
«J
0)
D>
C
"E
C
JO
Q.
o
•2
a
o
0)
.c
to
T3
C
=1
O
en
TJ
o
o
CO
0)
3
O)
CO
co
.a
co
(C
CO
w
3
O
4-19
-------
perch, drum, white bass, walleye, white perch, and channel catfish (SAIC
1986). There is currently no fish consumption advisory for this area.
Public access to the lakefront near the Cleveland Harbor is limited, but
swimming is popular at beaches immediately east and west of Cleveland Harbor.
The most popular area is Edgewater Park, which received two million visits in
1984, including 750,000 visits by swimmers (SAIC 1986). Euclid Beach was
recently opened (summer 1985) despite local concerns about pollution from
CSOs. As stated in NOACA (1986), "Swimmers interviewed were unanimous in the
opinion that water quality was not a concern along the lakefront east of East
140th Street. The common perception is that if the water were unsafe, the
public health department would post warnings or otherwise warn the public not
to swim in the lake."
Nearshore Lake Erie waters immediately adjacent to Euclid Creek and to
the Chagrin River are classified by Ohio EPA as limited estuary habitats
(LEH). According to the 1986 305b Report (OEPA 1986d), the Euclid Creek
nearshore area is in "poor condition" and is not attaining its designated
uses. Elevated levels of ammonia, total phosphorus, copper, iron, manganese,
nickel, and zinc concentrations exceeding the standards assigned to the LEH
classification contribute to the area's non-attainment status. Elevated
numbers of fecal coliform bacteria have also been measured near Euclid Creek.
The Chagrin River nearshore area partially meets its designated uses, and
water quality is rated "good" by the Ohio EPA (OEPA 1986d). Data collected in
1978 and 1979 showed regular violations of the copper, zinc, and mercury LEH
standards and occasional violations for lead, nickel, and iron. The area is
considered eutrophic, but is one of the least eutrophic areas on Lake Erie's
south shore (OEPA 1986d).
Chagrin River
The Chagrin River, one of the most scenic rivers in northeast Ohio, is
the major river resource near the FPA. Overall water quality in the Chagrin
River is exceptional (OEPA 1986d). However, development pressures are being
felt in parts of the basin and an estimated 4.1 stream miles are known to have
major physical/chemical water quality problems.
4-20
-------
The mainstem of the Chagrin River flows just east of the Hilltop FPA
(USDI 1979a, 1984). This section of the river is designated for the following
uses by Ohio EPA: exceptional warmwater habitat, agricultural water supply,
industrial water supply, and primary contact recreation. The section is also
designated a "scenic river" by Ohio EPA and represents a State Resource Water
(OEPA 1986c). According to Ohio Rule 3745-1-05, known as the Antidegradation
Policy, the present ambient water quality in State Resource Waters is not to
be degraded by toxic substances or substances that interfere with any of the
water's designated uses (OEPA 1986c). According to Ohio EPA (Bell 1987), this
classification effectively restricts new wastewater discharges into the
Chagrin River; very few have been approved in recent years.
Two small package sewage treatment plants discharge to Chagrin River
tributaries in the Hilltop FPA: Hickory Hills (.04 MGD) and Sleepy Hollow
(.01 MGD). Tributaries to the Chagrin River also receive pollutant loadings
from overflows from the Beech Hill pumping station and the Bonnieview holding
tank (NEORSD 1978c, USEPA 1984d). Additional details on pollutant inputs from
wastewater facilities are included in Chapter 2. The Beech Hill/Bonnieview/
Wilson Mills pumping complex, owned by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District (NEORSD), provides interbasin transfer of waste flow from the Hilltop
FPA to the Heights area leading to the Easterly WWTP. During dry weather, the
Beech Hill pumping station in Mayfield Village pumps sewage to a gravity sewer
on Wilson Mills Road, which in turn feeds the Wilson Mills pump station in
Highland Heights (NEORSD 1978c). The 1 MGD Bonnieview holding tank is
connected to a 30-inch gravity sewer tributary to the Beech Hill pump station.
During wet weather when the Wilson Mills pumping station capacity is exceeded,
the Beech Hill station shuts down and flow is diverted to the Bonnieview tank.
During long-duration storms, uncontrolled flow builds up in the Beech Hill wet
well until it ultimately overflows to a small Chagrin River tributary (NEORSD
1978c). This tributary is located about 200 feet south of the Beech Hill
station and flows northeast through a residential area. The overflows are of
concern to local residents. The Bonnieview tank discharges into another
Chagrin River tributary. Although overflows from the tank are not monitored,
NEORSD (Kennedy 1987b) estimates that the tank overflows several times a year.
These overflows introduce poorly treated wastes to small Chagrin River
tributaries, producing localized water quality impacts.
4-21
-------
Euclid Creek
All segments of Euclid Creek are designated for use as warmwater habitat,
industrial and agricultural water supply, and primary contact recreation. In
addition, the segment from Route 20 to Anderson Road on the west branch of
Euclid Creek is designated as a State Resource Water (OEPA 1986d).
Ohio EPA (1986d) concluded that the condition of Euclid Creek from its
west tributary to its mouth at Lake Erie is poor and that its designated uses
are not being attained. They identify fecal coliform bacteria, phenolics,
total lead, and total iron as the chemical water quality parameters of
concern. Discharges from the Scottish Highlands WWTP, septic tank
dischargers, and combined sewer overflows are listed as probable causes of the
bacterial problems. The phenolics and metals were attributed to seepage from
a covered waste disposal site at Cleveland Metal Cleaning. However, no
supporting data are available. Additional data on pollutant inputs from
public wastewater facilities are included in Chapter 2.
Recent water quality sampling of Euclid Creek in the Hilltop FPA has been
very limited. Single dissolved oxygen and conductivity measurements were
taken at 14 sites on Euclid Creek and its tributaries as part of a 1984
benthic survey of the stream (ERAI 1984). Stations were selected immediately
downstream of point sources, and the benthic community was stressed at all
sites. Water chemistry did not show evidence of pollution-induced stress,
with all dissolved oxygen measurements above 6 mg/1. However, the limited
sampling could be misleading. The biological community structure provides a
better indication of long-term stress in an aquatic system and is reviewed in
Section 4.5.2.
A limited water quality sampling effort was conducted in 1982 (NEORSD
1984c) to assess wet weather pollution below the Scottish Highlands WWTP and
the Richmond Park Apartments WWTP. Data collected in this effort are shown in
Table 4-6. The station locations are shown in Figure 4-4. These data show
high concentrations of BOD5 and TSS discharged from Scottish Highlands during
the storm events. However, fecal coliform numbers and TSS and BOD5
concentrations in the stream appear to be more impacted by runoff than the
4-22
-------
rd
4-1
4-1
•H
rH
fl)
3
O
u
o>
4-1
03
£3
rd
a*
S-I
*^3
bO
C
•H
CH
C
nl
i — i
O-i
4-1
•H
rH
•H
a
rd
PM
0«
O
4->
rH
rH
•H
DM
.
SO
1
"*
Ol
rH
-Q
w
o
O
O CM O O
CO
Dt
1
4-1
0)
bo
C
•rH
a.
B
rd
co
B
o
4-;
CO
1
Ol
^j
fi,
rH
B E
rH O O
fd 4-1 0
O -H rH
01 rH ^
Cn O *
U *-s
0 O
0 O
csl O O
»• <^ »« 00 ^ ^5 *^
-* 2 -* CM 2 00 2
^^
CM
00
so *~*
rH U>H
1 Q \
m o bo
rH tt E
— ****
rH SO m
SO * so CO • -*^ •
• -t^ • • rH • ^t*
co o^ so co sj- co r^*
cy>
N^
-o
O)
T3 W ^
C T5 rH
O> -H \
0,1-H bO
WOE
3 CO ^^
co
co m
• o r^ o
O CO • O • • rH
• SO SO • sf O CM
-* CO rH S}- CO CM CM
LTf— 1
Q \
O bO
^ P3 E
CM ^
- 'O W ^"^
s-' C T3 rH
01 -H ^
CXrH bO
on o B
3 CO •**•
co
O 0
0 0
CM 2 rH -* 2 CM 2
OT
C
Ol O
rH -H
Q. 4-1
E 03
rd O
co o
»_j
CO rH
•O rH
cd rd PM rd D3
rH E-^Oi H B *-> O)
J3 rdCU jii& rdCS-i C
bO OIOI-*-1 S-lts OJOI*-1 Od
•H |J3M rd (-1303 MO
03 4-JrHC D-.M J-JrHC rH-H
C04-l> 4-J C/]4-l> -H4-J
J3 Ou4-l O "O C CXM-l O Cs rd
OT OCdQ CO) CDWO 4->
•H OB 1 CO
<-> III E +-1 III
4-> cu .c i-i o a.
OH rHcMco ord sj-mso rHE
Op* III -HO. Ill 13
co5 3303tO 06 < 03tBM 030u
O
CO
0) O>
rH rH
_O
rd Q
rH CO
•H fvj
rd O
> W
rd 2
4-1
0
2 0)
CJ
1 S-4
^
-------
4-24
-------
discharge during wet weather conditions. The plant does not appear to
increase stream TSS and fecal coliform concentrations during dry weather
although the lack of effluent data make this difficult to verify. The
Richmond Park Apartments WTP discharge appears to increase stream TSS
concentrations slightly. The plant discharges a higher quality effluent than
Scottish Highlands, achieving close to secondary treatment event during wet
weather.
Overall, these data do not show gross pollution of Euclid Creek.
However, the sampling is very limited and may not be fully indicative of
stream conditions.
Mayfair Lake
Mayfair Lake, the only lake in the Hilltop FPA, is a privately owned
impoundment on a tributary to the east branch of Euclid Creek. The lake
drains 610 acres of primary commercial and residential land. Reported
loadings of fertilizers, sewage, and sediment have accelerated natural
eutrophication of the impoundment.
The Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineering Department coordinated a study
of Mayfair Lake in 1982 (CCSED 1982). They concluded that water quality in
the lake was impacted by numerous sources, but that the lake met secondary
contact recreation standards. Accelerated sedimentation from upstream erosion
and leaf litter was cited as the primary water quality problem.
4.3.3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater availability in the FPA is shown in Figure 4-5; as this
figure indicates, the potential for useful groundwater sources is poor in
Richmond Heights, Highland Heights, Mayfield, and Willoughby Hills, and ranges
from fair to good in the remainder of the FPA. At most locations, wells
penetrating 200 to 700 feet into the underlying sandstone and shale are
required to reach usable aquifers (NEORSD 1978a).
Groundwater sources are not used for public water supplies within the
FPA, so groundwater quality data are limited to private groundwater drinking
wells. The majority of data has been provided by the Cuyahoga County Health
4-25
-------
CD
0)
O)
c
'E
c
JO
Q.
O
CO
U_
Q.
O
0)
s:
(A
a)
u
k.
3
O
(A
0)
*->
CD
T3
C
3
O
LO
0)
3
D)
rt
CO
Q
C/}
oi
O
Cd
2
(U
0
u
3
O
to
4-26
-------
Department since southwest Lake County primarily uses Cleveland public water
supplies (Somrak 1987a).
Cuyahoga County tests groundwater samples for bacteria. If a well
contains measurable quantities of Escherichia coli, it is deemed unsafe for
drinking water use. From 1985 to the beginning of 1987, 10 of 22 wells
sampled were found to contain significant bacterial concentrations. Of these
10 wells, however, some contained bacteria other than E. coli and will be
tested again specifically for E. coli (Somrak 1987a). The Cuyahoga County
Health Department says the ratio of safe to unsafe wells in the study area is
the same for the entire county.
4.3.3.3 Public Water Supply
Municipalities located in Cuyahoga County are served by the Cleveland
Public Utilities Company. In 1983, Willoughby Hills began receiving service
from the Lake County Department of Utilities. Both counties draw water from
Lake Erie (see Section 4.3.2.1) for treatment and distribution.
4.4 TERRESTRIAL BIOTA
4.4.1 Terrestrial Vegetation and Landscape
Information on terrestrial plant and wildlife species in the Facility
Planning Area (FPA) was collected by NEORSD (1978a) and Havens and Emerson
(1986). The study by NEORSD describes vegetation in the western branch of
Euclid Creek; the report by Havens and Emerson describes vegetation along the
Lake/Cuyahoga County line.
The valley of the west branch of Euclid Creek was examined from the
Chardon Road and Euclid Avenue intersection south of and roughly paralleling
Chardon Road to a point just east of the 1-271 freeway. The western end of
the valley is steep and up to 150 feet deep, while the eastern end ranges from
15 to 20 feet (NEORSD 1978a). The western one-third of the valley passes
through a relatively undisturbed combination of climax (i.e., beech, sugar
maple) and subclimax (i.e., red maple, tulip, red oak, black cherry) forest,
with trees from 50 to 70 feet in height. The stretch of the ravine east and
4-27
-------
northeast from Highland Road to Richmond Road is considered highly sensitive
because the land form and vegetation have not been disturbed by development
(NEORSD 1978a). Given the size of the trees, the late successional stage, and
the documented lack of abundance of mature forest in Cuyahoga County (Havens
and Emerson 1984), this community should be considered sensitive and
irreplaceable if damaged. This portion of the ravine has a shale-base that is
very susceptible to erosion damage. Soil at the ravine bottom is shallow and
anchored by the vegetation in the floodplain. Disruption of the vegetation
coupled with subsequent erosion could bring about irreplaceable loss of
certain vegetation to the valley bottom (i.e., yellow birch, beech, and sugar
maple) (NEORSD 1978a). Vegetation in this area includes riparian woodland
typical of river banks with sycamore, river birch, red maple, and brambles of
greenbrier, blackberry, and grape where the floodplain widens. The beech-
maple or mixed hardwood forest, which occupies extensive upper slope areas,
extends down to the stream in sections where it is narrow. Hemlock is found
on the shadier sites. Oak and tuliptree are relatively abundant in the mixed
forest. Herbaceous ground cover in the forested areas include wild leek,
woodfern, violets, great-flowered trillium, Dutchman's breeches, cutleaf
toothwort, iris, and jewelweed (NEORSD 1978a).
In the more shallow east end of the valley, tree species consist pri-
marily of red maple, red oak, and birch, with willows prevalent in wet border
areas. As the valley becomes shallower near 1-271, wild fox grape, willow,
and hawthorn become more prevalent. The valley upstream from Richmond Road
lacks the high shale walls, although there is much low relief and meandering.
Parts of this segment pass through disturbed residential areas that contain
patches of riparian growth and various stages of secondary succession. Other
parts of the segment traverse mixed lowland hardwoods. There are groves of
locust and some hawthorn. Lowland areas contain much iris and the species of
fern known as the sensitive fern. Recently disturbed areas have old field
successional stages (NEORSD 1978a). An old field typically develops in
abandoned pastures and farmland and is dominated by grasses and wildflowers
interspersed with shrubs. Old field species common in northeastern Ohio
include sedges, pasture juniper, wild rose, foxtail, goldenrod, Queen Anne's
lace, meadow fescue, milkweed, and thistle.
4-28
-------
Part of the FPA along the Lake/Cuyahoga County border is traversed by a
proposed interceptor route (see Chapters 3 and 5). In general, this area has
poorly developed drainage. Patches of swampy ground are present due to under-
lying clay (OEPA 1985a). The soil of this area is composed of shale or sand-
stone material of glacial origin which forms a heavy clay loam. Terrestrial
habitat along the cross country segment, as described in the study by Havens
and Emerson (1984), is composed of four major plant communities: old field,
brushland, brush forest, and forest. Brushland and brush forest communities
cover most of the area in this potential interceptor construction easement.
An environmental assessment prepared by Ohio EPA (1985a) indicates that forest
community is scattered throughout the easement area and estimates that approx-
imately 1000 feet of the sewer alignment between Miner and Bishop Roads will
traverse this type of community.
Old field community occupies no more than 10 acres of the easement area,
along the edges of Miner Road. Many introduced grasses are present, indi-
cating the area was once a pasture. These grasses include timothy, foxtail,
meadow fescue, and red top. Other common plant species include goldenrod,
Queen Anne's lace, thistle, ironweed, mullein, and common milkweed (Havens and
Emerson 1984).
Areas of brushland community represent transitional stages between old
fields and brush forest communities. The brushland community is characterized
by dense thickets of woody vines entangled with shrubs. Dominant plants
include raspberry bramble, greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, rose bushes,
smooth sumac, and deciduous tree saplings (Havens and Emerson 1984).
The brush forest community covers the largest percentage of the proposed
sewer easement area along the Lake/Cuyahoga County border. This community is
characterized by small trees and a dense understory of tangled vines and
shrubs. Tree species are in competition for space which was once open
brushland. Most of the brush forest community is a monoculture of red maple
saplings no larger than 4 inches in diameter at breast height. A portion of
this community within the easement is classified as wetland by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Havens and Emerson 1984). This area is discussed in
more detail in Section 4.4.2.
4-29
-------
Forest community near the proposed easement is dominated by moderate to
large hardwoods (Havens and Emerson 1984). All of the area's forests were cut
in the past, but scattered trees left uncut have become quite large. Under-
story growth is sparse to moderately common. Beech is the dominant tree and
is found in close association with red maple, tulip, white ash, magnolia, and
tupelo. Common understory plants are hophornbean, dogwood, shadebush,
spicebush, maple-leaved viburnum, and red-berried elder. In the more swampy
areas, red maple, black ash, basswood, and butternut hickory are common trees.
American hornbeam, spicebush, and poison ivy are common understory plants of
this association.
The Chagrin River basin is a State-designated scenic river by the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources (Jones 1986). Scenic segments include the
Aurora branch from the State Route (SR) 82 bridge downstream to the confluence
with the Chagrin River; the Chagrin River from its confluence with the Aurora
branch downstream to the State Route (SR) 6 bridge; and the east branch from
the Health Road Bridge downstream to the confluence with the Chagrin (ODNR
1985a).
4.4.2 Wetlands
Wetlands in the FPA have been mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for the National Wetland Inventory. Definitions of wetlands
vary due to their extreme diversity and depending on needs for developing
demarcations and characterizations. The USFWS definition is based on the need
"to impose boundaries on natural ecosystems for the purposes of inventory,
evaluation, and management" (USDI 1979b). Wetlands are defined as:
Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems
where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the
land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this clas-
sification, wetlands must have one or more of the following
three attributes: (1) at least periodically the land supports
predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly
undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is
saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time
during the growing season of each year (USDI 1979b).
4-30
-------
Wetlands within the FPA include both riverine and palustrine open water,
forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent habitat. The palustrine system includes
all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents,
emergent mosses, or lichens (USDI 1979b). Figure 4-6 illustrates the loca-
tions of wetland areas mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI
1977a,b). Only one of these areas, a forested wetland (PF01: Palustrine,
forested, broad leaved deciduous) located northeast of Cuyahoga Airport, may
be affected by the proposed interceptor construction. A field survey of the
proposed interceptor alignments confirmed that this undeveloped section of
Highland Heights contains forested wetlands. The fragipan layer in the soils
retains surface waters; thus, plant species tolerant of these wet conditions
are found. The dominant tree species for this entire undeveloped area is the
red maple, a facultative species found in both upland and wetland areas. The
patches of wetlands are generally distinguished vegetatively from the upland
area by sphagnum moss, cinnamon fern, rice cut grass, carex sedge, and water
horehound. Other tree species observed throughout the general vicinity of the
proposed interceptor alignment in Highland Heights include the tulip tree, pin
oak, red ash, American beech, and shagbark hickory.
4.4.3 Wildlife
Approximately 180 species of birds have been identified from surveys
(1969 through 1978) as possibly occurring in the Cleveland area; less than 40
of these are permanent resident species. A total of 27 of these species are
legally hunted game species in Ohio (NEORSD 1978a).
Each spring and fall, millions of bird migrants of several hundred
species pass through Ohio to and from their breeding grounds. A diversity of
bird fauna has been observed near the FPA; however, no data have been
collected from the Euclid Creek Reservation (Hinkle 1987). Resident species
reported for the neighboring North Chagrin Reservation incude the red-tailed
and red-shouldered hawks; ruffed grouse; barred owl; the pilleated, red-
bellied, hairy, and downy woodpeckers; blue jay; American crow; black-capped
chickadee; tufted titmouse; white-breasted nuthatch; northern cardinal; and
song sparrow (Thomson 1983).
4-31
-------
4-32
-------
Forty-five species of mammals are found in Cleveland and the surrounding
area (composed of Lake, Cuyahoga, and Geauga Counties) (Gottschang 1981).
These species are listed in Table 4-7. A list of 12 salamander, 11 frog and
toad, and 13 reptile species of probable occurrence within the study area was
compiled during the 1978 survey (NEORSD 1978a). Animals associated with
terrestrial habitats along the cross-country segment of the proposed inter-
ceptor route were described in Havens and Emerson (1986) and are reviewed
below.
In the old field habitat, birds regularly observed were flickers, robins,
field sparrows, song sparrows, and juncos. During the late spring, black
racer snakes will enter similar old fields to sun, and box turtles use these
fields to nest. Woodchucks also feed in these types of fields, and voles will
favor those areas where vegetation is matted (Havens and Emerson 1984).
The tangled understory of the brushland communities impedes the movement
of large animals, creating a competitive advantage for small- and medium-sized
animals. Cottontail rabbits were observed, and opossums and woodchucks were
assumed to be present based on numerous burrow sightings and their known
habitat preferences. The presence of foxes was ascertained by observation of
tracks. Birds observed in brushland habitat include towhees, cardinals, dark-
eyed juncos, and sparrows. Warblers may use the habitat for breeding in the
summer. Other summer residents include at lease one species of lizard,
several species of harmless snakes, and the box turtle (Havens and Emerson
1984).
The forested areas provide the greatest diversity of habitat for animals.
Fallen limbs and trunks provide cover for several species of salamanders.
Box turtles hibernate in ravines. Holes in tree trunks are used as nesting
sites for owls, squirrels, and raccoons. Woodpeckers utilize the trunks for
nesting and feeding. Songbirds present in the forest habitat include titmice,
fly catchers, creepers, nuthatches, and thrushes (Havens and Emerson 1984).
4-33
-------
Table 4-7. Mammals with Known Ranges in the Vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio
( a )
(a)
(a )
(a )
(b)
( a )
( a )
(a )
(b)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(a)
Didelphis virginiana
Sorex cinereus
Sorex fumeus
Blarina brevicauda
Cryptotis parva
Parascalops breweri
Scalopus aquaticus
Condylura cristata
Hyotis lucifugus
Myotis keenii
Myotis sodalis
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Pipistrellus subflavus
Eptesicus fucus
Lasiurus boreal Is
Lasiurus cinereus
Sylvilagus flor ulanus
Jamias striatus
Marmota monax
Sciurus carolinensis
Sciurus nigli
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Glaucomys volans
Castor Canadensis
Peromyscus maniculatus
Peromyscus leucopus
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Microtus pinetorum
Ondatra zibethicus
Synaptomys cooperi
Rattus norvegicus
Mus Musculus
Zapus hudsonius
Napaeozapus insignis
Canis latrans
Vulpes vulpes
Urocyon cenereoargenteus
Procyon lotor
Mustela erminea
Mustela nivalis
Mustela frenata
Mustela vison
Taxidea taxus
Mephitis mephitis
Odocoileus virginianus
Virginia Opossum
Masked Shrew
Smoky Shrew
Short-tailed Shrew
Feast Shrew
Hairy-tailed Mole
Eastern Mole
Star-nosed Mole
Little Brown Bat
Keen's Bat
Indiana Bat
Silver-haired Bat
Georgian Bat
Big Brown Bat
Red Bat
Hoary Bat
Eastern Cottontail
Eastern Chipmunk
Woodchuck
Gray Squirrel
Fox Squirrel
Red Squirrel
Southern Flying Squirrel
Beaver
Deer Mouse
White-footed Mouse
Meadow Vole
Woodland Vole
Muskrat
Southern Bog Lemming
Norway Rat
House Mouse
Meadow Jumping Mouse
Woodland Jumping Mouse
Coyote
Red Fox
Gray Fox
Raccoon
Ermine
Least Weasel
Long-tailed Weasel
Mink
Badger
Striped Skunk
White-tailed Deer
'"'indicates mammal is very common in the area
(b)
indicates the mammal is at the edge of its range in the area
Source: Developed from Gottschang 1981
4-34
-------
4.5 AQUATIC BIOTA
4.5.1 Fisheries
Benthos and fisheries data were collected on the east branch of Euclid
Creek upstream of Highland Road Bridge, 1/2 mile south of Euclid Avenue and
also 200 yards south of Euclid Avenue; results of this study were reported in
1964. Aside from macroinvertebrate data collected by Environmental Resource
Associates Incorporated (ERAI) in June-July 1984 (ERAI 1984), 1964 data are
the most recent collected. Benthic organisms found at the sampling locations
included seven midge species, crane flies, snipe flies, black flies, mayflies,
leeches, flatworms, and crayfish. The fish species collected were predom-
inantly creek chubs, blacknose dace, stoneroller minnows, common shiners, and
emerald shiners, with some whitesuckers, hogsuckers, green sunfish, and a few
other minnow species. According to the 1974 Cleveland Department of Public
Utilities report of this study, the east branch "supports a greater diversity
of fish than any other stream in the area, although the fish diversity is not
as great as that in either the east branch of Big Creek or the Chagrin River"
(Popowski 1978). During the spring and fall, anadromous fish species such as
salmon and steelhead trout ascend the creek, but there is no documented
evidence of successful spawnings (Popowski 1979). This creek is presently not
considered a good trout spawning stream by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
fishery biologists or by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources biologists.
The lower Chagrin River supports a healthy and prolific fish community.
It is a popular fishing site for game and pan fish. The river supports the
most popular salmonid fishery in Ohio (OEPA 1986d). Fishermen report taking
brown trout, rainbow trout (steelhead), coho salmon, and chinook salmon at
Daniels Park near State Route 84 (RM 5.0) (OEPA 1986d). Biological community
degradation due to nonpoint source loading and siltation is lower in this
segment than anywhere else in the basin, largely due to upstream dams that
collect silt in dam pools (NOACA 1980). These pools have not been dredged in
the recent past and may never have been dredged (Wysenski 1987).
4-35
-------
In June and July of 1984, a benthic survey of macroinvertebrates in
Euclid Creek and its smaller tributaries was conducted by ERAI to assess
conditions of aquatic habitat in the Hilltop FPA. Seventeen sampling stations
were selected from areas exposed to known pollution sources that would be
eliminated by construction of the interceptor sewer (Havens and Emerson 1986).
The stations were selected to represent segments known to be polluted, not to
represent the system as a whole. Figure 4-7 shows station locations.
Stations 1 through 4 and 6 through 12 are in the Hilltop FPA.
The raw data, index calculations, and descriptions of the physical char-
acteristics of each site can be found in ERAI (1984). The results were
further analyzed in Havens and Emerson (1986). The following discussion is a
summary of their combined reports.
Benthic samples: collected at each station were sorted and identified and
the data then used to calculate diversity and biotic indices. Diversity was
calculated using the Shannon-Weiner method, and biotic index calculations were
based on Hilsenhoff (1977). The results of the calculations are shown in
Table 4-8.
The Shannon-Weiner Index, which is very widely used, is scaled from 0 to
3. For purposes of this study, a value of 3 indicates unpolluted water and a
value less than 1 indicates pollution. A moderately polluted stream, impacted
only by nonpoint urban or suburban runoff, would have a diversity index of 2.5
(Havens and Emerson 1986).
To calculate the biotic index, each species was assigned a value from 0
to 5 based on pollution tolerance. Species that are highly intolerant of
pollution were given a 0 and species capable of inhabiting extremely polluted
waters were given a 5. These ratings were based on collections in streams of
known water quality. Biotic index values were calculated from each sampling
station by multiplying the assigned value for each species by the number of
individuals of that species, summing the products and dividing by the total
number of individuals (Havens and Emerson 1986). Water quality determinations
were based on the following scale: less than 1.8 was considered unpolluted;
1.8 to 2.5, moderately enriched; 2.5 to 3.1, significantly enriched; greater
than 3.8 was considered grossly enriched (Havens and Emerson 1986).
4-36
-------
4-37
-------
Table 4-8. Species Diversities and Biotic Indices of Stream Benthic
Communities, Heights-Hilltop District
Station Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Similar Clean Streams
Species Diversity
1.938
1.543
1.804
.814
.804
.786
.400
1.287
.642
1.016
.517
.430
1.438
1.842
1.431
1.299
1.614
>3.000
Biotic Index
3.616
3.739
4.199*
3.823*
4.396*
4.286*
4.709*
3.768*
3.850*
4.304*
4.564*
3.852*
4.713*
3.984*
3.845*
3.858*
3.572
<1.750
*Categorized as grossly enriched according to Hilsenhoff (1977).
sites are categorized as significantly enriched.
Source: ERAI 1984
All other
4-38
-------
All sampling locations showed low species diversity and high biotic index
values, indicating poor water quality. The results indicated that the
stations were dominated by a few pollution-tolerant species. Many of the
organisms collected were decomposing or fungused. Oligochaetae and
orthocladinae were the most common taxon, representing a total of 65 percent
of the organisms collected. The oligochaetae are aquatic earthworms (also
called sludgeworms) found in streams with high organic pollution. The
orthocladinae are midge flies found in polluted water with low dissolved
oxygen. Although benthic fauna found at all stations indicate severe to
moderate stress from pollution, the substrates were varied and flows heavy
enough to support some diversity of fauna. Macroinvertebrates that contri-
buted to diversity were primarily mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies.
In addition to indices, the data were used to calculate percent of fauna
at each station (Figure 4-8). The individuals were placed into one of five
categories: oligochaetes (sludgeworms), chironomids (larval flies), isopods,
amphipods (both aquatic crustaceans), and others. Organisms in the first four
categories are pollution-tolerant and the fifth category represents species
which are not pollution-tolerant. For comparison, the benthic community found
in a stream with flow and substrate characteristics similar to Euclid Creek is
included in the graph and labeled 'R'. Clearly, the Euclid Creek stations
have a preponderance of pollution-tolerant species as compared with the
reference station 'R'.
Sample Station 1, located upstream of the Richmond-White pumping station,
has physical characteristics indicative of a moderately enriched condition.
This area has primarily a bedrock substrate with limited stones. Benthic
organims were abundant and diverse, although the plecoptera were conspicuously
absent. The species diversity index at this site was the highest of all sites
examined, and the biota index was the lowest of all sites, indicating that it
was the least enriched stream segment sampled. It was the only station not
situated closely downstream of a point source of pollution (ERAI 1984).
The physical characteristics of Sample Station 2, located 50 feet down-
stream of the Richmond-White pumping station, were essentially the same as
Station 1. Sediments of gray, yellow, and black flocculant materials were
4-39
-------
CO
ooo
oo
^ CM
CO
to
,-g
o
o
O
CO
CL
E
CO
k-
0)
.c
o
CO
c
O
"•p
CD
+•>
(0
D)
C
1.?
Si
o «
c
«£
CO o
+j CO
CO LL
co a
c o
3 ±:
to —
"-z
c
a> c
o -
I
00
CD
3
O)
CO
a:
w
a;
u
u
s
o
on
4-40
-------
present due to the sewer overflow that enters the creek at this location. The
diversity and abundance of benthic organisms was different than that of
Station 1. Oligochaetes and chironamids were more dominant here than at
Station 1, and additional species, which normally indicate septic conditions,
were present. Although many forms of larvae were present, the more sensitive
forms collected were dead at Station 2. These individuals may be carried
downstream from the area above the pumping station, near Station 1. More than
60 percent of the mayfly nymphs were decomposed and fungused. Compared to
Station 1, conductivity increased at Station 2 by nearly 40 percent, and dis-
solved oxygen was reduced by nearly 20 percent. The cause of this stream
degradation is the result of a sanitary sewer overflow under the Richmond Road
bridge (ERAI 1984).
Sample Station 3, located downstream of the Scottish Highlands WWTP, had
a species diversity similar to Station 1. However, the biotic index in-
creased, indicating a relatively poorer benthic community. Water from
upstream of this station flows over a steep bank into a valley. The substrate
at this station was a combination of silted sands mixed with organic material,
as opposed to the bedrock substrate at Stations 1 and 2 (ERAI 1984).
Sample Station 4, located downstream of the Richmond Mall pump station
overflow, contained similar habitat to Stations 1, 2, and 3. No septic
sediments were evident and the water color was clear, but oil slicks appeared
when the sediments were stirred. The percentage of benthic organisms (i.e.,
oligochaetes, orthocladinae) that are associated with septic conditions was
lower than at most other sites examined and the percentage of pollution-
intolerant species was higher than at most other stations. However, the
diversity index was extremely low. ERAI (1984) suggested that a nonorganic
(sewage) pollution source may be present, perhaps a heavy metal or pesticide.
Havens and Emerson (1984) also suggest nonpoint source runoff and an undefined
conductivity source may be causing aquatic degradation at this site.
Sample Station 5, located at the intersection of Green Road and Anderson
Road, is inundated by continuous dry weather wastewater overflows which have
been identified in the 1983 Easterly Separate Sewer Area Summary Report. This
station had similar physical conditions to Station 1, with the addition of
4-41
-------
small areas of stone,, sediments, coarse sand, and leaves. Algae beds covered
the bottom of the stream in some areas, and the sediments were highly septic
and black. Small numbers of fish were present; some were fungused; and others
were dead. This station had a low diversity and a high biotic index, indi-
cating severe pollutant loading (ERAI 1984). The percent of intolerant fauna
was extremely low.
Sample Station 6, located at Richmond Road at Ridgebury Road, was similar
to habitat at Station 3, except that it was more heavily canopied. An outfall
entered the creek just upstream of the sampling location. Both indices and
percent fauna indicate grossly enriched water conditions.
Sample Station 7, located downstream of Wilson Mills Road pump station,
was very septic, with raw sewage visible. Strong septic and chlorine odors
were also apparent. The sewage and heavy chlorination have destroyed nearly
all forms of aquatic life, with the exception of a few sludgeworms and
chironomids. The percentage of oligochaetes was one of the highest recorded
at any station (ERAI 1984).
Sample Station 8, located downstream of the Franklin Radford pumping
station, consisted of shallow riffles with a pool at the base of a small rock
ledge. Algae was present in pools. An odor of a septic nature was also
evident. Both indices and percent of fauna indicate that this station was
organically enriched, but it showed improvement over Station 7 which is
located upstream in the same tributary. The stream was 2 to 4 feet wider at
Station 8 than at Station 7 (ERAI 1984).
Sample Station 9, located downstream of the Williamsburg pumping station,
was physically similar to Stations 7 and 8. The stream is 1.5 to 4 feet wide
and composed of bedrock and stones with only slight flow. The streambed was
silted. The physical characteristics of this segment prevent accumulation of
septic sediments. The lack of oligochaetes reflects this. The fauna at this
station was predominantly composed of amphipods. Both indices point to
enriched conditions (ERAI 1984).
4-42
-------
Sample Stations 10, 11, and 12 are located on tributaries of the Chagrin
River. Station 10, located below the Mount Vernon pumping station, was char-
acterized by bedrock and a high gradient. Conditions were so poor that
oligochaetes were dominant on the bare concrete, living among the strands of
algae. More than 99 percent of the fauna was composed of oligochaetes and a
tolerant form of the orthocladinae (Cricotopus sp.) (ERAI 1984).
Sample Station 11, located below Wilson Mills pump station, was com-
pletely canopied and cool, with substrates of sand, leaf litter, and stones
and slight natural flow. Collections indicate that the sediments were
contaminated with organic pollutants. Benthic diversity was low, and the
faunal quality was very poor.
Sample Station 12, located below the Bonnieview facility, was physically
similar to Station 1. No septic areas were present. The substrates were
clean, and the habitat relatively diverse; however, the fauna was very
depressed. The low diversity index indicates that the fauna may be affected
by a pollutant such as chlorine or a toxic material (ERAI 1984).
Stations 13 through 17 were located outside the Hilltop FPA. All of
these stations were affected by an overloaded sewer system and nonpoint
loadings, which is reflected in the diversity and biotic indices. The sewer
system overflows are numerous and contribute a significant portion to dry
weather flows in the streams (Havens and Emerson 1984).
Overall, the benthic study indicates that a lack of clean-water aquatic
fauna in the sampled streams can be attributed, in part, to sewer overflows,
package plant discharges, and pumping station overflows. Some evidence
suggests that nonpoint sources (including septic tank leachate) or toxic
components may be degrading fauna (Havens and Emerson 1984). Control of
pollution sources is necessary to achieve stable aquatic populations. Other
mitigative measures could include minimizing erosion from construction sites
and preserving ground cover and protective tree and bush canopies along
streambanks (Havens and Emerson 1984).
4-43
-------
4.5.2 Euclid Creek; General Habitat and Fisheries
From Lake Erie south to Euclid Avenue, Euclid Creek passes through a
highly developed residential, commercial, and industrial area. Upstream of
Euclid Avenue, the creek passes through predominately open and unused land,
and the quality of the water is consequently better. The west branch is
entirely within the Euclid Creek Reservation of the Cleveland Metropark system
from Euclid Avenue south to Anderson Road. Benthic Sampling Station 5 is
located at the southern tip of the reservation near the intersection of Green
and Anderson Roads (Figure 4-7). Water quality is poor and the site is
inundated by continuous dry weather flows (Havens and Emerson 1984). It is
not possible to determine how far downstream negative impacts from overflows
persist, based on the nature of the sampling. From Anderson Road to Mayfield
Road, the area is heavily developed for residential and commercial use (OEPA
1985a). In this region, the creek receives several sources of sanitary sewage
from overflows (refer to Chapter 2 for details). Benthic Sampling Station 6
is located in this area (Figure 4-7), and like Station 5 is continuously
inundated by dry weather sewage overflows. The water quality at the site is
severely degraded due to the overflows (Havens and Emerson 1984). Station 6
is situated on a tributary to the western branch of Euclid Creek, and it is
not known how much of the tributary is degraded from these overflows. South
of Mayfield Road, the creek originates and passes through an open area
utilized primarily by several country clubs. The reach of the west branch
within the park system passes through a heavily wooded valley with steep
sides.
Throughout the watershed of the east branch of Euclid Creek, there are
few industrial or commercial operations, but numerous residential
developments, particularly in Richmond Heights. As a result of the light
development east of Richmond Road, the stream receives insignificant amounts
of urban runoff, except at Richmond Road where several major highways merge.
There are, however, discharges to the stream from several small package waste-
water treatment plants and numerous septic tanks.
Benthic Sampling Stations 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 are located on the Euclid
Creek's east branch itself or on streams that drain into its east branch
4-44
-------
(Figure 4-7). Stations 3, 7, and 8 are located on the same tributary, with
Station 7 being the furthest upstream, 3 the furthest downstream, and 8
located between. Species diversity improves with distance downstream. The
biotic index is highest at Station 7 where diversity is lowest, making it the
station with the poorest water quality on the tributary. The biotic index
decreased at Station 8 indicating improved faunal characteristics along with
improved species diversity. The biotic index increased from Station 8 to 3
indicating overall degradation of fauna and increased nutrient enrichment.
Diversity, however, increased from Station 8 to 3.
The east branch of Euclid Creek receives discharges from a small
municipal package WWTP, Scottish Highlands, located approximately 2 miles
upstream of its confluence with the west branch. Benthic Sampling Station 3
is located just downstream of this plant. The overstory in the area is a
mature oak-hickory forest with sparse undergrowth; most of the stream length
is heavily shaded. The amount of vegetation present represents ideal habitat
for the arboreal forms of aquatic insects and other fauna. The stream
substrate is composed of mostly sandstone and conglomerate rubble of varying
size and composition. The shale bedrock is exposed in a few sections. The
pools in this reach are normally shallow, usually not over 30 inches deep,
although there are several deeper pools further upstream. The substrate of
the pools is composed of fine gravel, clayey silt, and sand. There is very
little organic litter in the stream. The fish in the area are predominantly
creek chubs, blacknose dace, stoneroller minnows, common shiners, and emerald
shiners, although white suckers, logsuckers, and green sunfish also have been
caught.
The main stream of Euclid Creek, located downstream of the confluence of
the east and west branches, is within a little-used portion of the Euclid
Creek Reservation. East of the creek is an area of mowed grassland with only
a narrow strip of trees (i.e., small locusts, cherry, and beech) between the
grassland and the creek. The area on the west bank of the creek is densely
wooded with beech, oak, maple, cherry, walnut, and locust. These trees hang
out over the stream, providing a heavily filtered shade to the creek.
4-45
-------
The substrate in this reach is about 50 percent exposed shale bedrock.
The extensive riffle areas are composed of shale, sandstone, limestone, and
conglomerate (small cobbles to boulders). Underlying the stones in the
riffles is a layer of fine and coarse gravel impregnated with clayey silt.
The three pools in this area are wide and up to 4 feet deep, with a substrate
of fine gravel, silt, and sand. There is almost no organic litter present in
this reach. The fish species in this reach are the same as for the upstream
segment, although not nearly as numerous. Benthic Sampling Station 4 is
located on this branch of Euclid Creek, just downstream of the Richmond Mall
pumping station. However, nonpoint source runoff appears to have created
degradation more than overflows from the pumping station.
4.5.3 Nearshore Lake Erie
Several large-scale studies have been completed describing aquatic life
in the vicinity of the Cleveland Harbor and the Easterly WWTP. The Lake Erie
Intensive Study (1978-1979) covered the entire lake and distinguished near-
shore areas but did not specifically characterize the nearshore area in the
vicinity of the Easterly WWTP (SAIC 1986).
Overall, the baseline assessment concluded that the species composition
in the nearshore areas of Lake Erie adjacent to Cleveland has changed from
highly valuable food species and clean water forms (such as muskellunge,
walleye, lake trout, silver chub, and burbot) to a predominance of rough fish
with low food value (such as goldfish, carp, gizzard shad, yellow perch, and
drum). The species have changed, since former times, from large fish-eating
species to herbivores and bottom-feeding fish. The fish species most severely
affected by human settlement, land development, and pollution in the region
are those that formerly spawned in the upper river drainages, entering from
Lake Erie in the spring. The former spawning grounds have been drained,
silted up, blocked off by dams, or obstructed by stretches of highly polluted
waters in the lower rivers, so that seasonal migration from the lake to the
upper rivers no longer occurs (SAIC 1986).
4-46
-------
4.6 ENDANGERED/THREATENED SPECIES
Plans for construction of interceptor sewers must be evaluated to deter-
mine potential adverse impacts on endangered or threatened species of plants
and animals. These impacts could be direct if habitat is destroyed during
construction, or indirect if noise and runoff associated with new development
along the interceptor route displaces sensitive animals. The primary
objective of this section is to identify all Federal and State threatened,
endangered, or rare species potentially present in the FPA and, if possible,
to list the habitat requirements and migratory behavior that may be affected
by the interceptor construction.
The Natural Heritage Program reports that there have been no observed
State-endangered species within the FPA, although the program notes that this
lack of records is not a statement that special plant or animal species are
absent from the area (Jones 1986).
4.6.1 Plants
No Federal- or State-endangered plant species have been sighted in the
FPA; however, some State-listed threatened and potentially threatened species
have been seen in the area. Threatened and potentially threatened species are
listed in Table 4-9. None of these specimens are located in areas where they
could be harmed by interceptor construction.
4.6.2 Birds and Mammals
Four Federally endangered species may be present within the FPA. These
species are the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), the peregrin falcon (Falco pergrinus), and Kirtland's warbler
(Dendroica Kirtlandii). Of these species only the bald eagle is known to nest
in Ohio (Multerer 1986a).
The Indiana bat may be found within the FPA (Multerer 1986a). The
Indiana bat winters in caves and is found along streams and adjacent woodlots
during summer. This bat has been found to use loose bark of a dead tree for
the nursery roost, but sometimes the bats temporarily move to bark crevices of
a living shagbark hickory (Humphrey et al. nd). Foraging habitat includes the
foliage of riparian and floodplain trees.
4-47
-------
Table 4-9. List of Endangered, Threatened, and Potentially Threatened
Species Reported in or Near the Hilltop, Ohio, Facility Planning Area
Scientific Name, Common Name State Status
Plants
Ammophila breviligulata, American Beach Grass P
Betula populifolia, Gray Birch P
Cakile edentula, Inland Sea-rocket P
Carex folliculata, Long Sedge P
Carex scabrata, Rough Sedge P
Comptonia peregrina, Sweet-fern T
Epilobium strictum, Simple Willo-herb T
Euphorbia polygonifolia, Seaside Spurge P
Gentiana crinita, Fringed Gentian P
Juncus balticus, Baltic Rush P
Leptoloma cognatum, Fall Witch-grass P
Lonicera canadensis, Canada Fly-honeysuckle P
Trientalis borealis, Star-flower P
Triplasis purpurea, Purple Sand-grass P
Fish
Esox masquinongy masquinongy, Great Lakes Muskellunge OWE
Hybopsis amblops, Bigeye Chub P
Ichthyomyzon unicuspis, Silver Lamprey OWE
Lampetra appendix, American Brook Lamprey OWE
Notropis emiliae, Pugnose Minnow OWE
Rhinichthys cataractae, Longnose Dace T
Status Codes
Animals: OWE = State Endangered
T = Threatened (not a legal designation)
P = Potentially Threatened (not a legal designation)
Plants: T = State Threatened
P = Potentially Threatened (not a legal designation)
Source: Jones 1986
4-48
-------
4.6.3 Fish
No Federally listed endangered fish species are expected to occur within
the FPA (Multerer 1986a). Four State-endangered species have been reported in
the Chagrin River. While the river itself is not part of the FPA, some of its
tributaries lie within the FPA boundaries. Discharges to these tributaries
could affect fauna in the Chagrin. The Great Lakes muskellunge (Esox
masquinongy masquinongy) was collected at the mouth of the Chagrin River. The
pugnose minnow (Notropis emiliae) was also collected in the Chagrin River,
just downstream of a sewage treatment plant which is closest to the river's
mouth on the west bank. The silver lamprey (Lampetra appendix) was found
further upstream in the Chagrin River at Willoughby and the Route 90 bridge
crossing. The State-threatened longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) has
been collected from the mouth of the Chagrin River upsream to the Waite Hill
Road bridge (Jones 1986).
4.7 DEMOGRAPHICS
Cleveland is the central city nearest to the Hilltop FPA. It provides
the economic base for this community through jobs, educational facilities, and
cultural resources. Standard demographic indicators used to compare local and
regional trends include (1) population growth rates based on historic trends
and accepted projections; (2) the number and type of existing and projected
housing units; and (3) the age distribution of the existing population. These
indicators are used below to compare growth potential and economic opportuni-
ties in each of the Hilltop FPA jurisdictions with the State of Ohio and the
overall Cleveland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
4.7,1 Regional Population Trends
The Cleveland MSA includes four counties: Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, and
Medina. The city of Cleveland is located in Cuyahoga County. In the period
between 1980 and 1985, the population in this county dropped by over 43,000
individuals while the population in the surrounding three counties increased
by 9,000 individuals. This difference is due to urban decline and suburban
expansion (USDC 1970a, 1970b, 1980a, 1980b). According to the Ohio Data
User's Center (ODUC), this trend is expected to continue through 2005 (State
of Ohio 1985). This trend is displayed in Table 4-10 which shows regional
population projections from 1980 to 2005. ODUC's 1985 population projections
4-49
-------
!
in
CM
8
oo
co
r--
Pi
<^i O CM
3
C^ 3
m
o
in
IQ
& s
r- vo
rn" CD
^ £
'i -*
s
ro
^1 1C
rH O
i~- r^
r^.
co
s
CM
8 f?
CSl r-i
8 3
S
a
rH O
^ °
I "
.a
S
co
c in
ra cp
4-J ^
a ^
ii
I "8
a)
4-50
-------
were used for county-wide population estimates because these are the most
recent certified estimates.
ODUC is a division of the Ohio State Department of Economic Development;
it prepares official State government population projections for Ohio. These
projections are based on the 1980 U.S. Census, the 1984 Ohio State Census
Update, and historic trends for migration, births, and deaths. These
projections are prepared on the county and State level. As Table 4-10
indicates, ODUC projects a continued loss in population in Cuyahoga County
through 2005. By 2005, this county is expected to lose over 200,000
individuals, representing a 13 percent loss in the 25-year period (State of
Ohio 1985). Ohio is also expected to lose 350,000 individuals during this
span of time. This means that Cuyahoga County will contribute two-thirds of
the anticipated loss in population projected for the State. Because Geauga,
Lake, and Medina Counties are all expected to experience an increase in
population, the overall decline for the region will be slightly more than
100,000 individuals, resulting in a 25-year regional loss of 9 percent (State
of Ohio 1985).
4.7.2 Hilltop Facility Planning Area Population Projections
This section discusses population projections for the Hilltop FPA. It
also includes a comparison of basic demographic characteristics such as age
distribution, existing housing stock, household size, and vacancy rates.
Where appropriate, regional and national comparisons are included. The popu-
lation projections used in this Environmental Impact Statement were prepared
by the Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency (NOACA) and certified by ODUC.
These projections are presented in Table 4-11.
The Hilltop FPA is located in the northeastern section of Cuyahoga
County, housing approximately 2 percent of the county population including
portions of six cities and villages (USDC 1970a, 1970b, 1980a, 1980b). The
FPA includes all of Highland Heights and Mayfield Village, most of Richmond
Heights, and approximately half of the population and land area of Gates
Mills, Mayfield Heights, and Willoughby Hills (NEORSD 1978a). The propor-
tional distribution of persons in the FPA is shown in Table 4-11. These
projections show a population increase of 7 percent in the Hilltop FPA between
1980 and 2005. This represents an annual increase of 0.3 percent. Highland
4-51
-------
PL,
id
tf
I
SI
I
-
o
c
-H
I
CM
O rH
CM m
i i
in co
8
^
CM
I 8 8 8
r- CO
^* ON Q
-T CM 00
8
CSl
CO r-l CO CO
8 £
In 8
8 8 8 S3
13 £3
a
(3
Pi
a
8
Jf
-------
Heights, Richmond Heights, and Willoughby Hills are all projected to have
strong growth rates with average annual growth in these communities approach-
ing or exceeding 1 percent during the 25-year period.
Growth in Gates Mills is projected to be weak. The 25-year growth rate
for this community is shown as less than 5 percent. Mayfield Village and
Mayfield Heights are projected to lose population during this period.
Mayfield Village is estimated to lose approximately 1,000 individuals or 27
percent of its population. Mayfield Heights will lose close to 2000 indivi-
duals under these forecasts or 16 percent of its 1980 population (NOACA 1984).
Population increases forecast for Gates Mills, Highland Heights, and
Willoughby Hills are outpaced by the increase in the projected number of
households in each community. These increases range from 40.3 to 63.7 percent
(NOACA 1984). Table 4-12 lists projected households for each of the juris-
dictions located in the Hilltop FPA. This table also indicates that household
sizes in each community should decrease, following the national trend. This
is due to generally decreasing family sizes and an increasing number of single
heads of households. FPA household sizes are projected to decrease from 2.96
persons per household in 1980 to 2.11 persons per household in 2008 for Gates
Mills, 3.19 to 2.51 in Highland Heights, 2.44 to 2.0 in Richmond Heights, and
2.23 to 2.0 for Willoughby Hills. The forecast increase in dwelling units in
Mayfield Village and Mayfield Heights is dependent on vacant land available
for residential development. Housing unit and population projections are
constrained by the limited amount of vacant land zoned for residential devel-
opment in these communities. Unlike the State and national age distribution,
which displays a normal bell curve where most of the population is between the
ages of 25 and 45, the Hilltop FPA is an inverted bell with most of its popu-
lation either under the age of 19 or over the age of 45. This age distribu-
tion can be seen in Table 4-13, a demographic profile of the Hilltop Facility
Planning Area. This table also shows that residents of the area are well
educated, with a relatively high median household income. They generally own
their own homes and most live in established neighborhoods. Since the popu-
lation is aging, many of these residents will require smaller dwelling units
in the future.
4-53
-------
4
-
s
I
CM
I
•6
CM O O CM CM
ro
«H i-l CT\ CM
iH U"l VO (^ O O
tM CM t-5 r-( CM CM
r-» t—i r«~ O
o n en cK
:H a 9 S
H in o o o
(N CM CM CM CM CM
I I §
S
R a
?i r^ c^i o o o
CM CM CM CM CM CM
*
CM ro CM CM CM CM
CO CO CjN CO
«
3 3 3
.u
18
4-54
-------
Table 4-13. Demographic Characteristics of Local Jurisdictions
in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area
Age Distribution (%)
Under 19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-64
65+
Percent of Pop. 25
and Over with a High
School Education
Median Household Income
Average Household Size
Age of Housing Stock
Percent Built 1979-1970
1969-1960
1959-1950
Prior to 1950
Housing Type
Percent Single-Family
Percent Multi-Family
Vacancy Rate
Percent Owner-Occupied
Median Asking Price
of Single-Family Units
Gates
Mills
27.8
5.4
9.6
11
33.1
13
91
$38,401
2.96
13.8
25.6
20.1
40.6
96.3
3.7
2
90
$200,000+
Highland
Heights
29.1
7.9
9.2
11.4
31.8
10.5
79.9
$26,206
3.19
12.3
41
32.4
14.3
99.3
0.7
0.2
96.4
Mayfield
24.4
6.7
8.7
11.2
33.3
15.5
79.9
$33,097
2.74
19.2
39.7
24.4
16.7
78.5
21.5
1.6
76.2
$80,000 $125,000
Mayfield
Heights
20.2
7.9
13.7
9.5
26
22.7
70.2
$17,723
2.22
22
39
22.6
16.1
50
50
0.4
50
$65,000
Richmond
Heights
23.0
10.0
17.3
11.3
26.9
11.5
75.1
$21,886
2.44
23.9
43.3
27.7
5
60
40
2.7
59.3
$81,000
Willoughby
Hills*
20.2
12.6
20.2
11.9
25.1
10
81.8
$21,641
2.23
48.2
23.1
14.1
14.6
41.9
58.1
0.9
41
*Willoughby Hills includes Census Tracts 2010 and 2011
Source: USDC 1970a, 1970b, 1980a, 1980b
4-55
-------
With the exception of Gates Mills, housing stock in the Hilltop FPA is
fairly new, with the majority of the housing built since 1960. Willoughby
Hills has the newest, stock with 48.2 percent built after 1970. The housing
mix in the Hilltop FPA ranges from mostly single family units in Gates Mills
and Highland Heights to half multi-family in Willoughby Hills. This corre-
sponds directly to housing ownership in that multi-family units are located in
areas where the number of owner-occupied units is low. In communities that
are predominated by single family units, home ownership is high. All of the
Hilltop FPA communities have relatively low vacancy rates, reflecting a strong
housing market (USDC 1970a, 1970b, 1980a, 1980b).
4.8 ECONOMICS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
4.8.1 Local Economic Characteristics
The Hilltop FPA has a strong economic outlook. Both residential and
commercial/industrial development are planned for the area. The demand for
housing, retail, and office space is high. Although the recession of 1982
forced the closing of some local industries, a number of new businesses have
opened in the region including the Harshaw-Filtrol Partnership (200 to 300
employees) and Harcourt-Brace-Johanovich (120 employees) (GCGA, n.d.).
Some of the largest employers in the Hilltop area include:
Hillcrest Hospital 1200 employees
Allen-Bradley 1100 employees
Richmond Heights General Hospital 600 employees
Country Corner 300 employees
Park View Federal Savings & Loan 200 employees
Mayfield High School 150 employees
Stanley Air Tools 150 employees.
Employment data for the Hilltop FPA indicates that the job mixture in the
area shifted from the manufacturing sector to the service sector from 1970 to
1980. In 1970, 51 percent of the FPA labor force was employed in manufac-
turing compared to 24 percent in 1980. Conversely, the service sector share
of employment increased from 49 percent in 1970 to 76 percent in 1980. This
turnaround in employment type occurred in all six Hilltop FPA communities.
Table 4-14 lists the labor force distribution in the Hilltop FPA. As this
table indicates, the labor force in the FPA is more service-oriented than the
4-56
-------
X— X
C
CU -H
O C
rt
CU rH
X! DM
4->
>>
M 4V
O -H
U-J rH
•rt
CO O
c rt
O Ciii
CO
•rt a
U O
rt <-»
CXrH
B rH
O -rt
o tn
4J CU
c si
CU 4->
g
S^ £j
O -rt
rH
a, co
B C
w o
•rt
O •->
00 O
ON -rt
rH r^
CO
•rt
• (-1
1
^ rH
rt
cu o
rH O
rt
jj
rt
1 CU x~>
o rt C
a, o
B •i-' M
cu c cu
C CU CM
3 B N-'
4-1 CU
c o
a >•
i-l I-l
cu cu
CLl C/>
CU 1
o >>
•rt O
> rH 4->
CU B CU
CO W B
1
4-> CJ
C rt bO
(1) U_l (-*
w **H i_4
0 3 -rt
M C ^-f
cu rt 3
OM S 4->
1
o t
« bo >>
MH C O
3 .rt i-H 4-1
§M Qt C
3 B CU
as -i-1 w B
<-• c
C M
cu u cu
CJ • O CJ
M a.0 M
cu o rt o
Pk CU t— 3 &W
rH M CU
rt o o
4-J _0 t-l
o rt o
E-i J fci
co in
co in
O"^ •••tf"
• •
\& in
oo r--
bO
rt -rt
O M
o
CM
vO
•
CN»
CO
T— (
f^s.
"^"
r-l
-d-
(^
t-H
QS
o
CO
00
ON
^^
o
co
rH
t-t
cu
•rt
14-)
^>
rt
£
o
,;).
in
vO
0%
o
CO
o
m
CM
ON
ON
CM
rH
o
in
m
ON
r-*
o
rH
CO
4-f
r*
bo
•H
cu
tn
•o
rH
cu
•rt
U-l
^»
rt
z:
***f
««^
CM
•
m
CO
•^
o
sj-
CO
^j.
CM
CM
CO
CO
rH
CM
CO
m
CO
m
co
4-J
J2
bo
•rt
CU
tn
•o
c
0
e
o
•rt
VO
CO
pv.
•
1*
o
m
f*>»
CO
CO
in
CM
CM
r^
CM
CO
00
m
CM
CM
0
m
co
rH
rH
•rt
tn
^N
rA
bO
3
O
rH
,— )
•rt
t*
VO
CO
ON
CM
O
CM
^
CM
\o
.H
*^
VO
vO
rH
m
ON
o
vO
CM
<^
p_i
Ex*
, i
<^
H
O
H
rH
r-
ON
•
CO
m
vO
vO
CO
CO
m
rH
rH
CO
CO
SO
ON
-3-
O
CM
ON
o
«
4-1
C
3
O
U
rt
bO
o
I-]
rt
3
O
CM
m
CO
•
CO
m
ON
ON
CM
-3-
r-~
vo
CO
rH
o
CM
p**.
CO
ON
r-
vO
o
o
m
rH
O
rH
^>
4-1
£j
O
Q_}
cu
rt
j
CO
VO
vO
*
in
rH
o
CM
O
m
^*
CM
CO
r-s.
«^
m
CO
P^*
CM
CM
CM
vO
CO
p^.
CO
sf
oo
•X
co
*€
•o
rt
rH
cu
CU
rH
O
co
cu
•rt
4->
§
O
o
rt
c
•rt M vO
TJ CU CO
CU > ON
3C O rH
T3 T3 CO
C C -H
rt rt co
*•* ^ f— ^
> 0
c_>> fij
vO
^rH MH
rrt f^
(u w
bo to
O 0) 3
J3 CU rt
rt >, cu
>> 0 M
3 rH 3
o an
B
CO W •-
CU XI
T5 CU O
3 CO CO
rH O ON
CJ J3 rH
C t->
•rt ^
>-^ co rt
cu o
rt ^ co
CU 3 ON
1 , 1 ^.
W r^ T^
•^ri O
C! **
rH M ^3
(d o
o 0) r^
-rH CJ G\
4-1 ^4 r-4
w o
•i-l £14 •*
4-* nj
rt M o
4-> O 1 —
t/5 43 ON
rt rH
rt U
^ rH Q
•rt rt C/3
1 1 1 >•• •»
^^ *^ t—J
0 0
an
o
i-i CU
4-» •• CJ
CU CU M
as ^ 3
o o
* Z c/o
4-57
-------
four-county Cleveland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) which had 58 percent
of the labor force in the service sector. Unemployment rates in the FPA are
lower than the rate for the SMSA in 1980 (USDC 1970a, 1970b, 1980a, 1980b).
Due to the proximity of the Hilltop area to downtown Cleveland, many of the
area's residents work outside of the FPA.
Table 4-15 lists the income characteristics for the communities located
in the Hilltop FPA. Each of these six communities had per capita incomes
higher than the Nation, Ohio, or the four-county Cleveland MSA in 1979. The
1984 estimates continue this trend. Gates Mills has the highest per capita
and household incomes while Mayfield Heights has the lowest per capita and
median household incomes in the Hilltop FPA (USDC 1980a, 1980b; Bureau of
Economic Analysis 1986).
Between 1969 and 1979, the unemployment rates for the Cleveland region
closely followed trends in Ohio and the United States. By 1980, however, the
unemployment rate in the region had risen from 5.8 percent to 9.3 percent,
compared to an 8.4 percent rate for Ohio and a 7 percent rate for the Nation.
This rise in regional unemployment was due to the drop in manufacturing-
related jobs and the general decline of the northeastern region of the U.S.
compared to the sunbelt region. Comparisons of 1970 and 1980 unemployment
figures indicate that the Hilltop FPA had a substantially lower unemployment
rate than both Cuyahoga and Lake Counties. Of all the FPA communities,
Highland Heights had the highest unemployment rate. This rate was 5.5 percent
in 1980, considerably less than the regional rate, indicating that the FPA has
a stable economy that is more resilient than the rest of the Cleveland region
(USDC 1970a, 1970b, 1980a, 1980b).
4.8.2 Local Government Finances
Local governments in the Hilltop FPA raise most of their operating reve-
nues from three sources: (1) local property taxes, (2) local income taxes,
and (3) shared revenues through State tax transfers. Table 4-16 lists revenue
distribution for each of the six municipalities in the Hilltop FPA (Ferguson
1985). Local property taxes are also used to finance county, township, and
school district operations. Any increase in these local taxes or in State
taxes will affect the taxpayers' ability to pay the costs of providing new
wastewater facilities in the FPA. Most of the local cost of proposed
4-58
-------
18
s
2
si
Q M
O r-1
£33
S 9i
3 c
id
4
h to
H"n
rH
a
3
as
u) rFi
a
a
a 8
a a
s
r^- ON
ON CM
O CO
co" r-T
co -*
s
S
8
a
8 S
sq
I
<^
"8
-co-
CO
£ a
^* CM
P S
CM vO
ON* co^
r-l
I
a
CO
a g
S
t
*£ <
* *
ro
*3 H
rH CM
CM CO
CO O
« I
CO CO
ON
VO
ON ON
# *
"8
*Tj
3 a
I
4-59
-------
rt
Q-
o
•H
d
33
X!
O
w
rt
u cu
o u
4-< bO
CU C
bO-H
3 C
co rt
rH
bOO,
C
M rH
CU -H
CX O
o rt
fc.
co a
Q\ O
0) <
X!
<4H 01
O X!
rt
3
C/5
(U
X)
rt
bo co
3 rH
O rH
rH -H
rH 03
"O
C CO
O 4->
s x:
X! bO
O -H
•H CU
Pi 03
rH CO
CU 4->
•H X!
4-4 bO
rt cu
33 m
•o
rH CU
01 bO
•H rt
MH rH
>>rH
rt -H
33 >
rH X!
X! bO
bO-H
•H CU
03 03
CO CO
CU rH
rt -H
CJ5 33
CM
CO CO CO CO CO
r-T CO
mcMONCOCMrHVOCN-*
•s »* ». ». *»
CO CM rH r- rH
\f^ if} r~^ CO ^D
00 1^*3 ^^\ If} CO
rH CM rH VO
l/^ C^4 C5 ^O ^^ CT^ ^H Ci
^p\ \Q c^ fsj f^
VO VO rH
rH
OrHCOVDr~- rHrHP-s
rH CM r~- O rH
CM -*
CO
CU
rt
rt
O
H
aJc/ia)
O X
H rt
O)
4J O
CU CU
CXP-,
o
CU M T3
E CU CU
O Oi i-l
o
H
o
M
CU
Cu
rt
o
H
CO
CU
C>
CM
ro
-tf co m
CO O
voor~-
CO
VO
CO
OO
10
vO
o
I--
CO
CO CM VO
CM r--
IT>
o>
o.
o
CM
T3
C
rt
CO rH
C rt
W
rt
o o o
rt
4-1
o
rt co
4-1 CU
O M
H 3
(-1
I-l CU
01 CM
a)
T3
s
CM M-l
o
t4 O rH O
O 4-1 Q, 4-J 34-1
C O C O C
J>> CU CU CU
4J O rH O rH O
M 0) (-1 CU 4-> CU I-l
O T3
4-> CU
c a.
cu x
o u
s-i
CU rH
CM
CM
CM
I
CO CO
m co
co
i
CO VO CO CO
rH O r^
l^^ ^^ OO
-
-------
wastewater facilities will be financed through city and village revenues.
These revenues will pay for local sewers, relief sewers, and sewer rehabilita-
tion work (see Chapter 5). Regional sewer lines and pump stations will be
financed by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD). These facil-
ities may be partially financed through State and/or Federal grants. However,
costs for local sewers must be financed by each affected jurisdiction in the
FPA. This could result in local obligations of $16 million (see Appendix H,
Table H-2), requiring either the issuance of general obligation bonds or the
establishment of an enterprise fund to issue revenue bonds.
As Table 4-16 indicates, none of the local municipalities have large
operating budgets. Mayfield Heights has the largest operating budget with
over $12 million in expenditures. This level was twice Mayfield Heights' 1984
total revenues of only $6 million. This unusual expenditure was adsorbed by
an accumulated revenue surplus. All of the other communities have budgets
under $5 million and maintain reserve investments that are less than half of
their operating revenues. In Highland Heights and Mayfield Village, most
revenue is raised from income taxes (63 and 56 percent, respectively).
Mayfield Heights, Richmond Heights, and Willoughby Hills receive approximately
one-third of their revenues from income taxes. Gates Mills is the only
municipality that relies on State transfers for more than 20 percent of its
operating revenues. Property taxes on the average provide 25 percent of local
municipalities' revenues (Ferguson 1985).
Fire and police services are the largest expenditure for municipalities
in the Hilltop FPA. These services represent one quarter to one half of local
jurisdictions' expenditures. General operations represent an expenditure of 5
percent for Mayfield Heights and 28 percent for Gates Mills. The municipali-
ties of Highland Heights, Mayfield Heights, Richmond Heights, and Willoughby
Hills all had expenditures that outpaced revenues in 1984 (Ferguson 1985).
Under normal and/or recurring conditions, this is an indicator of fiscal
stress. Large expenditures for fire and police services are considered to be
an indicator of potential fiscal problems since these services require large
retirement funds and disability annuities.
4-61
-------
This analysis is restricted to data from a single year, 1984; it should
not be considered an absolute predictor of the fiscal health of these com-
munities since it relies on a single operating budget. The 1984 budget was
the most recent budget available through the State. An auditors' report from
the State was also reviewed to provide consistent and verifiable information.
This auditors' report gives an accurate picture of each community during the
period of the 1985 State Census (Ferguson 1985). Using this information, a
set of indicators was prepared for the fiscal impact analysis presented in
Chapter 6.
The bonding capacity of a jurisdiction is one of the best measures of
financial capability. Table 4-17 lists the bond ratings given to munici-
palities in the Hilltop FPA by Moody's Investors Service. The rating reflects
informed judgment on the relative investment qualities of municipal bonds and,
therefore, the ability of a municipality to fund the project. The Moody's A
rating applies to bonds that possess many favorable investment attributes and
are to be considered as upper medium-grade obligations. Factors giving
security to principal and interest are considered adequate, but elements may
be present that suggest a susceptibility to impairment sometime in the future.
This rating is an "average" rating and is given to the majority of munici-
palities. The Al rating is given to bonds possessing the strongest attributes
in the A category (Moody's Investors Service 1986a). As this analysis indi-
cates, these financial institutions consider all of the Hilltop FPA local
jurisdictions good credit risks.
Another aspect of the financial capabilities of a municipality is the
relationship between revenues, source of revenues, and bonded indebtedness.
All of the communities in the FPA rely on a mixture of revenue sources and
range from no bonded debt (Gates Mills) to debt equal to annual receipts
(Highland Heights).
4.8.3 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD)
In 1972, the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) was
established as an independent financial authority. This district is
responsible for the collection and treatment of industrial, commercial, and
4-62
-------
Table 4-17. Financial Indicators for Bonded Debt for Local Jurisdictions
in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area
1985
Assessed Equalization General Bond Rating
Value of Property Ratio Bonded Debt (Moody's)
Gates Mills
Highland Heights
Mayfield
Mayfield Heights
Richmond Heights (1984)
Willoughby Hills
NA*
139,925,000
79,112,955
187,708,000
107,025,000
93,258,459
.35
.35
.35
.35
.35
.35
0
899,000
825,650
1,104,716
913,000
1,440,100
NA*
A
A
Al
A
A
*Figures for Gates Mills are not available because this municipality has never
issued bonds.
Source: Moody's Investors Service 1986b
4-63
-------
residential wastewater for the city of Cleveland and 43 surrounding suburban
communities. The NE10RSD service area encompasses most of Cuyahoga County's
approximately 178 square miles. Customers located in the city of Cleveland
are part of Sewer District One (SD1). These customers pay operation and
maintenance costs as well as capital construction costs for capital improve-
ments benefitting SD1 customers. The average residential sewer bill for SDl
is $11.2A per month. Sewer District Two (SD2) includes those customers
located in suburban communities. Suburban customers in SD2 must pay for
capital construction as well as operation and maintenance costs. The average
residential sewer bill in SD2 ranges from $15.12 to $19.73, depending on local
water costs. Sewer bills are collected on a quarterly basis and are based per
1000 cubic feet of water use (Nuveen 1984).
NEORSD's most recent bond issue was in 1984. At that time Moody's
Investors Service rated NEORSD's bonding capabilities AAA. Bonds that are
rated AAA are judged to be of the best quality and carry the smallest degree
of investment risk because interest payouts are protected by a large or by an
exceptionally stable margin, and principal is secure. Table 4-18 presents a
selected balance sheet for the NEORSD for 1984 and 1985.
Table 4-18. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Annual Report
1985 1984
ASSETS
Property, Plant, and Equipment: 551,244,000 522,361,000
Current Undepreciated Value of
Wastewater Treatment Plants
and Interceptor Sewers
Construction Funds and Unamortized 122,621,000 115,379,000
Bond and Sinking Funds
Sewerage Fees 29,155,000 25,140,000
TOTAL 761,848,000 731,925,000
4-64
-------
Table 4-18. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Annual Report (continued)
1985 1984
LIABILITIES, CONTRIBUTIONS, AND RETAINED EARNINGS
Current Liabilities 20,588,000 20,915,000
Retained Earnings 247,767,000 225,012,000
Capitalization of Long-Term Debt 106,220,000 107,085,000
Federal Construction Grants 387,273,000 378,913,000
TOTAL 761,848,000 73,925,000
COVERAGE FOR OPERATIONS 1.42 1.20
COVERAGE FOR DEBT SERVICE 1.86 2.27
RETAINED EARNINGS AS A PERCENT 0.33 0.31
OF ASSETS
Source: Moody's Investors Service 1986b
Standard and Poor's has also given NEORSD a AAA rating which is their highest,
This indicates that NEORSD's capacity to pay interest and principal is
extremely strong.
4.9 LAND USE
4.9.1 Existing Land Use
The Hilltop FPA is one of the last areas having large tracts of vacant
developable land close to downtown Cleveland. This proximity to downtown
increases the development pressures in the area (Wolfe 1987). The area's
attractiveness is also related to its accessibility to major transportation
routes. Two major interstate highways cross through the Hilltop FPA making
the area ideal for commercial or light industrial uses. In addition, major
arterials connect the area west to downtown Cleveland and to the affluent
neighborhoods to the south. The area is also situated close to two major
segments of the Cleveland Metropark's "Emerald Necklace"—Euclid Creek
Reservation and the North Chagrin Reservation. These two amenities enhance
the area.
4-65
-------
In all six communities in the Hilltop FPA, a zoning ordinance acts as a
guide for development. Only Willoughby Hills has a master plan and this
document is used more as a design tool than as a development policy. Figure
4-9 is a composite land use map for the Hilltop FPA. Table 4-19 is an
interpretation of this map. It lists the vacant and developed land uses for
each jurisdiction according to generalized land use or zoning classifications.
Figure 4-9 and Table 4-19 combine information gathered during field surveys as
well as data from the Cleveland Regional Sewer District, now known as NEORSD,
(CRSD 1979b), the Cuyahoga County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC 1977),
the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR 1985b), and the Willoughby
Hills Planning Commission (WHPC 1979).
Although the predominant land use in all of the FPA jurisdictions
estimated for 1986 in Table 4-19 is residential, there are substantial
differences in the type and extent of residential uses. In Willoughby Hills,
98 percent of the total area within the FPA is zoned for residential use but
only 49 percent (814 acres) has been developed, leaving approximately 849
vacant residentially zoned acres. Richmond Heights has 81 percent of its
total area zoned for residential use with 80 percent or approximately 1662
acres developed. Both Gates Mills and Mayfield Heights have zoned 77 percent
of their total area residential. Gates Mills, however, has only 59 percent of
its total residentially zoned land developed while Mayfield Heights has over
90 percent of its residential land developed. Highland Heights has zoned 76
percent of its land for residential use but only 60 percent of this has been
developed. Mayfield has the lowest percentage of land zoned for residential
use and the least amount of land available for development.
Most of the residentially zoned land in the Hilltop FPA has low density
zoning. Highland Heights and Richmond Heights permit three dwelling units per
acre; Willoughby Hills permits one dwelling unit per acre; and Gates Mills and
Mayfield Village restrict residential development to one unit every 2.5 acres.
In Richmond Heights and Willoughby Hills a small percentage of the vacant
developable land is in the flight path of the county airport. Development is
not allowed in this zone.
The Hilltop FPA includes over 12,350 acres; approximately one-third of
this land is vacant (NEORSD 1978a). Less than 100 acres of vacant
4-66
-------
03
(U
O)
c
Q.
>
Q.
O
I
0
C
2
O)
c
V)
— 1 2
c
0)
O)
CT3
^
0)
-o
cu
cr
>
—
c
0)
Q
1
D
sidential
CD
cc
>.
vi
CD
Q
_£
01
I
—
E z.
-C D
0) -O
u
25
13
Q_
t/1
•^
ro
Q_
LO
0
o
jr
o
C/)
"CD
c
g
QJ *^
(J C/)
^= c
0 a;
— ro
- >
CJ i—
1 0
nrr
Sensitive Land, Airportl
ro
"c
OJ
E
o
>
LU
1
=
ro
D
D
U
O)
ip-J
c
ra
CJ
D
-Q r**-
f5 S5
*~
Source:
CRSD 1
CCRPC
c?
WHPC '
n
in
00
01
cc
Q
O
3
i 0
i
LI
4-67
-------
Cn
fr
I
•S
OS
T-H
4
O)
£
1
&
o
E-*
*
O ON
U~>
a
O CN O
Si
s
O O
$
s PI
00
9
13 a
i
3
<3
00
R
3
CSJ
m
fc
CM
i
II
•H O
11
s,
«j r-i
3 1 «
® » I
o g *
-------
commercially zoned land is available for development. Vacant industrially
zoned land is concentrated in the communities of Highland Heights, Mayfield
Village, and Richmond Hills. Each of these communities has over 100 acres of
vacant industrially zoned land. As stated above, most of the area's vacant
land (2675 of 3327 vacant acres) is zoned residential. One-third of this
vacant land is located in Highland Heights. Industrial and commercial land
uses are located near the 1-271 interchange and along Miner and Bishop Roads.
Although there is little room for new commercial expansion, several commercial
centers are located in the area, including one regional shopping center—
Richmond Mall.
There are numerous development projects under construction or in the
planning stages in the Hilltop FPA. Figure 4-10 illustrates the locations of
these projects. Most of these projects are located in Highland Heights.
These include the following two projects:
o A 378-acre parcel north of Highland Road between Bishop and Miner
Roads slated for high density single family development. Three
hundred acres of this project will be reserved for a golf course.
This development is referred to as "Highland Greens," and is planned
to include 1000 housing units (Hovancek 1987).
o An office park to be located on part of the Landerhaven Country Club
(Stumpe 1987).
4.9.2 Recreation
The Cleveland Metropark system consists of more than 18,600 acres of
parkland throughout the metropolitan area (Coles 1986). The parks system is
known as the "Emerald Necklace" because its 11 reservations encircle the city,
offering a variety of recreational opportunities. Major park reservations in
or near the FPA include Euclid Creek Reservation and North Chagrin Reserva-
tion. The U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund (Department of the Interior)
financed a portion of the Euclid Creek Trail System. This fund also helped
finance two other parks in the FPA: Mayfield Heights Park and Willoughby
Hills City Park (Jones, 1987).
Euclid Creek Reservation is composed of 344 acres. The park offers an
all purpose trail, a baseball diamond, sledding, cross country skiing, a
4-69
-------
= - ••
o > b b b o
4-70
-------
physical fitness trail, and a picnic shelter. The North Chagrin Reservation,
which has 1,912 acres, offers a variety of trails, including hiking, biking,
and cross country skiing, as well as a baseball diamond, fishing, golf, ice
skating, a nature center, a waterfowl sanctuary, and snowmobiling (see Table
4-20 for attendance figures).
Table 4-20. Cleveland Metropark Attendance, 1981-1985
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Euclid Creek 679,000 872,000 809,000 889,000 910,000
North Chagrin 4,618,000 4,378,000 3,126,000 3,807,000 4,101,000
Total 5,297,000 5,250,000 3,935,000 4,696,000 5,011,000
Both the Euclid Creek Reservation and the North Chagrin Reservation offer
a variety of scenic attractions that provide a unique natural respite in an
urban environment. Smaller recreation areas are available at school grounds
in and around the planning area. A tabulation of public facilities in major
recreation areas in or near the Hilltop FPA is given in Table 4-21. One
private picnic site, Saxon Picnic Area, is also located in the Hilltop FPA
(see Section 6.1.12).
Table 4-21. Public Recreation Areas in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area
Park Name and Location
Acreage
Activities
North Chagrin Reservation
3037 SOM Center Road
Willoughby Hills
1912 acres 5 Picnic Areas
Winter Sports Area
Trail Nature Area
Marsh Nature Area
10 Trails
Snowmobiling
Cross-Country Skiing
Ice Fishing
Ice Skating
Sledding
Bridle Trails
Physical Fitness Trail
4-71
-------
Table 4-21. Public Recreation Areas in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area
(continued)
Park Name and Location
Acreage
Activities
Manakiki Golf Center NA
35501 Eddy Road
In North Chagrin
Reservation
Euclid Creek Reservation 344 Acres
Entrance on Highland and
Green Roads
18 Hole Golf Course
2.5 Mile All Purpose Trail
Basketball Courts
Physical Fitness Trail
Picnic Areas
Playfields
Winter Sports Area
Sledding
Cross-Country Skiiing
Source: Cleveland Metroparks System 1986
4.10 TRANSPORTATION
Major roadways in the planning area include Euclid Avenue, Richmond Road,
Chardon Road, Highland Road, and Mayfield Road. Euclid Avenue is a major
north-south artery that connects the eastern suburbs to the downtown area of
Cleveland. Major roadways that intersect Euclid Avenue include Highland,
Mayfield, and Chardon. Euclid Avenue has four through lanes and two parking
lanes (Eckner 1987). Traffic on Euclid Avenue is heavy during nonrush hour
and congested during rush hour. Highland Road carries commuter traffic to
Euclid Avenue without any major traffic congestion (O'Brien 1987a). Highland
Road is a major link between the Hilltop area and Interstate 90. Highland
Road has four lanes west of Richmond Road and two lanes east of Richmond Road.
Richmond Road is a major north-south roadway that carries commuter
traffic and feeds the Richmond Mall, the Cuyahoga County Airport, and an
industrial park on the airport property. Traffic is heavy at times and is
congested at the intersections near the County Airport (Eckner 1987, O'Brien
1987a).
4-72
-------
The Ohio Department of Transportation previously conducted a design study
to widen Richmond Road to four lanes. This plan called for widening segments
between Mayfield and Cedar Roads and between Euclid Avenue and Highland Road
(Owens 1987). The segment between Mayfield and Cedar Roads was recently
completed. Although construction of the Euclid Avenue to Highland Road
segment has been planned for, as shown in NOACA's Long-Range Transportation
Plan, 1985 Status, no schedule is available for this work (NOACA 1985).
Other roads on the FPA include SOM Center Road, Bishop Road, and Miner
Road. SOM Center Road is a major two lane north-south artery that serves
residential areas south of Wilson Mills Road. Bishop Road, north of Highland
Road, feeds the Airport Industrial Park. Miner Road, north of Wilson Mills,
feeds the Highland Heights Industrial Park. Both Bishop and Miner Roads
experience minor congestion.
The Cuyahoga County Airport, located within the corporate limits of
Richmond Heights, is in the far northeastern corner of the county near the
Lake County line. This airport is owned and operated by Cuyahoga County.
Cuyahoga County Airport is a general aviation airport that serves corporate
planes (Surcow 1986).
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is a publicly
owned transit system that provides transportation to Cuyahoga County. The
transit system consists of 90 bus routes, three rail transit lines, over 1,200
revenue vehicles, and carries an average of more than 450,000 passengers per
day. The rail lines do not extend into the planning area. Bus routes within
the planning area transport people to downtown Cleveland, the rail line, and
Richmond Mall (Wood 1986).
4.11 ENERGY CONSUMPTION
The Cleveland region's electrical service is provided by the Cleveland
Illuminating Company which has a total capability of 4,372 megawatts of power
per day. Of this total, approximately 3,400 megawatts are available for use,
with the remainder in reserve or down for maintenance (DeChant 1987). The
Illuminating Company owns four coal-fired generating plants, one nuclear
4-73
-------
generating plant, and one coal and oil generating plant. The company is also
a co-owner of one coal plant, one pump hydroelectric plant, a second nuclear
plant which has one unit currently being tested, and another unit approxi-
mately 50 percent completed. Operation of this plant is dependent upon a
favorable ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Illuminating
Company is a member of the Central Area Power Coordinating System that allows
for shared capacity with Ohio Edison, Pennsylvania Power, Pittsburg-Duquesne,
and Toledo Edison (DeChant 1987). Additional information is provided in
Section 6.2.4.
4.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.12.1 Historic Resources
Before the arrival of the English, the French and Indians had established
trading posts along the lower Cuyahoga Valley. In 1786, when the area was
opened for settlement, the State of Connecticut reserved 3,500,000 acres of
land (the Western Reserve) in northeastern Ohio. In 1796, Moses Cleaveland,
from the Connecticut Land Company, arrived with surveyors to speed the sale of
lots. The plan for the town of Cleveland was completed in that year. Growth
was slow until 1825 when the Erie Canal was opened, thereby linking Cleveland
with the Atlantic Ocean. In 1830, the Ohio and Erie Canal was completed,
which further increased industrial activity. Rail service in 1840 and the
completion of the St. Mary's Falls Canal between Lakes Superior and Huron in
1855 established Cleveland as a transfer point for lumber, copper, iron ore,
coal, and farm produce and also as a manufacturing center. After the Civil
War, the city had Eirmly established an iron industry and in 1870 John D.
Rockefeller, Sr. organized the Standard Oil Company. By the end of the 19th
century, the population was growing and commuter trains began to reach out to
the suburbs. The Hilltop Facility Planning Area began to develop during the
latter part of the 19th century as suburbs of Cleveland. A large part of the
area, however, remained agricultural until the mid-1950s and the post-war
expansion into the suburbs (Colliers 1984).
The National Register of Historic Places lists a number of historic sites
and structures in the jurisdictions comprising the Hilltop Facility Planning
Area. The Register lists three historic sites or structures in Gates Mills
4-74
-------
and two in Mayfield Heights (USDI 1985). The Ohio Historic Inventory (OHI)
lists those sites and structures that may not be eligible for inclusion to the
National Register, but are nonetheless historic under Ohio Historic Society
criteria. Figure 4-11 illustrates known historic and archaeological resources
in the Hilltop FPA.
4.12.2 Archaeologic Resources
Information for the archaeological background was obtained from studies
completed by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and the "Heights/Hilltop
Interceptor: Cultural Resources Inventory," Havens' and Emerson's
"Supplemental Facilities Planning Report" (Brose et al. 1985, Blank 1980, Bush
1978). Figure 4-11 illustrates known historic and archaeologic resources in
the Hilltop FPA.
The earliest evidence of human culture within northeastern Ohio is
evidenced by the Fluted Point Complex of the Paleo-Indian Tradition, which has
been dated to between 18,000 and 10,000 years B.C. The Fluted Point Complex
is followed by the Piano Complex of the Paleo-Indian Tradition, dating between
10,000 and 6,000 years B.C. The known distribution of habitation and/or
hunting sites of the Piano Complex is concentrated within the Lake Plains
physiographic province of northern Ohio. The distribution of excavated sites
and surface finds coincides with the beach ridges of the Glacial Lake Stages
in the Erie Basin, and with the abandoned shorelines of periglacial swamps,
bogs, or major stream valleys. The Archaic Development Stage (8,000 to 1,500
B.C.) overlaps the Piano Complex. The Laurentian Tradition (3,500 to 1,500
B.C.) represents the most recent of the Archaic Development Stage manifesta-
tions within Ohio. In northeastern Ohio, the Brewerton Phase of the Archaic
Stage occurs as both open sites and within rock shelters in the eastern
portion of Ohio. The majority of open sites are situated in close proximity
to the then comtemporary shorelines of rivers, lakes, bogs, and swamps.
Evidence of the Woodland Period (200 B.C. to 900 A.D.), while not totally
absent, is relatively small in scale. Typical distributions would occur on
high terraces or bluffs overlooking major stream valleys. Cuyahoga and Lake
Counties were major areas of occupation during the Late Prehistoric Period
(1,000 to 1,650). Villages typically were located on the high plateaus and
ridges along the Lake Erie Shore.
4-75
-------
4-76
-------
Most of the archaeological site locations within this region tend to
occur within 1 mile of the Chagrin River on relatively flat ground. When the
slope is greater than 15 degrees, occupation sites are generally absent. The
higher bluff areas are the regions that appear to house the greatest number of
sites. Floodplain areas also tend to contain archaeological sites. Sites
found near the Chagrin River tend to be relatively undisturbed because of the
absence of industrial areas and large residential areas typical of the upper
Cuyahoga River. Occupation sites from all prehistoric periods are possible.
The farther west that sites are from the Chagrin River, the less dense
they tend to be. Sites are most likely to be located near areas that have had
little historic disturbance (such as parks), near water, slightly higher
elevations (such as knolls), and major geomorphological differences (such as
beach ridges). Major creeks and streams tend to have greater site density
than intermittent streams or very minor creeks.
4-77
-------
CHAPTER 5. EIS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
This chapter presents an analysis of the wastewater management
alternatives developed for the Hilltop Planning Area based on engineering
criteria. This is a two-step process involving a screening to eliminate
non-viable alternatives. The remaining alternatives are then evaluated in
greater detail with respect to monetary costs as well as implementability,
reliability, energy use, and feasibility. The environmental consequences are
discussed in Chapter 6.
Chapter 3 described the alternatives developed in the Easterly Separate
Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan (ESSSWFP) and the Environmental
Assessment including several additional alternatives. In order to avoid the
confusion of a dual numbering system, those alternatives retained for detailed
evaluation are numbered EIS-1, EIS-2, EIS-3, and EIS-4. The origin of the
alternative is documented in the description of each alternative.
5.1 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of conducting a screening of all alternatives was to
eliminate non-viable alternatives from further consideration. Only those
alternatives that are potential solutions will receive a further detailed
evaluation. The screening was conducted using the criteria listed below and
was generally based on information contained in previous facilities planning
documents. Alternatives were eliminated based on environmental considera-
tions, feasibility, or cost.
5.1.1. Screening Criteria
The screening criteria included the following considerations.
o Water Quality Impacts: Would the construction or operation of the
alternative significantly degrade water quality or permit problems
with existing facilities to continue or worsen?
o Sensitive Natural Areas: Would the construction or operation of the
alternative significantly affect sensitive natural areas?
o Costs: Is the alternative significantly more costly in comparison
with other alternatives without offering compensating improvements in
environmental quality?
5-1
-------
o Engineering Feasibility: Would the alternative be much less feasible
than other alternatives under consideration?
Each alternative was initially screened as it was originally proposed.
If modifications would improve the potential of an alternative, they were
incorporated.
5.1.2 Alternatives Evaluated
Chapter 3 described the alternatives developed during the planning
process which were documented in the ESSSWFP and the Environmental Assessment.
These alternatives are:
1. Easterly Separate Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan Alternatives
o H-l - a subregional wastewater treatment plant located north of the
Cuyahoga County Airport, including flow from the BBW complex.
o H-1A - same as H-l, but excluding flow from the BBW complex.
o H-2A - transport system to Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant
composed of gravity interceptors and small pump stations. The
northern pa.th would follow the Euclid Creek Bed.
o H-2B - same as H-2A, but the northern leg would follow Chardon Road.
This was the recommended plan of the ESSSWFP.
o H-3 - a regional sewage pumping station located north of the Cuyahoga
County Airport to transport flow to the Euclid Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
o E-1A - transport system to Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant,
including an upgraded BBW pumping complex and twin force mains.
2. Environmental Assessment Alternatives
o Alternative 1 - same as ESSSWFP alternative H-2B. This was the
recommended plan of the Environmental Assessment.
o Alternative 2 - same as ESSSWFP alternative E-1A.
o Alternative 3 - combination gravity interceptor sewer and two major
pumping stations (Beech Hill and Richmond/White) with twin force
mains.
o Alternative 4 - combination gravity interceptor sewer and one major
pumping station (Beech Hill) with twin force mains.
5-2
-------
3. Other Alternatives Considered Prior to the EIS
o White Road Modification - a modification of ESSSWFP H-2B or EA
alternative 1, which uses White Road in place of the cross-country
county line route for the northern leg.
o Highland Road Route - another modification of ESSSWFP alternative H-2B
or EA alternative 1, which used Highland Road in place of the cross-
country county line route for the northern leg.
o Supplemental Facilities Planning Alternatives - variations of the
recommended ESSSWFP alternative (H-2B). These were developed as a
result of routing through the entire Heights/Hilltop system.
4. No Action
o No Action - no changes to the existing system, however, flow volumes
which are diverted from the Belvoir area will still need to be
conveyed and treated. No relief from wet weather bypasses of the
Beech Hill pump station or the Bonnieview storage facility would be
provided, and the existing force mains would remain in place.
5.1.3 Elimination of Alternatives
The result of the screening process was the elimination of the following
alternatives from further evaluation in the EIS process.
o H-l and H-1A In-Basin Treatment
A total present worth cost which was more than 30 percent greater
than alternatives that provide transport to Easterly Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Requires extensive construction on an undisturbed site.
Requires greater operator time and a larger increase in operation
and maintenance staff than other alternatives.
o H-2A Transport to Easterly (Euclid Creek Alignment)
- Involves extensive open-cut construction parallel to a natural and
undeveloped ravine along Euclid Creek.
Limited access for equipment makes construction difficult.
- Construction difficulties would greatly increase the costs.
5-3
-------
o H-3 Transport to Euclid
- The Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant has a history of capacity
problems associated with wet weather flow.
- The Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant has a problem adequately
treating its current waste load, and Hilltop flow would compound
the problem.
- Limited area is available to expand the Euclid Wastewater Treatment
Plant to accept additional flow volumes.
o White Road Alignment
- This was proposed as a modification to the H-2B (ESSSWFP) and
alternative 1 (EA) alignment; however, it does not offer any
significant advantage from an engineering feasibility standpoint.
- Costs would be greater because of construction in the road bed.
If further analysis determines that environmental problems exist
with the cross-country alignment, White Road could be used as an
alternate route.
o Highland Road Route
- This was also proposed as a modification to the H-2B (ESSSWFP) and
alternative 1 (EA) alignment; however, it does not offer
significant engineering feasibility advantages.
The cost for this alignment is about 8 percent more than the H-2B
(ESSSWFP) and alternative 1 (EA) alignment, which was the highest
cost alternative from the Environmental Assessment.
The deep alignment of this option would require tunnel construction
methods.
o Supplemental Facilities Plan Alternatives
Anderson Road diversion was included as a result of flow routing
throughout the entire Heights/Hilltop system. Alternatives without
Anderson Road diversion were excluded because they resulted in
higher attenuated peak flow volumes at Easterly Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
- Bishop Road alignment excluded because of higher total costs.
o No Action
- Continued bypasses of the Beech Hill pump station during wet
weather without modifications.
5-4
-------
- Continued overflows of the Bonnieview storage facility during wet
weather without modifications.
- Increasing potential for ruptures in the existing force mains which
are about 25 years old.
Flows from the Belvoir area would still need to be conveyed and
treated.
Along with these alternatives that were completely eliminated, the
following changes were made to the remaining alternatives prior to any further
EIS analysis.
o E-1A (ESSSWTP) or alternative 2 (EA), alternative 3 (EA), and
alternative 4 (EA) were all originally designed with twin force mains
from all major pump stations. Since twin force mains are not
necessary (or standard engineering practice) from a design standpoint,
the EIS alternatives which include force mains will assume a single
main in place of the twins.
These same alternatives also assumed that complete new facilities
would be required at the Beech Hill and Wilson Mills pump stations
(including new buildings and wet wells). Completely replacing the
facilities is not necessary; the EIS alternatives will include
replacing the pumps and control systems, but will use the existing
structures.
o H-2B (ESSSWFP) or alternative 1 (EA) were both originally designed
with the Bonnieview storage tank removed from service. By including
Bonnieview, the size of the eastern interceptor could be reduced.
Since both the ESSSWFP and EA recommended this plan with Bonnieview
excluded, the EIS alternative will also assume Bonnieview is removed.
However, an added discussion will be included on the effects of
including Bonnieview.
o All EIS alternatives are analyzed with local sewers to serve the
unsewered areas (with sufficient capacity to replace all package
plants). Future growth was also included in the EIS analysis.
Although the relief sewers and sewer rehabilitation projects outlined
in the SSES are not included in the EIS discussion, they are assumed
to be carried out by the respective communities.
5.2 EIS ALTERNATIVES
This section describes each of the four alternatives that were retained
for detailed evaluation. They include the modifications presented above.
Each alternative can collect and transport the Hilltop wastewater flows to the
Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant. All alternatives within this section are
assigned an EIS number for identification and ease of discussion.
5-5
-------
Several common factors exist with the remaining alternatives. Each
system option will transport the Hilltop flows to the Easterly Wastewater
Treatment Plant for treatment. Since this EIS is concerned with the Hilltop
area, all discussion and costs are for facilities that end at the Green Road
and Euclid Avenue intersection. Portions of the Heights interceptor will
transport the flow from that intersection to the Easterly plant.
As shown and discussed in the following section, each alternative has the
potential to serve the entire Hilltop area. Local sewers which would be
needed to serve uns:ewered areas are shown with the alternatives. However, the
need to construct local sewers has not been established and this system
analysis does not establish or endorse the construction of all local sewers
without additional facilities planning. The primary purpose of each alterna-
tive is to provide an interceptor to transport flow from the Hilltop area to
the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant. The local sewers collect wastes from
local areas and carry the material to the main transport system.
Each alternative under evaluation will include Contract G. Contract G
(Green Road) was initially included in the Heights Environmental Assessment -
FNSI. Since the Hilltop area alternative was not selected at the time, the
sizes were presented as a range of 60" to 66" to handle 202 MGD of flow, and
66" to 78" to handle 285 MGD of flow. Because the sewer size is dependent
upon which EIS alternative is ultimately selected to serve the Hilltop area,
the discussion and costs for each alternative will include Contract G. Also,
approximately 59 MGD of flow from the eastern Belvoir area will be routed to
the Hilltop area as a result of regional planning (see Section 3.1.3.1). This
flow was included w:Lth all alternatives as Contract H, and construction is
planned for 1994.
The analysis in this section also assumes that the sewer rehabilitation
and relief sewer projects, as outlined in the SSES (discussed in Section 2.3),
are being conducted by local communities. These projects involve individual
communities conducting repairs on local sewers to relieve conveyance problems.
The relief efforts will be funded with local money and are, therefore, not
evaluated as part of this EIS. The NEORSD is currently working with the
communities to coordinate the rehabilitation and relief projects.
5-6
-------
Construction of any alternative will require the use of both open-cut and
tunnel sewer construction methods. Open-cut construction, as the name
suggests, involves digging an open trench with a back hoe to install the sewer
pipe. Where soil conditions are poor, open-cut construction requires the use
of sheeting and shoring which keep the side walls of the trench in place while
the pipe is being installed. Generally, when extremely deep alignments
(greater than 20 or 30 feet deep) are required, tunnel construction is used.
Conventional tunnel boring machines (IBM) would be used for construction in
the Hilltop area. IBM equipment consists of rotating cutter heads which
excavate a pipe tunnel. Since local ordinances prohibit the use of
explosives, tunnel excavation by blasting will not be used. All spoil from
the excavations will be disposed of by the contractor and would be trucked to
a landfill site or sold as fill material.
5.2.1 EIS-1 - ESSSWFP and Environmental Assessment Recommended Alternative
This alternative is the previously recommended alternative from both the
ESSSVFP (H-2B) and the Environmental Assessment (alternative 1). Transport to
the Easterly WWTP from the Hilltop Planning Area will be via a newly
constructed interceptor as shown in Figure 5-1. Local sewers needed to serve
the unsewered areas with this option are shown in Figure 5-2.
EIS-1 will replace the Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills pumping complex
with gravity interceptors (Figure 5-1). The eastern leg will be a 48"
diameter sewer installed (open cut) primarily along SOM Center Road, and the
western leg will be a 42" to 54" sewer installed (open cut) in Richmond Road
with other spurs along Highland Road. The northern 48" leg of this alterna-
tive will be layed (open cut) along the Cuyahoga/Lake County line. White Road
was also suggested as a feasible alternative for the northern leg; however,
the proposed county line route is used in this analysis. Tunnel construction
will be used along the northern part of Richmond Road, Chardon Road, and
Euclid Avenue. The crossing of Euclid Creek near the intersection of Chardon
Road and Euclid Avenue would be constructed using a series of drop manholes
and open-cut construction across the stream bed.
5-7
-------
-------
t-O
(N
o U
- O
U
z
z
z
CL
O
I
en
5-9
-------
New pump stations and force mains would be constructed at the Scottish
Highlands (2) and Hickory Hills (3) package plant sites to remove these
treatment facilities from service with direct pumping to the gravity system.
Stark (C), Thornapple (L), Woods (M), and Suffolk Country Estates (N) pumping
stations would all remain in service with EIS-1. Sufficient capacity will be
available in the interceptor to remove Sleepy Hollow and Pleasant Hills
package plants from service. Bonnieview storage tank would also be removed
under this plan.
One additional possibility previously presented was to keep Bonnieview in
service as a storage tank with this alternative. By including this tank, the
size of the eastern interceptor could be reduced to 30", and a summation of
peak flow volumes indicates that the Airport storage basin may not be needed.
Although the majority of this analysis is devoted to the original alternative
(with Bonnieview eliminated), differences resulting from the inclusion of
Bonnieview will also be included in the following discussion.
5.2.2 EIS-2 - Combination Gravity Interceptor Sewer and Pump Station/Force
Mains (3 Major Pumping Stations)
This alternative is a modification of the previously discussed ESSSVFP
alternative E-1A plus the Hilltop pumping station and the Environmental
Assessment alternative 2. EIS-2 consists of upgraded facilities at Beech Hill
(A) and Wilson Mills (B) pumping stations, and a new Richmond/White pumping
Station (D) as presented in Figure 5-3. The local sewers required with this
option are included in Figure 5-4.
The facilities required for EIS-2 include new single force mains along
Wilson Mills Road and Richmond Road. The Beech Hill force main will consist
of approximately 8,900 feet of 30" pipe, and the Wilson Mills force main will
consist of about 2,000 feet of 36" pipe. About 13,400 feet of 30" pipe will
be required for the Richmond/White force main. The Beech Hill (A) and Wilson
Mills (B) pumping stations would be sized to 11.6 MGD and 24.2 MGD respec-
tively, based upon the SSES results. The Richmond/White (D) pumping station
would be sized at 12.9 MGD based on the connection of the unsewered areas,
several package plants, and future growth.
5-10
-------
5-11
-------
U1
t-O
(S)
U")
S o
>
&L
<
H
Z
<
LO
.^
<
u
0
_j
Q
LLJ
I/}
0
Q.
O
C£
<
2
LU
U
C£
O
LJ_.
<
U
0
_j
Q
LLJ
on
0
cu
O
Qi
<
LLJ
C^
<
U
Z
z
z
<
— 1
Q_
Q_
0
i
— i
X
r\i
CL
>
_1
sf
I-
u",
5-12
-------
Each major pumping station (Beech Hill, Wilson Mills, and Richmond/White)
should be designed with sufficient capacity to handle the peak event with one
pump out of service. The existing buildings at Beech Hill and Wilson Mills
could be used, with a new or expanded structure required for Richmond/White.
The pumping portion of this alternative was designed for reliable
operation utilizing the latest in control technology. A central control
system (probably located at the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant) would
have the ability to monitor and control all the major and minor pump stations
in the Hilltop area. This system would consist of a telemetered network from
the pump stations linked to a central control computer. The central computer
would continuously monitor parameters at each station, such as wet well level,
flow volumes, and various pump parameters, and control each system based on
these inputs. The central control system would be designed to automatically
adjust for pump station problems without affecting the normal transfer of
wastewater from the Hilltop Planning Area. Should a problem develop with the
central computer, control would automatically shift to each individual
station. The controls at the individual stations would continue to monitor
the parameters (wet well level, flow volumes, and various other factors) and
would continue to operate the stations normally. Additionally, an operator at
each individual pump station would have the ability to manually control the
station operation. Table 5-1 contains a list of possible malfunctions and the
response of the control system.
Separate power grids can be supplied to each major pump station to limit
the possibility of power failures. Separate power grids consist of electric
service from two unrelated power service areas. If one grid suffers a power
outage, the other grid will still have the capacity to supply the power unless
a total area outage is encountered. Additionally, a backup onsite power
generator was included with the pump stations for complete power failures of
the two grids. Automatic switching of the onsite diesel generator would allow
it to automatically start in the event of a power outage.
Scottish Highlands (2) and Hickory Hills (3) package plants will be
eliminated by new pumping stations; however, they will require construction of
local gravity sewers before the flow can be collected. Several pumping
5-13
-------
Table 5-1. Control System Responses to Possible Malfunctions
Possible Malfunction
o Pump not operating
properly at one
station
Control problem
between central
control and pump
station
Central control
malfunction
Power failure at
major pump station
Power failure at
central control
o Force main rupture
Control Response
signal at central control alerts remote
operator
alarm signal alerts onsite operator that
maintenance is required
control automatically shifts away from
problem pump to other pumps
station continues operating normally
control of problem station automatically
shifts to onsite controls
other stations remain under central control
system continues to operate normally
control automatically shifts to onsite
controls for each station
system continues to operate normally
separate power grids at pump station provide
power
if total outage along both power grids,
backup diesel generators automatically
provide power to the station
central control receives power out signal
remote operator dispatched to the station to
ensure that equipment is operating normally
for duration of the outage
system continues to operate normally
control shifts to onsite controls for all
pump stations
backup power at central control provides
power
system continues to operate normally
central control receives signal detected by
loss of head
pumps are shut down to the affected force
main
flow is diverted to Bonnieview if applicable
repair crew is dispatched
the unaffected portion of the system
continues to operate normally
5-14
-------
stations will continue to be used with this alternative, as shown in Figure 5-3.
Sufficient capacity would also be available to remove Sleepy Hollow and
Pleasant Hill package plants from service.
The crossing of Euclid Creek along Monticello Boulevard was assumed to be
by a free standing pipe bridge supporting twin 54" sewers. Actually, a single
66" pipe could be used with the existing 30" sewer which is in place under the
bridge if the existing pipe is found to be in good condition. This option
would be less expensive than using twin 54" sewers, however twin 54" sewers
are used in cost estimates as a worst-case assumption.
5.2.3 EIS-3 - Combination Gravity Interceptor Sewer and Pump Station/Force
Mains (2 Major Pumping Stations)
This alternative is a modification of the previously discussed Environ-
mental Assessment alternative 3. EIS-3 consists of upgraded facilities at
Beech Hill pumping station (A) and a new Richmond/White pumping station (D).
EIS-3 is similar to EIS-2, except that the Wilson Mills pump station is
replaced with a gravity tunnel. All other aspects are the same including pump
station sizes, controls, and the Euclid Creek crossing. This alternative is
shown in Figure 5-5. The local sewers are shown in Figure 5-6.
5.2.4 EIS-4 - Combination Gravity Interceptor Sewer and Pump Station/Force
Main (1 Major Pumping Station)
This alternative was previously discussed in the Environmental Assessment
(alternative 4). It consists of an upgraded Beech Hill pumping station (A)
combined with a new interceptor as shown in Figure 5-7. The local sewers are
included in Figure 5-8.
Beech Hill will be the only major pumping station included with this
alternative. Wastes will be pumped west along Wilson Mills Road via a 30"
force main, until it connects with a gravity sewer near Miner Road. From that
point, flow will continue via gravity sewers past Wilson Mills pumping
5-15
-------
z
LLJ
O
O
UJ
CL.
Q
(J
tN
O
-------
u
z
z
z
o.
O
LO
u
O
5-17
-------
LO
I-
Z
z
on
O
z
LU
O
£
LU
UO
LO
tyi
U
O !£;
Qi
Q.
1-
!£;
X
<
LU
D-
5-18
(W)
O
Q
U
-------
U
2
a.
a.
o
CO
l/l
<
5-19
-------
station, and then north to Highland Road. This 30" segment (open cut) will
connect with a 42" gravity line along Richmond Road (open cut) which will
continue north to Chardon Road. This 60" to 66" interceptor (tunnel) will
follow Chardon Road and Euclid Road west to Green Road where another 60" spur
will be added. The Chardon Road crossing of Euclid Creek will include several
energy dissipating; manholes and an open cut across the stream bed.
Scottish Highlands and Hickory Hills package plants will be replaced by
pumping stations. The Scottish Highlands force main will tie directly into
the interceptor, while Hickory Hills will require construction of local sewers
before it can be connected. Several existing pumping stations will still be
used with this alternative.
5.3 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF EIS ALTERNATIVES
This section presents a detailed evaluation of the four EIS alternatives
regarding:
o Cost: Total present worth of the alternative over a 20-year period.
This includes capital costs for materials and installation as well as
operation and maintenance costs. A contingency factor of 15 percent
was added to all capital cost estimates in Appendix F. A factor of 40
percent was used during the development of Environmental Assessment
costs; this figure was found to be unreasonable by USEPA standards.
o Implementability: The relative difficulty to construct each
alternative.
o Reliability: The dependability of each alternative with respect to
system failures.
o Energy Use" An analysis of the energy requirements for each
alternative.
o Feasibility: The ability of each alternative to convey the Hilltop
waste load.
Several basic assumptions are common to all four alternatives. These
assumptions include; local sewers to serve ultimate future growth, local sewers
to eliminate all onsite systems and small package plants, and interceptor
capacity to handle wastewater flows from portions of the Belvoir area. A com-
parison of alternatives which summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of
each EIS alternative is provided after the individual alternative discussions.
5-20
-------
Local severs have been included with all alternatives on the assumption
that sufficient need exists. As previously discussed, the local sewers
collect wastes from the unsewered areas and carry it to the main transport
system. Local sewers were included based upon the following factors:
o Poor soils in the area
o The relative age of septic systems in the area (average age is 32
years)
o The fact that several construction projects have recently been
rejected in the area because of poor soils and no sewer access.
Since actual documentation of problems with septic systems in the Hilltop
area is not available, additional studies may be required to adequately define
the extent of the problems.
Connection of the unsewered areas and future growth were both included in
this analysis. The projected growth is expected to occur in the northern
areas of the basin. Based on NOACA population figures and local community
zoning reports, the addition of future growth will include about 2,460
residents and 1,038 commercial-industrial acres. About 5,960 existing
unsewered residents and 132 existing unsewered commercial-industrial acres
will also be included. This results in a total addition of 8,420 residents
and 1,170 commerical industrial acres to the system and will result in a total
peak flow rate of about 8.5 MGD (as projected by the NEORSD). Most of this
flow will enter the system near the Cuyahoga County Airport.
Each alternative also includes the capacity to convey peak flow rates
from the east Belvoir area (Anderson Road Diversion - 59 MGD) and the central
Belvoir area (Green Road Segment - 202 MGD). These flows are a result of peak
flow routing throughout the entire Easterly service area to reduce peak flow
volumes at the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant (as described in Section
3.1.3.1).
5.3.1 EIS-1
This alternative is the previously recommended alternative from both the
ESSSWFP (H-2B) and the Environmental Assessment (alternative 1), and was
5-21
-------
detailed in Section 5.2.1. As previously discussed, this alternative had been
recommended with Bonnieview excluded. Since the route remains the same with
Bonnieview included, this discussion section addresses the alternative both
with Bonnieview included and excluded.
Cost
The total present worth of this alternative was calculated to be
$64,378,915 as summarized in Appendix F. By including Bonnieview, the
resultant total present worth is reduced by over $2,000,000 to $62,141,116.
This cost reduction results from the decrease in pipe diameters and removal of
the Airport storage basin. A summary of the costs for this alternative is
included in Table 3-2.
Table 5-2. Alternative EIS-1 Cost Summary
Capital Costs
Transport System
Local Sewers
Total
Annual O&M Costs
Sewer Maintenance
Basin Maintenance
Power
Total
Present Worth
Capital
O&M
Salvage
Net
Without
Bonnieview
$60,426,240
13,340,385
73,766,625
66,100
9,700
49,600
125,400
72,900,517
1,266,327
9,787,929
64,378,915
With
Bonnieview
$56,987,611
13,340,385
70,327,996
66,100
9,700
49,600
125,400
70,150,591
1,266,327
9,275,802
62,141,116
Costs for this alternative include $10,681,946 of local sewer capital
costs plus $2,658,439 of local sewers to remove Williamsburg pump station and
Richmond Park, Scottish Highlands, and Hickory Hills treatment plants from
service. Contract G (which will serve the central Belvoir area) has a capital
5-22
-------
cost of $8,395,683 and Contract H (which will serve the eastern Belvoir area)
has a capital cost of $4,337,637. Both were included in the cost analysis.
Local sewer costs for this alternative are about $3,000,000 less than for
the other EIS alternatives because many of the unsewered areas have direct
access to the interceptor. Direct gravity access for the Richmond Park
package plant and direct connection for the pumping stations at Scottish
Highlands and Hickory Hills package plants is also possible with this route.
Implementabili ty
Alternative EIS-1 would require substantial new construction which would
make the system somewhat more difficult to implement than the other alterna-
tives. Several segments require open-cut excavations of 20 or more feet in
depth which would increase construction difficulty. Extensive sheeting and
shoring may be required and could greatly increase the difficulties with this
alternative. Shallow depth to bedrock has also been reported in the area and
may create problems for deep excavations.
The open-cut crossing of Euclid Creek presents two construction problems.
First, the river will need to be diverted in such a manner as to allow
construction. Second, the steep river banks may make construction difficult.
Reliability
Because EIS-1 makes use of a minimum amount of mechanical equipment, the
reliability of this alternative (with respect to mechanical failure) is very
high. With the main flow volumes being transported by gravity, there is a
limited possibility of breakdowns which would disrupt the proper transport of
wastewater from the Hilltop area. Mechanical breakdowns are still a pos-
sibility with the small pumping stations that exist in this plan, but the
major transport route would not be affected.
Energy Use
With no major pumping stations included with this option, EIS-1 would
have a very low energy requirement. The small pumping stations that would
5-23
-------
still be used (Scottish Highlands, Hickory Hills, Suffolk Country Estates,
Woods, and Thornapple) would account for some energy consumption. This
alternative would have the lowest energy requirement of the EIS alternatives,
estimated at $49,600 per year.
Feasibility
This alternative was designed to handle peak inflow volumes from a
5-year, 1-hour storm. With Bonnieview excluded, the interceptors must be much
larger to handle the flow. By including Bonnieview as a storage tank, parts
of the system can be reduced in size because Bonnieview will reduce the peak
flow rate. Either system is capable of handling and transporting the waste-
water to the Easterly plant. Other than the construction difficulties
outlined in the implementability discussion, this system presents no
significant design constraints.
5.3.2 EIS-2
As previously described in Section 5.2.2, EIS-2 is a combination gravity
interceptor sewer and three major pump stations. This alternative is shown in
Figure 5-3.
Cost
The total present worth of EIS-2 was calculated to be $47,818,377 as
summarized in Appendix F. This value includes all costs for the extensive
control system which was described earlier in this chapter. A summary of the
costs for this alternative is included in Table 5-3.
Costs for this alternative include $16,008,346 for local sewers, which
are also required to remove Scottish Highlands, Richmond Park, and Hickory
Hills package plants and Richmond Mall, Franklin, and Williamsburg pumping
stations. Capacity will also be available for connection of Pleasant Hill and
Sleepy Hollow treatment plants.
In this alternative, the size of Contract G was increased from 60" and
66" (as required in Alternative EIS-1) to 66" and 78" to accept the flow from
the Hilltop area.
5-24
-------
Table 5-3. Alternative EIS-2 Cost Summary
Capital Costs
Transport System $31,008,399
Local Sewers 16,008,346
Total 47,016,745
Annual O&M Costs
Sewer Maintenance 38,600
Power 192,900
Labor 463,000
Misc. 33,000
Total 727,500
Present Worth
Capital 46,199,120
O&M 7,346,513
Salvage 5,727,256
Net 47,818,377
Implementability
Since structures already exist at Beech Hill and Wilson Mills pumping
stations, little new construction will be required at these sites. In
general, the depth of excavation for force main construction in this alterna-
tive does not present any unique implementability problems.
Some local sewer construction will be required before the package plants
can be eliminated.
An aerial crossing will need to be constructed over Euclid Creek along
Monticello Boulevard. A new pipe bridge will be constructed as described in
Section 5.2.2, but does not present any implementation problems.
Reliability
With proper design, the reliability of this alternative will be very
good. The entire system of pump stations will be controlled by one central
computerized system. All monitoring and control may be done from one station.
Additionally, controls will also be available for an onsite operator to
control individual stations at each site.
5-25
-------
The network can be set up so if a control problem occurs with one
station, control will automatically be shifted to the onsite system. All
pumps and level controls will continue to operate normally.
Sufficient pumping capacity will be provided so the major pump stations
can handle design peak flow volumes with one pump out of service. This
feature is included so pumps can be taken off line for routine maintenance
without reducing the capacity of the station. The control system will also be
designed to automatically shift service away from pumps which are not oper-
ating normally. Even with one problem pump, the system will still maintain
sufficient capacity to handle design flows.
Several sources of backup power will also be provided. Separate power
grids should be installed for the major pump stations. The twin power grids
add another measure of reliability. If one grid should fail for any reason,
the other grid will continue to operate the station. Also, onsite diesel
generators were included with the major pump stations. The diesel generators
will be equipped with automatic switching gears that will start the generator
if there is a complete power failure and keep the station operating as
designed.
With each of these design considerations, the reliability of Alternative
EIS-2 is very good.
Energy Use
Because this alternative makes use of three major pumping stations, the
energy requirements are the highest of the EIS alternatives. With a total
pumping capacity of almost 50 MGD, the estimated yearly energy cost for
Alternative EIS-2 is about $192,900 per year.
Feasibility
This alternative makes use of several existing facilities. Beech Hill
and Wilson Mills pumping stations and the Bonnieview storage facility would be
utilized (with upgrades). The new control system and pump capacities would
make this system fully capable of transporting the design flow volumes.
5-26
-------
This alternative does not present any unusual design considerations, with
the exception of the Euclid Creek, pipe bridge (Section 5.2.2). The aerial
crossing is entirely feasible with proper design.
5.3.3 EIS-3
As previously described in Section 5.2.3, EIS-3 is a combination gravity
interceptor sewer and two major pump stations. This alternative is shown in
Figure 5-5.
Cost
The total present worth of EIS-3 was calculated to be $48,983,694 as
summarized in Appendix F. The cost analysis includes all costs for the
extensive control system which was previously described. A summary of the
costs for this alternative are included in Table 5-4.
Local sewer costs of $16,008,346 were included with this alternative.
Some local sewers are needed to remove Scottish Highlands, Richmond Park, and
Hickory Hills package plants and Williamsburg, Franklin, and Richmond Mall
pump stations from service. Capacity will also be available for connection of
the Pleasant Hill and Sleepy Hollow treatment plants.
Contract G capacity will be increased from 60" and 66" to 66" and 78" as
a result of this alternative.
Table 5-4. Alternative EIS-3 Cost Summary
Capital Costs
Transport System $34,221,255
Local Sewers 16,008,346
Total 50,229,601
Annual O&M Costs
Sewer Maintenance 49,600
Power 176,400
Labor 330,700
Misc. 16,500
Total 573,200
Present Worth
Capital 49,411,976
O&M 5,788,345
Salvage 6,216,627
Net 48,983,694
5-27
-------
Implementability
No unique design considerations exist which would affect the
implementability of this alternative. The facilities at Beech Hill will be
upgraded, and will require no new construction. A tunnel will be needed for
the gravity segment which will replace Wilson Mills pump station; however,
this will not present significant implementation problems. In general, the
depths of open-cut excavations are not excessive and should not present any
problems.
Some local sewers will be required before the package plants will be
eliminated. No significant implementation problems exist with the local sewer
segments.
Reliability
As previously discussed under Alternative EIS-2, many control system
options will be designed to provide reliable operation of the pump stations.
Central control systems will allow monitoring and control of all stations from
one remote point. The onsite controls and displays will also allow an oper-
ator to control the station.
Again, automatic controls will shift the control to the individual
station if problems occur with the central system. All stations will remain
operating normally.
Backup generator power and separate power grids will also be provided to
prevent system failures. The automatic switching gear will start the diesel
generator if a complete power failure should occur.
Historically, Wilson Mills has created the majority of problems with the
existing system. EIS-3 removes this station from service with a gravity
sewer, and consequently there is one less pump station to control.
Overall, with all the design considerations mentioned, the reliability of
Alternative EIS-3 is very good.
5-28
-------
Energy Use
Because this alternative also relies on pumping for a portion of the
transport system, the energy requirements will also be high. With the excep-
tion of Alternative EIS-2, EIS-3 will require the largest amount of energy to
operate the system. However, because of eliminating the largest of the
pumping stations (Wilson Mills), the net energy requirement will be less than
for Alternative EIS-2. The estimated annual energy cost for Alternative EIS-3
is $176,400 per year.
Feasibility
The system is designed to transport flow to the Easterly Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The feasibility of this option is comparable to the other
alternatives in that they all are essentially designed to handle a 5-year,
1-hour peak inflow rate.
The Euclid Creek aerial crossing does not present any major feasibility
problems.
5.3.4 EIS-4
This alternative as previously discussed in Section 5.2.4 is a combina-
tion gravity interceptor sewer and one major pump station. This alternative
is shown in Figure 5-7.
Cost
As detailed in Appendix F, the total present worth of EIS-4 was
calculated to be $55,052,081. Because this system contains one major pump
station, the control system previously described in this chapter was also
included. A summary of the costs for this alternative are included in Table
5-5.
5-29
-------
Table 5-5. Alternative EIS-4 Cost Summary
Capital Costs
Transport System $47,319,588
Local Sewers 13,590,490
Total 60,910,078
Annual O&M Costs
Sewer Maintenance 85,400
Power 92,000
Labor 103,400
Misc. 5,500
Total 286,300
Present Worth
Capital 60,172,405
O&M 2,891,143
Salvage 8,011,467
Net 55,052,081
Costs for this alternative include $13,590,490 of local sewer costs.
Scottish Highland's new pumping station and the Richmond Park gravity system
will have direct access to the main interceptor. Local sewer access will be
needed before Hickory Hills, Sleepy Hollow, and Pleasant Hill can be removed
from service.
The capacity of Contract G for this alternative was not increased as a
result of Hilltop flow; however, $8,395,683 were included in the Hilltop costs
for comparison to the other alternatives.
Implementability
Some of the same implementation concerns exist with this alternative as
were discussed in Alternative EIS-1. Several segments require deep excavation
for open cut. Substantial sheeting and shoring may be required, and the
shallow depth to bedrock may present some construction limitations.
The open-cut crossing of Euclid Creek also presents other implementation
problems. The steep walls may present construction problems, and combined
with diverting the stream, construction of this segment may be difficult.
5-30
-------
Reliability
The expanded control system for the remaining pump station will provide
reliable operation. With the exception of several small pump stations, the
rest of the system flows by gravity. This presents little chance for mecha-
nical failure. Breakdown of the remaining small pumping stations may still be
a possibility; however, major transportation will not be inhibited.
Energy Use
With only one major pumping station included with this option, EIS-4 has
a relatively low energy requirement. The estimated energy cost for this
alternative is about $92,000 per year.
Feasibility
As with the other alternatives, this system is also feasible for trans-
porting flow to the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant. Other than the
difficulties outlined in the implementability section, this system presents no
significant design problems.
5.3.5 Comparison of Alternatives
This section summarizes the previous discussion for each alternative and
compares alternatives for each evaluation criteria.
Cost
The costs presented in the previous discussions are summarized in Table
5-6. As shown EIS-2 has the lowest total present worth of $47,818,377. EIS-3
has a total present worth of $48,983,694 which is approximately 2 percent
greater than the EIS-2 value. Alternative EIS-1 has the highest total present
worth of $64,378,915 without Bonnieview and $62,141,116 with Bonnieview.
Respectively, these costs are 35 percent and 30 percent greater than the least
cost alternative (EIS-2). EIS-4 has a total present worth which is about
15 percent greater than the least cost alternative.
Implementabili ty
The alternatives that require open-cut construction across Euclid Creek
(EIS-1 and EIS-4) present some very unique construction problems and would
5-31
-------
probably be more difficult to implement than EIS-2 and EIS-3. These same
alternatives also have several segments that require deep (greater than 20
feet) open-cut construction which may also present implementation problems
because of the sheeting and shoring required and also the excavation problems
of the bedrock.
Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3 present less implementation problems than
EIS-1 and EIS-4; however, the Euclid Creek aerial crossing will be needed.
With proper design of this crossing, few implementation problems should be
encountered.
Reliability
Extensive control systems have been designed into Alternatives EIS-2,
EIS-3, and EIS-4 to provide good reliability for these options. This control
system is designed with the ability to monitor and control the system from one
central location as well as onsite. Separate power grids and backup diesel
generators will be provided to prevent shutdown from power failures. With
these control features, the reliability of these alternatives is very high.
Although Alternative EIS-1 provides main transport by a gravity system,
it does utilize pump stations. Several small pump stations will remain in
service, and new stations will be added at Scottish Highlands and Hickory
Hills.
With proper design considerations, the overall reliability of all the
alternatives is relatively good.
Energy Use
Of the EIS alternatives, EIS-1 had the lowest energy costs at $49,600 per
year. As would be expected, the alternatives that include the use of major
pump stations would have higher energy costs. EIS-4 had an energy cost of
$92,000 per year. The two least cost alternatives from a construction and O&M
perspective, EIS-2 and EIS-3, had energy costs of $192,900 and $176,400
respectively per year.
5-32
-------
•X
*
10
•H
CO
CO
O
O
I
m
cv
rt
H
1
to
M
pa
oo
I
to
H
pa
CM
i
CO
M
W
•H
^
CU
j »r^
1 C
to d
M O
pa ca
4->
•H
cu
';>
CU
•H
1 C
to o
M CO
W 4->
3
0
JS
4-1
•H
£»
in
0
sj-
CM
rH
•>
O
•^o*
\Q
px.
ON
•.
rH
rH
«^-
»,
£
O
CM
,—4
«>
ON
ON
r— I
*.
I
rH
ON
in
o
m
rH
•s
o
fv.
rH
m
0
o
ON
CM
^s.
•CO"
r*
4-J
)-l
0
t*
4—*
c
cu
CO
cu
r-4
&4
rH
rd
4-1
•r-l
a
aj
O
CO
.
CM
m
*N^
CO
»»
00
00
r*"»
•s.
m
CO
rH
m
*t
vO
>^
CO
•X
CM
^
vcT
vO
CM
•>.
rH
^
CM
CO
VO
vO
CM
i-H
CU
O
C
n)
C
cu
e
•H
rd
X
T3 -C
C 4J
rd u
O
C S
O
•H 4-1
1 % rj
n) cu
i-l CO
cu (U
Od VW
O CXi
vO
•*
rH
rH
O
•k
OO
CM
vO
•v
VO
rH
CM
•,
VD
VO
m
CM
•s
r«x
CM
p*-*
*,
m
CM
o
00
m
CM
*«
ON
CM
ON
,c
00
ON
r*
4J
U
0
4-J
C
co
cu
M
a,
cu
bo
CO
oo
o**
•s
CO
^
r**.
CO
•>
00
rH
00
r-*
rH
rH
rH
«^-
rH
•s
CM
tn
rH
ON
CO
1 —
CO
-3-
-X
4_j
^j
o
tx
*->
C
co
to cu
H I-l
Cd Cu
i— 1
a
o
H
r-H
O
£*
o
rH
CU
3
3
• *u
4-1 CU
x-v c! *-1
CO CU O
B CU
4-J CO -I-)
O CO O
nj OJ l-i
i-i co ex
4-> CO
C < ti
o o
U rH 4H
r«
•a -M >-,
CU C 4-1
B CU -H
cd B 0
c c ro
cu o a.
I-l M
CU C T3
o w c
js m
c cu
(d p£J •»
> ••-' CO
rH 4-i
C CO
O -r) O
4-* O
CO
TJ ftf I-l
rd > cu
o >
0^ *-* CU
•H CO
c
CU CO i-H
cu rd n)
U CJ
e> co o
•i-l i-H
e co
o >> ••
M i-H CO
MH (d 4-J
C CO
-* td o
CJ
4-* 4-1
o co cj
rt o
^ U 4-1
4-> O
c to to
O M I-l
O W 4J
e
iw CU O
0 J3 U
4-J
C CU
O C T3
•H -H 3
fr J ^_J
I-l TO O
o cu c
0,73 -H
3
C rH CO
!_l U 4->
CU C CO
4-> -H O
CO CJ
CU 4J
> 0 CU
C CO
cu cu
J3 CO J3
H -H H
•X
cu (d
> MH CU
•H O f-l
w (d
to
M CO 4J
CU O J3
4-> o bo
i-H -H
(d rH CU
fd CZ3
o c cu
(d CU X!
cu e *..
cu
U l-i B
0 cj O
•H >4H
CJ
cu to
4J JC >
O 4-1 O
03 i-H
l-J ^> ^4H
4-1 rH
C C bO
O O C
O -H
** ?*%
r-l ^J (U
0 PL, >
«H &, C
0
CO CO O
•r-J \^'
CO ^3 lj
0 bO O
O -H >4H
CU
I-H as bo
rd c
4J CU -H
O JS N
4-> 4-1 -rt
co
CU I-l
J— I O ^O •
4-> 14H CU W
> -H
CO M O CO
CU tO l-i ts
t3 2 CLrH
3 PH Q. rd
rH rd C
O rd r«
C >>
•H C rH 4-1
••-i co co
CO 3 O
cu -o o CU -H
•H > > M
4-1 O CU CU
rd i-i i-i co
q a, a, 3
i-i a.
cu rd cu r-.
4-1 r^
rH >, 4-- M
rd -o cu
td T3 4-.
14-1 CU C Q.
O ti O rd
rH ^^ c*
w ra cu u
•H J3
CO CO CU
>•> (d •• x!
rH > 4J 4--
rd C
C CJ CU C
rd B -H
4-> bo
in o cu -o
n) co cu
U ti -O
CU 4J CU 3
*J C J3 rH
Q, O 4-> O
rt O C
J5 bO-H
O CU C
CJ -H CU
CU C N U
.C -H -H CU
E-i to co >
•X
5-33
-------
Feasibility
Each system as designed has the feasibility to effectively transport
wastewater to the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant. Since no significant
advantages exist for any of the alternatives in this category, no comparisons
can be made.
5-34
-------
CHAPTER 6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
6.1 PRIMARY IMPACTS
6.1.1 Air Quality/Noise/Odors
6.1.1.1 Air Quality
Construction of any of the proposed alternatives will result in some
temporary degradation of air quality. These impacts are considered short-
term, even though construction is expected to occur during an extended period
(through 1997). A primary impact will be the generation of fugitive dust from
construction activities. Disturbance of land areas associated with the
construction of interceptors, via tunneling or open-cut trenches, and storage
basins will generate fugitive dust. Impacts will be mitigated through
watering, the rapid covering and seeding of disturbed areas, and other
measures as described below and in Section 6.3.1 (OEPA 1985a). In addition,
demolition of the pump stations (under Alternatives EIS-1, EIS-3, and EIS-A)
will generate localized, short-term dust and noise impacts.
Dust should be controlled by wetting down construction sites as neces-
sary. Piles of excavation spoils, potentially blown about by the wind, should
not be allowed to accumulate. Such material should be immediately removed
from the construction site and disposed of at approved sites in accordance
with local regulations. Blasting should be used only when rocky conditions
make it necessary.
Interceptor construction along road right-of-ways will result in exten-
sive, short-term disruption of traffic flow along affected thoroughfares and
residential streets. As a combined result of construction equipment and
traffic congestion, localized pockets of exhaust-related air pollution will
occur, associated with increased levels of oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons,
and carbon monoxide. This impact will be minimized, to the extent possible,
through planned rerouting of traffic. Implementation of any of the proposed
alternatives will not contribute directly to any increase in air emissions
during project operation.
6-1
-------
6.1.1.2 Noise
Noise levels :Ln the area will increase during construction activities.
However, project construction specifications will include provisions for
minimizing these short-term impacts. In accordance with standard practice,
all construction activities will be performed during regular working hours and
all vehicles will he equipped with mufflers (Bonk 1987). In addition, noise
barriers should be used around sites where required by local authorities.
6.1.1.3 Odors
Wet weather sanitary sewer overflows to storm sewers and small streams
have been identified as a severe problem. Dry weather overflows have also
been identified to be a problem in certain portions of the area with severe
capacity problems (OEPA 1985a). Various combinations of pumping station
overflows and small package plant discharges are eliminated under the four
action alternatives (see Chapter 5), which will relieve the nuisance of such
sewage overflows to creeks that, among other detriments to the environment,
contribute to ambient odors. No new discharges to area streams will result
from any of the alternatives.
6.1.2 Soils
As described in Chapter 4, soils in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area
(FPA) are generally characterized as having slow permeability, low strength,
and high corrosivity (USDA 1980). In addition, a perched seasonal high water
table is present in much of the FPA. Construction activities under all four
of the action alternatives will result in erosion and subsequent sedimentation
in area drainageways and streams. Erosion potential will be greatest during
the spring when rainfall is heaviest and the groundwater tables are highest.
Erosion and sedimentation impacts should be mitigated by the following
techniques:
o Permanent erosion control structures, such as rip-rap or rock fill,
should be incorporated into the site design where appropriate.
o The contractor should grade, fertilize, seed, and mulch areas as
called for on the plans or as directed by the engineer.
o The contractor should provide for temporary seeding or sodding as
called for on the plans or as directed by the engineer.
6-2
-------
Well-planned construction phasing takes into consideration the adverse effects
on construction sites in which work will be left partially completed while
construction continues elsewhere. These situations usually result from
attempts to reduce costs of mobilizing earth moving equipment by clearing all
the area at once. Under such circumstances the savings are often obliterated
by increased costs generated by erosion and sedimentation. In this case, such
a policy would result in an increased load of sediments and pollutants washed
into surface waters. A preferred phasing policy would call for completion of
all necessary construction in a section before proceeding to the next section.
This will prove more expensive in short-term costs, but environmentally
advantageous in the long-term.
Soils in the Hilltop FPA are highly acidic and have caused corrosion of
conventional construction sewer materials in existing sewer lines. This has
resulted in the release of pollutants from broken lines and contributes to a
serious problem of high wet weather inflow of groundwater to area sewers.
Corrosion-resistant materials or coatings would aid in protecting against such
occurrences in the future.
The high groundwater table in the FPA also causes a significant frost
heave problem. Frost heave causes major difficulties for surface facilities
such as roadways, but can be addressed during design especially if the sewer
lines are suitably deep.
Potential soil impacts for the four action alternatives are presented in
Tables 6-1 through 6-4. In all cases a detailed sediment and erosion control
plan should be prepared and followed during construction to minimize impacts.
Soil-related impacts of the "no action" alternative will be the most severe.
Under the no-action alternative onsite disposal of wastewater using septic
tanks and leach fields will continue in much of the FPA. Due to slow permea-
bility and wetness, soils in the Hilltop area are severely limited for use
with septic systems, and area systems have a history of problems. Based on a
recent memo from Havens and Emerson to NEORSD, 75 percent of the Lake County
portion of the FPA and over 80 percent of the Cuyahoga County portion of the
FPA use substandard septic tanks (Hudson 1985a). The insufficiently treated
waste often discharges into roadside ditches, storm sewers, and streams
causing a health hazard to nearby residents.
6-3
-------
r-H
I
C/J
n
w
CJ
•H
•U
0}
u
CJ
rt
e
M
CO
rH
•rt
0
t/3
.
""?
vO
CU
r" *
SJ
rt
H
C
o
•H
4->
rt
bO
•H
4-j
•H
as
rH
rt
•rl
4-J
C
4->
O
rH
O
c
o
•rl
4-f
O
3
4->
M
Q
0
S
cu
4-*
M
CO
01
l-l
3
co
rt
cu
S
co
o
rt
e
M
e
•H
O,
'Hi
tj
co
cu
Q
T3
O
rj
4-J
CU
n
o
•H
4-1
O.
•rt
!_j
0
CO
Q
B
O
•rt
4-1
rt
O
0
,_3
"s^
c
0
c
3
l_i
rH
O MH
l-l MH
4-J O
e c
0 3
O M
bO
e
•rt C
l-l 0
3 -rt
0
e 3
0 M
•rt 4J
co w
O C
l-l O
w o
CU 4->
rH Ai -rt
J3 O rH -O
rt O -rt CU
4-1 ^i j£ o rj
'O 4™ * rt *rt cu
i-l 01 bO CU rt >
cu xi c e cu i-i m
4-> 0» M > T3 Ol
bO > O 4-> O< M >>
G rH Ul O rH 4J
rt .G «-H > Li U CO
&bo«>ouoo
•rt -rt Si O i— 1 O O >H
4-J ,C C/} rH CO U CX»+H
•rt
acooooooo
1
1
e
•rH
co
rt
CO
cu
DO
rt
l-l
o
to
4->
^4
o
a*
t-i
•rt
<3
^^
c
o
c
3
l-i
rH
O 4H
l-l MH
4-J O
c e
0 3
0 L,
bO
C
•rt C
Li 0
3 -rt
'O 4-J
O
C 3
O l-i
•rt 4-J
to co
O C
l-i O
w o
bO
rt
•rt
4.J
•rt
X
1
1
e
'co
rt
CO
cu
bo
rt
o
4-f
to
-o
rt
o
fyj
e
0)
u
o
cu
_rj
rt
4->
l-l
CU
4->
rt
jj
i_i
cu
0
^
cu
rt
Q,
cu
cu
co
*x.
c
o
•rt
CO
Q
M
w
cu
rH
rH
•rt
>
e
0
•o
o
,J
rH
CU
C
e
3
H
^^
l-i
rt
4-1
•rt
e
nj
CO
•
cu
^
<
TD
•rt
i-H
O
3
Cd
C CO
O rH
•rH (Tj
0 H
3 1 CU
l-l C 4-"
4-- o rt
CO -rt B
e (o
O O 4-1
O V-t £H
M rt
hO O -M
C O W
•H -H
Xj CU CO
3 CO CU
T3 & M
e
o
•rt CU
4-- Q,
O -rt
i-i
4-1 4-1
to o
e
o e
CJ O
•H
bO co
C 0
•H J-l
r-J .V-)
3 0
_*vj
• u
e o
rjj t4«| ^ ^ ^-*
o ^w cu *o ^
•rt O Q, CU bO
co e si cu e
O 3 0) > CU
T3 l-l rH O CO
JS -rt CU rH l-l
•rt rt O Si O O
r1* ^1 B CO CJ r-H
O O O O O O
1^
CU
cy
to
e
Q
O> -rt
43 0
rt 3
4-> i-J
4-1
i-i co
cu e
4J O
rt o
j^
be
M e
CU -rt
& l-l
0 3
JX)
C
0
•rt
4-J
0) O
bO 3
rt 1-4
a. 4->
cu to
cu c
co o
-v. 0
c
O bO
•rt C
OT -rt
O l-l
U 3
T3
CU
f3
•rt
rt
l-l
4J -O
rH
W rH
CO O
•rt O
rH D,
rH
< 0
^
rH D
CU O
e
c c
3 CU
H a.
o
>>
i-i
rt LI
4-> CU
•rt >
e o>
rt w
to
*rt
rt
o
Ci
o
T>
u
rt
x:
o
cu
rH
.0
rt
4-1
l-l
CU
rrt
CO
f«
bO
•rt
J5
O
CO
rH
rt
l-l
1 CU
c *->
•rt S
co
O 4--
l-l G
LI rt
o to
•rt
cu co
w cu
0 M
cu
a,
•rt
a.
M-l
O
c
o
• ,-1
co
o
l-l
x^
0
4J CU
•rt J«i >
rH O rt
•rt O CU
Q iM •£* .^t
rt T3 4->
01 01 bO 4->
e -Q cu c M
Li > Ol O
cy j> "rH M ^-j
rH O W
o nJ u > T3
rH JG O O O
o o o o o
x^
g
Q
G
3
l-l
r-H
O ^4-1
Ll t4H
4J O
G C
0 3
bO
G
•rt C
Ll O
3 -rt
T3 4J
O
C 3
O Li
•rt 4-J
co co
o c
Ll O
CU 4-1
l—t -rt
E J3 rH
rt rt -rt
O 4-* ^
rH rt
Ll 01
*-> 0) B
•H (Tj (U
G 42 >
CU bO O
•rt -rt i— 1
Ll Si CO
rt
Q O O
4j
3
O
C
CU
a
o
>>
Ll
rt LI
t-i (u
•rt >
G CU
to
•v cu
>. c
G J
3
0 >>
0 4-.
c
rt 3
bo O
o o
rt 01
3 rt
O J
w
o
n 1
M
Q
M-l
pj
bo cu
•rt >
M rt
cu cu
o
^_)
0)
3 CU
T3 >
bO CU
C s:
•rt
*yl 4_i
O to
rt o
U Ll
cu
•rt
w
0
l-l
)-l
o cu
0 >
rt
rH Si
Si 4J
bO to
•rt O
rH Ll
CO ^-l
0 0
6-4
-------
•v
o>
c
•rt
*""
o
o
^""^
fH
1
CO
M
w
o>
•rt
4—1
«J
C
M
u/
4-J
rH
^3
M-)
o
CO
o
rt
o.
6
M
co
rH
•rt
O
to
*
tH
1
^
rt
H
C
O CO
•rt Ol
rt 3
bo co
•rt rt
4-- CU
•rt S
rH
rt co
4J O
C rt
cu a
O M
c
0
•rt
4-1
rH 0.
•rt -rt
O U
to o
CO
V
a
o
•rt
C_> T3
3 0
U 43
4-* 4->
CO CU
a ac
o
0
o
•rt
S 0.
Ol -rt
4-> I-I
M O
CO
Ol
Q
O
4-1
rt
0
^
a
o
0) -rt
_j ii
r^n *^
43 O
rt 3
4J
U CO
cu c
4-> O
rt o
bO
W CH
CV -H
> I-I
O 3
C
o
•rt
4-*
Ol O
SP ?
rt M
a*-1
(V CO
(!) C
CO O
^ CJ
O bO
•rt C
CO -rt
O l-i
l-i 3
W T3
m
rH
•a -o
01 rt
C -M
•rt
rt t-i
l-i 0)
*o ^*
rt rt
bo X >
C rH
rt i-( js
> O bO
•rt O -rt
•rt
as o o
4->
rH 3
Ol O
C
c c
3 Ol
E-i Q.
O
>>
rt M
4-> 0)
•rt >
C 0)
rt to
to
O >
11 J
*-* ^n
o> o
> rH
^fl rH
0^
TJ 0)
•rt -rt
rH *->
0 C
3 0
w as
•^
C
0
c
3
l-i
rH
O 4-1
M 4-1
4J 0
c c
0 3
O M
O
4-1
CU
3 CU
"O >
rt
bo Ol
•rt
O CO
rt o
i-i i-i
O 4-1
4-1
rH O
•rt O
.£> U
rt TJ
Ol O>
B -0 CU
»-l >
O" > -rt
a o co
rH 0
> rH I-I
o rt ti
rH 43 O
CO CO U
000
l^f
co
0
)^
4-1
I-I
o
4-1
c
bo CU
•rt >
co ra
0) Ol
Q 43
Ol
a.
•rt
a.
4-1
O
c
o
•H
CO
o
I-I
(•(
0
o
4-- CU
bo >
C rt
01 Ol
M 43
CO *->
co
> o
O I-I
rH 4-1
O O
CO
rH
rt
•rH
1 CU
c *->
o rt
•rt S
CO
O 4->
n c
u rt
o *-•
CJ OT
•rt
CU CO
CO 01
=3 U.
rt
60
I
rt
bo
•rt
z:
3
O
C
Ol
a.
o
3
O
Ol
(X
o
I-I V)
rH rt >-l
rt *-> 01
0 -rt >
o c cu
.j rt co
to
a,
0
43 TJ
CO C
•rt O
PQ C9
43
C 0
0) -rt
Ol 05
Jj:
•M *^
cu c
eq rt
^
rt
•rt
C
rt
to
*
T3
OS
J^
O>
4-*
C
O
bo
C
O
rH
^
a>
o;
to
o
00
to
CD
(U
o
M
o
CO
6-5
-------
CN
co
M
W
01
•H
4-1
rt
G
Ol
^"^
rH
^
MH
O
CO
4-1
O
rt
S
HH
CO
rH
•H
0
CO
Cv)
1
VO
CU
1 — 1
43
rt
E-i
C
O CO
•H CU
4_j ^
nJ 3
bO CO
•H rt
4J CU
•H 3C
£
rH
rt co
•rt 4-J
4-> U
C rt
CU O,
O M
OH
c
o
•r)
4-1
rH O,
O Ll
CO O
CO
CU
Q
C
o
•H
4_f
CJ -o
3 0
Ll 43
CO CU
G £
O
O
C
o
•H
4_f
s a.
CU -H
•M Ll
M O
CO
CU
Q
C
O
•H
4J
rt
CJ
0
**«^,
G
(}
C
*3
Ll
r-H
0 MH
Ll MH
4.J O
c: c
CJ 3
0 Ll
bO
c:
•H C
Ll O
3 -H
^( 4->
0
C! 3
0 Ll
•rl 4-1
m co
0 C
Ll O
CL| O
>»
01 4-<
rH _S«! -H
,-Q CJ i~H T3
rt o -H cu
4-- M 43 43 C
•o 4J nj -n cu
u cu bo cu rt >
CU 43 C B T3 CU
rt w ^ V^ Q^ *rH «C
bO ^ O ^~* Q* (0 ^">
C rH CO O rH 4J
rt 43 rH > Ll Ll CO
>bOrt>OLlOO
•H -H 43 O i-H O O Ll
4J 43 CO rH CO CJ Q.LM
•H
33OOOOOOO
1
1
C
•H
to
rt
oa
cu
bO
rt
u
o
4-f
co
T3
rt
o
G
01
o>
o
*\
c
o
c
3
rH
O 4H
L) MH
4-- O
C C
0 3
bO
C
•rl C
Ll O
3 -H
'^ -M
0
C 3
O Li
•H 4-J
CO CO
O 13
Li O
W CJ
rt
bo
i
•H
4-1
•H
ac
i
i
c
o
4-J
rt
4-1
co
Q*
B
3
OH
TD
S
"O
rt
o
03 "0
rt
T3 0
C 0H
o
S 01
43 *-'
O -H
•H 43
OH £*
^^
G
O
G
3
rH
O IM
Ll MH
4-J O
e c
0 3
O Ll
bO
c
•H C
Ll O
3 -H
'^ 4J
CJ
C 3
O Li
•H 4-1
CO CO
O C
M O
W CJ
_^
• CJ
B 0
C ^-1 U Ll 43
•rl O Q. 01 bO
CU CO C 43 Ol G
rH O 3 CU > CU
•H cu rt o co 4-<
> T3 Ll rH O CO
C 43 -H CU rH Ll
O bO O,t9 rt Ll >
T3 -H rt O 43 O O
3 43 Li B W O rH
O
•J O O O O O O
1
1
G
O
•H
4«J
rt
co
a
e
•P
-v
& •
TJ
CO 05
rH
rH Ll
•H CU
32 *-*
C
G CU
0 O
CO
rH T3
•H C
C* rt
C
O
CU -H
JO CJ
rt 3 ^
+-1 LI a
4-. O
Ll CO C
Ol C 3
•WO Ll
rt cj
> rH
bO O HH
Ll C Ll MH
01 -H 4-1 O
> Ll C C
O 3 O 3
J T3 U Li
G
O
•H
4^
CU 0 0
bO 3 4->
rt LI
CLt *-> CU
CU CO 3 CU
Ol C T3 >
co o rt
v^ o bO
C CU
rt co
co
T3 rt
0 > 0
*-> rH OH
CO
G
CU O CU
> rH CU
< rH Ll
CU O
TJ CJ
•H -H bO
rH 4-> C
O C O
3 O rH
U £ rt
CO
rH
rt
10 Ll
O 1 CU
Ll C 4J
>4H O rt
•H B
Ll CO
O O 4->
4-1 Ll C
Ll rt
G O *->
bO Oi 0 co
•rl > -r4
co rt cu co
CU Ol CO CU
Q 43 3 Li
CU
CU
•H
a.
M-(
o
c
o
•rl
CO
O
Ll
Ll
O
0
6-6
-------
^"^
*"O
(U
3
C
•H
4-*
C
o
u
"""^
CM
CO
w
>
•H
4-*
(Q
C
M
Q)
4-*
^™J
^3
•4-1
O
t/1
^J
o
oj
a.
E
to
rH
•H
0
co
CM
t
vO
01
.0
n)
H
C
O
M
rt 3
bO to
•H
4_»
•H
£
rH
oj
•H
4V
C
(U
4-1
o
04
rH
•H
O
CO
n
o
•H
U
3
4~t
to
c
o
o
E
01
4-f
M
flj
tu
£
to
4-1
U
n)
Ou
6
M
C
o
•H
4_*
CL
•H
(-1
O
to
Ol
Q
T)
O
A
0)
£
r*
o
4-1
a.
•H
l-l
o
VI
rt
o
o
,_3
"V.
C
o
c
u
rH
O M-l
< i tl |
4J O
c c
O 3
0 U
bO
c
•H C
l-l O
3 -H
T3 4J
a
C 3
O l-l
•H 4-J
to to
o c
l-l O
W 0
TJ
Ol
C (U
•rH r- H
crj XS
i-i n)
"O 4J
>» l-l
rH 0>
Q) 4-J
r^ 4^ (^
4J nj >
l-i l-i
0 01 J5
> -0 bO
M O -H
rH B JS
rH
U O O
4-J
3
<•>
c
o>
a
o
a
a5
£
a>
a
u
o
b-4
• T5
•0 ai
ttj
l-l fH
to o» r-^
rH C CM
r-H -rt
•H £ 0)
•JfH ^1
C 3
C 01 O
O 0) OS
to >
rH 4-> T3
•H 0) C
t* J3 «»
to
o
M-l
J_l
o
m
&
10 <0
a> ai
Q J3
o
4-1
01
3 01
T3 >
n]
bO >
4-J
rH
•H
A (0
(tl 01
a> a,
E 0
J-l rH
O &7
Q.
a
> Ol
o o>
rH 4J
to to
O O
1
C
0
•H
V)
o
u
o
u
01
to
S3
0)
a.
•H
a
14-1
o
c
o
•H
to
l-l
>-l
o
0
Q)
>
0> (15
> 01
H J3
to
0 4J
1-J to
ti O
O V-i
O 14-1
0 O
10
rH
n)
'^
a>
4->
cd
E
4->
3
4->
CO
•H
to
0)
M
01
rH
rH
•H
C
O
"O
!
4-1
3
0
0>
a.
o
c
•^H
nj
Q)
0
o
r I
T) CM
02
to •*->
rH 3
rH O
•H BJ
£
C
a a>
O 01
CO >
rH 4-1
•H 0)
Cs x>
C
o
",,_,
n)
4_f
M
bo
C
•H
O.
E
3
O.
no
c
n)
(0
bO
n)
•H
4-1
•H
£
3
O
C
o>
a.
o
^
M
nt u
4-> 0)
•H >
C 01
n) co
co
.
•o
rH
CQ
O
rH
rH
Ol
U
•H
4_t
C
o
£
(t)
bO
3
>
•H
4-1
•H
£
4->
3
O
C
Ol
a,
o
c
•H
a)
£
Ol
O
l-i
O
u,
TJ
rt
0
"O
o
r^
o
•H
05
o
CO
Os
«.
Os
Os
,-^
^c
Q
CO
ED
».
a>
o
14
3
o
co
6-7
-------
ro
1
to
r-l
w
CO
•rt
rd
C
I-I
CO
4-1
rH
*3j
MH
O
CO
4-J
O
rd
O.
S
M
CO
rH
•rt
O
co
m
vo
CO
rH
fd
H
G
O CO
•rt CO
rd 3
bO CO
•rt (d
4-- CO
•rt SB
S
rH
rd co
•rt 4-J
4J O
C rd
CO Q,
O M
0*
C
O
•rt
4-J
rH Q.
•rt -rt
O 1-4
to o
CO
CO
Q
d
O
•rt
4-J
CJ T3
3 0
co oi
C 33
O
O
C
o
•rt
6 O.
CO -rt
4-f ^4
H O
CO
*
CO
,H
.n
rd
M
CO
4->
rd rd
bo >
l-a
•rt 'rt
*-• .C
•rt
as o
i
i
c
•rt
CO
rd
CO
CO
bO
rd
M
o
4-1
CO
T>
rd
o
OS
c
CO
01
I-I
o
^
4->
0 rH -0
O -rt CO
U JS .0 C
^O •*"* rt *H QJ
CU bO CU ft >
.0 c B co u (d
CO w > TJ CO
> I-i Ol -n J3
O *-• D. CO >,
rH W O rH 4->
rH > U t-l CO
.d O rH O O M
CO rH CO CJ CU<4H
O O O O O O
o
4-J O
c c
o y
o M
bO
•rt C
tj O
3 -H
CJ
O M
•rt 4->
co co
O C
M O
U O
rd
bO
c
o
CO
rH
J3
rd
4-J
t-i
CO
4— •
rd
t,
CO
o
c
o
4-1
o
3
^|
•M
W
o
o
bo
•rt
l^
3
T3
•~»
f*
O
§
^|
rH
O
M
4->
C
o
o
MH
>4H
0
c
3
U
4->
co
O
14
>4H
I-I
O
bO
•rt
CO
CO
Q
CO
>
rd
CO
i
C3
O
co
o
M
U
o
a
CO
CO
CO
rH
•rt
I-I
CO
4— >
(T)
e
•M
c
rd
4-1
CO
•rt
co
CO
M
^s.
rj
O
3
rH
O MH
I-I M-4
*•> O
C C
0 3
o u
4->
CO
o
u
14-1
I-I
o
>4H
g,
•rt
CO
CO
a
CO
>
rd
CO
JS
co
rH
•rt
1-4
1 CO
C *J
o rd
co
O 4J
i-i C
l-i rd
O *-J
o co
•rt
CO CO
CO CO
c
o
CO CJ
bO 3
rd M
a, *->
ro co
co
rd
bo
•H 3
CO CJ
is
H§-
CO
3 CO
co o rd
•v o bo co
C C JS
O bO -rt
uco
CO
a.
o
•rt
CO
I-I
bO
rd
4-J
a.
O-i
TJ
rd
T3
m
o
OS 13
rt
T3 0
C 0^
o
B CO
JS *J
CJ -H
•rt rj
OH C*
>.
I-I
rd u
4-1 CO
•rt t*
d co
rd to
CO
u (d
o > o
4-< rH OS
CQ
d
CO O CO
> rH CO
< rH U
0) rj
TJ CJ
•rt -rt bo
rH 4J C
CJ C O
3 O rH
W SB rd
C
o
u
3
T) 4->
CJ
a 3
o M
•rt 4-"
co w
o c
CO
3 CO
T3 >
rd
bO CO
C JS
•rt
J»J *-•
CJ CO
rd O
WCJOMH
T3
CO
CO
a,
c
o
•rt
CO
o
M
I-I
o
rd *o
ti rd
•O 4-J ,
CO
.Q CO
rd co co
co a, >
B o co rd
CO -i-1 U rH > 0)
4-* nj > ex co
u u a, o 4-1
O CO X! > CO M CO
> T3 bO O CO t-> O
CO O -rt rH 4J O l-l
uoooooo
CJ
C
CO
a.
o
d
•rt
CO
o
o
(d
S
1-1
CO CO
rH d bO
rH -rt a
CO
n
d
d co
o co
co >
-rt CO C
a,
a.
6-8
-------
c
o to
•H 1-1
rt 3
bO OT
c
c
o
o
i
co
W
0)
rt
c
L<
O
(0
(X
B
M
M
O
CO
01
(0
H
n> w
•rt *J
•M O
C (0
M
M O
M
0)
Q
C
O
n)
o
O
bO
n)
bO
§
>
•H
X
n>
bo
c
c
O
(U
a,
o
3
O
a>
a.
o
4-> Q)
•H >
C
•H >
C 0)
n) co
co
a)
o
••-i
-
a> c
J3 3
(U
u
q
o
n)
o
•a
o
u
•H
OJ
o
00
Ox
r-.
CO
CJ
0)
u
M
O
CO
6-9
-------
*"*f
1
to
M
C*4
CU
•H
B
M
CU
4-*
rH
*^
M-4
O
CO
4-*
CJ
rd
a.
B
M
CO
rH
•H
O
C/1
.
1
VO
cu
rH
XI
rd
E-i
B
0
•H
4->
CO
bO
•H
4-1
•H
as
rH
id
•H
4->
B
CU
4_)
o
a<
rH
•H
O
to
fi
o
•H
CJ
3
4-1
CO
fi
0
O
s
cu
4-J
M
CO
CU
IH
3
co
rt
cu
CO
4->
O
rd
o.
£3
H
B
O
•rl
0,
•rl
u
CJ
co
Q
O
4->
CU
B
O
•H
O.
•H
lj
u
CO
Q
O
•rH
4-1
rd
O
O
•s.
K
O
tt
3
1.4
rH
C) 4H
1.4 ^H
B B
0 3
U I-i
bO
B
•H B
U 0
3 -H
T> *-•
O
c: 3
C) IH
•rl 4->
CO CO
0 C
J-i O
Cil CJ
>»
CU 4-1
rH .Jrf -rl
X? 0 rH -O
rd o -H cu
4J IH X! Xi B
TJ 4-> (fl -H CU
W CU bO CU (fl >
cu xi B B cu i-i rd
4-- 0) IH > TJ CU
Rl (fl & IH CU -H x!
bO > O 4J O. CO >,
C! rH CO O rH 4J
rcl X! rH > M IH CO
•rl -H X! O rH O O U
4-' X! to rH CO O D.>*H
•H
xiooooooo
i
i
c:
VI
rcl
tfi
cj,i
bD
(Cl
l-l
C'
4-'
tfl
4-'
r^.1
C'
Cu
I-i
•nl
O
n) u
bo
i-i B
0) -rl
0 3
.-) TJ
B
O
•H
4-1
cu cj
bO 3
rd i-i
a. 4->
cu co
cu B
co o
-x O
B
O bo
•rH B
CO -rl
O l-l
IH 3
U TJ
B
O
•rl
cu co
rH O
•H CU
^
B X
0 bO
T3 -H
3 A
O
J O
rH
OJ
B
3
E-i
U
rd IH
4-1 CU
•H &
B 0)
rd to
to
0)
u co
•H
CU CO
CO CU
3 IH
0)
a
•H
CL
>4H
o
c
o
•H
co
o
IH
I-i
O
a
*^
• CJ
e o
4-1 M U X!
4-1 CU "O 4->
o a. cu bo
B X- 0) B
3 CU > 0)
I-i 4J > -H IH
rd o co 4->
TJ H rH O CO
•H CU rH l-l
O.-O rd i-i >
rd O J3 O O
>-i B CO O rH
o o o o o
cu
3
rd
4-1
IH
cu
4-<
rd
>
^_)
cu
Jj
o
J
cu
bO
rd
a,
cu
cu
co
~x.
B
o
•rl
CO
o
t^j
u
4-1
rH
•H
CO
CO
•H
rH
rH
<
rH
cu
c
c
3
H
l-l
(0
4-1
•H
B
(d
to
TJ
o
os
c
o
"U
l^j
nj
Xi
CJ
G
o
•H
CJ
3
l-l
4->
co
B
o
CJ
bo
•rl
J_J
3
TJ
B
o
•rl
4_J
a
3
l-l
4_J
co
fi
o
0
bO
B
•H
l-l
3
TJ
cu
rH
TJ X-
CU (fl
B *-•
•rl
(fl 1-J
U CU
T3 4J
rd
>, >
rH
IH X!
O -H
D.X;
0 0
4-1
D
CJ
B
CU
a,
o
i-i
0)
Jj
O)
to
co
rH
'M
1 CU
C *J
O rd
•H S
co
O 4-1
US
O 4->
o co
•rl
CU CO
CO CU
3 IH
a>
a.
•rl
CU
*-M
o
B
O
•H
CO
O
^4
u<
o
u
>.
4-1
"rl ^
rH CJ
•rl O
(fl TJ
O) CU
B Xi
l-i
01 >
a o
rH
> rH
rH X!
w to
0 0
CU
>
•H
co
o
l-l
Jj
o
0
o
**^
c
0
B
3
IH
rH
O
^4
4->
B
0
O
XI
4->
bo
B
CU
IH
4-1
CO
^[
o
rH
O
MH
MH
O
B
3
l-i
CU
rt
a>
XI
4->
co
o
u
MH
•
'O
o
o
6-10
-------
/•"N
0)
3
•H
•M
o
o
**-•'
*^r
1
M
W
CU
•rt
4-1
rt
c
l-l
cu
*^
f-H
^3
UH
o
co
4-J
o
rt
0.
B
M
M
i— 1
•rt
O
co
•
*^
i
v£>
CU
rt
H
C
o w
•rt CU
4-J Ll
rt 3
bo co
•rt rt
4-1 01
•rt as
as
rH
rt M
4J O
c rt
0) O,
4-* B
O M
Oi
O
4J
rH Q.
•rt -rt
O l-l
CO O
CO
CU
Q
0
•rt
4-f
O "O
3 O
j^ jj*
w cu
C as
o
o
o
•rt
B 0.
01 -rt
M O
M
Ol
a
c
o
•rt
4-J
rt
^
0
,_J
c
o
CU -rt
J ^j
_Q O
rt 3
4-J
l-l CO
cu C
4-- O
rt o
bo
W C
QJ) *rH
J? W
0 3
C
O
•rt
4-J
CU O
bO 3
rt )-i
CU CO
cu c
CO O
^ U
c
O bO
•rt C
CO -rt
O )H
M 3
rt
bo
c
rt
•rt
•rt
as
4-1
3
O
C
cu
Q.
O
£>
rt u
•rt >
c cu
rt to
tJ
rt
O
oJ
•o
c
o
5
CJ
•rt
co
rH
rt
•rt
l-l
1 CU ^v
c » c
o rt o
•rt B C
CO 3
O 4-1 Ul
l-i C
l-l rt rH
O 4-> O UH
o co fc< u-i
•rt 4-1 O
CU CO C C
CO CU O 3
S3 l-l O U
cu
o.
•rt 0
0. 4-1
U-l 01
O 3 CU
T3 >
C rt
o bo oi
CO -rt
O ^ -t-1
i-i u co
i-i rt o
O M 1-4
O O UH
cu
u >
o rt
u-i oi
-C
bo J-J
•rt CO
CO O
01 M
Q >4H
rt
bo
•rt
4->
•rt
as
c
o
3
1~^
o
J^J
c
o
o
bO
c
•rt
l-l
3
•o
c
o
•rt
w
o
l-l
w
r*j
4-t
l-l
0
UH
MH
0
c
3
l-l
c
o
•rt
4-r
O
3
l-i
4-J
W
c
o
o
-a
cu
c
rt
i-i
•a
&°i
r«-f
CU
4-J
rt
l_(
cu
•o
Jj
o
g,
•rt
w
O)
Q
O
4-f
0>
3
T3
bO
C
•rt
***
O
nj
i-i
^^
01 4-1
JS rH
rt "rt
4-J J3
rt
l-l 01
Oi B
4-< IH
rt oi
> a.
JS >
bo O
01
rt
cu
J3
4-1
CO
o
l-l
UH
CU
rt
Ol
JS
4-1
CO
o
l-l
>4H
CO
cu
a.
0
rH
CO
Q.
01
CU
1
C
0
•rt
CO
o
l-l
l-l
o
o
cu
co
cu
04
•rt
a.
MH
o
c
0
•rt
CO
o
l-l
l-l
o
o
Ol
o* rt
> cu
•rt JS
CO
O 4->
l-l CO
U 0
erials
4-<
§
4-J
rj
rt
CO
•rt
co
CU
CO O -rt rH 4-> O
r-H B JS W W O >4H
rH
W O O O O O O
3
O
CU
IH CO
rH rt l-l
rt 4-j o)
CJ -rt >
O C Ol
i-J rt co
co
Q.
O
JS T>
CO C
•H O
CO 5
C O
QJ -rt
CU (A
O
a
CU
o.
o
c
•rt
rt
cu
CJ
o
PL,
O
CO
O
*o pd rt
i-i co
CO CU
rH C bO
rH -rt C
•rt aS -rt
a: ex
C 5
C Ol
O CU
CO >
3
Q,
-
O) C
CQ rt
CQ
Q
C/5
CU
O
l-l
3
O
CO
6-11
-------
Though current standards for installation of new septic leach fields are
sufficient to prevent the installation of inadequate systems, Hudson (1985a)
estimated that close to two thousand existing homes rely on inadequate septic
systems. In addition, current standards have resulted in some construction
projects being denied permits for installation of septic systems because of
poor soils. The installation of sanitary sewers would greatly relieve the
burden on area soils and water resources presently posed by septic systems.
6.1.3 Surface Water
The Hilltop interceptor project, regardless of which of the four action
alternatives is selected, should result in a net improvement of water quality
in Euclid Creek and the Chagrin River. Each of the collection systems pro-
posed under the four system alternatives will remove three existing waste
discharges from the Euclid Creek drainage area—the Richmond Park, Scottish
Highlands, and Pleasant Hills wastewater treatment plants. Two discharges
will be eliminated from the Chagrin River—the Hickory Hills and Sleepy Hollow
plants. These package treatment plants are reported to have a poor history of
operation and maintenance (USEPA 1984d), and their removal should enhance
existing conditions in the rivers, at least in the vicinity of the discharges.
The four system alternatives involve different alignments of collection
systems and require different combinations of pump stations and holding
basins. If properly operated and maintained, the pump stations should not
impact surface waters.
Adverse water quality impacts resulting from the four alternatives should
be temporary, associated with short-term runoff of sediment and attached
pollutants from construction activities (see Section 6.1.2). The alternatives
all involve crossings of Euclid Creek. These crossings will have the most
severe potential impact on water quality and will be discussed in more detail
below. Some additional impact to surface waters will occur from the overall
construction of sewer lines in the Euclid and Chagrin River drainage areas.
Construction of sewer lines in the road right-of-ways will result in sediment
runoff that will flow into roadside drainageways and into local streams. The
potential adverse impacts resulting from this sewer construction include some
nutrient and other pollutant inputs to the Euclid watershed.
6-12
-------
The proposed alignments of the regional sewers involve numerous potential
crossings of Euclid Creek, its tributaries and Chagrin River tributaries (see
Figures 5-1 through 5-8). There are three major Euclid Creek crossings im-
pacting large, significant stream segments. These are: (1) Euclid Avenue west
of its intersection with Chardon Road (EIS-1 and EIS-4), (2) Monticello
Boulevard east of Green Road (EIS-2 and EIS-3), and (3) Richmond Road near
White and Chardon Roads (EIS-1 and EIS-4). Approximately twelve additional
crossings of small tributary streams are also included in the four alterna-
tives for regional sewer construction. The location of all stream crossings
proposed in the four alternatives are shown in Figure 6-1.
The Euclid Avenue crossing of Euclid Creek (Stream Crossing 1, Figure
6-1) proposed for Alternatives EIS-1 and EIS-4 is planned as an open-cut
trench across the river. It is likely that this open-cut trench will cause
negative impacts on water quality in Euclid Creek during its construction.
The stream is large at this site, and the construction will necessitate tempo-
rary diversion of the river. Impacts will result from cofferdam installation
and removal, trench excavation, laying of the pipe, backfilling, and final
restoration of the stream channel. The pipe crossing can be dewatered and
installation can be performed within cofferdams, thus significantly reducing
sediment inputs and associated turbidity and water quality degradation. The
environmental impacts of open-cut trench construction should be minimal if it
is accomplished quickly and if there are no heavy rains. Installation of
pipes across Euclid Creek should be scheduled during periods of low flow
(during the late summer) to reduce potential sediment resuspension and
associated adverse water quality impacts.
The Monticello Boulevard crossing of Euclid Creek (Stream Crossing 2,
Figure 6-1) is part of Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3. It is planned as a free
standing pipe bridge next to the existing road bridge. Adverse impacts to
water quality could occur if the new structure requires construction in the
waterway (e.g. abutments). However, this will not be decided until the
designs are finalized. These impacts can be minimized by following the same
recommendations stated for the open-trench construction.
6-13
-------
7-; 71^x^1,
/ , v^^ ^r
6-13
-------
Diversion of half of the creek at a time would be the preferred method
for crossing Euclid Creek with a pipe bridge. This would entail building an
embankment completely around the construction and forming a channel for half
of the river width at a time. Both the building of the embankment and the
channelization of the stream would cause some increase in erosion and turbid-
ity in the stream. This would in turn cause some detrimental impacts on down-
stream aquatic life. These impacts should be mitigated by constructing the
embankments and bridge during low flow period, and by constructing downstream
sediment traps as necessary. Care should be taken following construction to
properly remove temporary embankments and sediment traps so as not to cause
further sedimentation, to stabilize and restore stream banks with rip rap, and
tor return the stream bottom to its original condition.
The northernmost Richmond Road crossing (Stream Crossing 3, Figure 6-1)
is proposed in Alternatives EIS-1 and EIS-4. For both alternatives, the pipe
will be laid in a tunnel below the creekbed. If adequately mitigated, this
crossing should have little impact on surface water quality.
For all the alternatives under consideration, interceptor lines will be
laid along Richmond Road between White Road and Wilson Mills Road. This
section of road crosses two small Euclid Creek tributaries. Just north of
Highland Road, near Highland High School, Richmond Road crosses a tributary of
Mayfair Lake (Stream Crossing 4, Figure 6-1). According to Havens and Emerson
(1986), the creek at this site is about 4-feet wide and visibly degraded.
Additional sediment inputs from interceptor construction will certainly con-
tribute to the water quality problems at this site. Richmond Road also
crosses a small creek 1,800 feet north of Wilson Mills Road (Stream Crossing
5, Figure 6-1). Havens and Emerson (1986) describe this creek as "...about 2
1/2 feet wide in this area and...the first reach of the creek that is uncul-
verted. The creek at this point drains the entire Richmond Mall parking area.
The water quality is poor and there are visible sign(s) of oil pollution."
This crossing will be an open cut for all alternatives. Sediment input from
the construction could further degrade the stream.
Interceptor lines will follow Highland Road between Richmond Road and the
Williamsburg pump station for Alternatives EIS-1 and EIS-4. This section will
6-15
-------
be constructed in an open trench. Highland Road makes four minor stream
crossings along this reach. The first Highland Road crossing (Stream Crossing
6, Figure 6-1) is described by Havens and Emerson (1986) as "...located
250 feet east of Headland Drive. This is Franklin Road Creek, which is
heavily polluted with sanitary waste." About 500 feet west of Bishop Road,
Highland Road crosses "...a very small tributary to the Bishop Road Creek. It
is dry most of the year and only receives flow during heavy rainfall or snow-
melt" (Havens and Emerson 1986). This is Stream Crossing 7 in Figure 6-1.
Two additional Bishop Road Creek tributaries are crossed by Highland Road
(Stream Crossings 8 and 9, Figure 6-1). According to Havens and Emerson
(1986), "they are both small tributaries to the Bishop Road Creek and are
culverted under Highland Road. Both creeks appear polluted from undefined
sanitary waste. The creek farthest east receives flow from the Williamsburg
pumping station overflow." Impacts from the interceptor construction at
Stream Crossings 7, 8, and 9 should be minimal since the streams are quite
small. Sediment inputs at Stream Crossing 6 will eventually settle in Mayfair
Lake.
Alternatives EIS-2, EIS-3, and EIS-4 include interceptors along Wilson
Mills Road between SOM Center Road and Bishop Road. This section of road
makes three or four minor stream crossings of headwater tributaries of the
north branch of Euclid Creek (Stream Crossings 10, 11, and 12, Figure 6-1).
Impacts of these crossings on water quality should be minimal.
The portion of SOM Center Road included in the FPA lies in the Chagrin
River drainage area. Interceptor lines along SOM Center Road planned for
Alternative EIS-1 will cross a small creek about 2,500 feet north of Wilson
Mills Road (Stream Crossing 13, Figure 6-1). According to Havens and Emerson
(1986), "the creek is about 3 feet wide in this reach and is considered to
have poor water quality." Lines planned for SOM Center Road under EIS-1 will
cross a second Chagrin River tributary. Havens and Emerson (1986) describe
this crossing as "...Parkview Golf Course Creek located 2,800 feet south of
White Road. The creek is about 3 feet wide, culverted, and moderately
polluted." Impacts from these crossings should be negligible.
6-16
-------
The northern cross-country interceptor line proposed under EIS-1 will
make two stream crossings (Stream Crossings 14 and 15, Figure 6-1). According
to Havens and Emerson (1986), "the Miner Road Creek crossing is located about
250 feet east of 1-271. The creek at this point is about 5 feet wide, has
many shallow pools, and appears relatively clean. The Bishop Road Creek
crossing is directly north of the Cuyahoga County Airport. It is about 4 feet
wide and is relatively clean." Sediment impacts to these streams may have
significant affects on existing biota since the streams are currently
relatively undisturbed.
For all stream crossings, potentially erodible bank-cuts should be
stabilized to prevent erosion. Also, even if the abutments are located out-
side the creek, construction materials (e.g. excavation, backfill, cement) for
any new bridge structures should be kept out of the waterway.
Permits for all or some of the stream crossings may be required from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899) and/or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (PL 95-217).
6.1.4 Floodplains
Floods with an expected 100-year return interval do not presently inun-
date existing wastewater treatment facilities within the FPA (see Figure
4-3b). None of the storage basins or pump stations proposed in the EIS
alternatives occur in the 100-year floodplain.
Minimal and temporary encroachment into the floodplain will occur with
the construction of sewer line stream crossings. These activities will
require varied amounts of excavation and backfilling with the proposed restor-
ation of the streambed and streambanks. Although U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 permits may be required for these activities, no determination can
be made until final engineering plans are prepared. General permits will
cover filling activities that utilize less than 10 cubic yards of fill.
Larger filling projects require individual 404 permits. No serious upstream
flood flow or level impacts are anticipated to result from implementation of
any of the proposed alternatives.
6-17
-------
6.1.5 Aquatic Biota
The existing data reviewed in Chapter 4 on the aquatic biota of Euclid
Creek suggest that the system is already stressed. The creek's low species
diversity and faunal composition characterized by pollution-tolerant species
are typical of poor quality streams. There are no known Federal or State
endangered species in Euclid Creek (Jones 1986).
Sediment introduced to the stream by sewer line construction adjacent to
stream drainageways under all the proposed alternatives (see Section 6.1.3)
will further degrade the available habitat for benthic fauna. Impacts can be
minimized by the implementation of proper mitigative measures during construc-
tion activities. Elince disturbed areas will recolonize after construction has
ceased, overall impacts to aquatic biota for all the alternatives will be
minimal (Jones 1986).
The open-cut stream crossing of Euclid Creek at Euclid Avenue (proposed
for Alternatives EIS-1 and EIS-4) and the numerous minor open-cut crossings of
Euclid Creek tributaries and Chagrin River tributaries (see Section 6.1.3)
will have direct impacts on stream biota. Habitat will be lost and organisms
buried during the excavation and filling of the stream bed. Sediment released
from the construction site will cause increased turbidity in the stream and
will cover bottom habitats, at least temporarily. The benthic community will
recolonize the disturbed areas after construction activities have ceased. The
damage to benthic fauna can be minimized by performing as much work as pos-
sible in the dry part of the year (see Section 6.1.3) to reduce sediment
resuspension. Impacts to fish species should be temporary and minimal since
they are mobile and can leave the impacted area during construction. To
further reduce potential adverse impacts, construction activities in the
waterway should be scheduled to avoid the spawning periods for the fish
species present.
The bridge crossing of Euclid Creek proposed for Monticello Boulevard
east of Green Road (Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3) will have some impact on
aquatic biota. Construction of abutments in the waterway, if required in the
final engineering plans, will impact benthic organisms by destroying available
6-18
-------
habitat. Sediment from the construction activities will also smother sections
of habitat, but sediment runoff can be minimized by employing proper sediment
erosion control measures. Runoff can also be minimized by performing the
construction quickly during dry weather periods.
The tunneled crossing of Euclid Creek at Richmond Road near White and
Chardon Roads (Alternatives EIS-1 and EIS-4) should have no impact on aquatic
biota.
No significant, adverse long-term effects to aquatic biota would be
expected during normal operation of the collection systems proposed for the
Hilltop area. The system should improve water quality, potentially encour-
aging the reintroduction of more pollution-intolerant species. Benthic fauna
may increase in diversity and conditions may be favorable for achieving and
maintaining a trout stock program in Euclid Creek (Hillman 1986). Due to the
high reliability of the pump station design criteria (see Chapter 5), no
impacts to aquatic biota are anticipated from pump station operation.
6.1.6 Terrestrial Biota
Construction activities associated with the various components of the
proposed alternatives (see Chapter 5) could impact wildlife and vegetation.
The placement of sewer lines, construction on and around pumping stations, and
construction of new holding basins will potentially disrupt existing biota, at
least for some period of time. Noise from construction equipment will likely
cause a temporary displacement of most vertebrate species. No adverse impacts
on Federal- and State-listed threatened and endangered species are anticipated
to occur from the proposed work. No significant impacts are expected in
ravine habitat areas. Spoils from tunneling will be disposed of in local
landfills; responsibility will be conveyed to the tunneling contractor.
Detailed impacts of the various proposed construction activities are described
below.
Some of the alternatives proposed for the Hilltop collection system
include new storage basins. The 0.75 MGD Airport storage basin is included in
plans for Alternatives EIS-1 and EIS-4. It will be located north of the
6-19
-------
airport and just south of the intersection of the cross-country pipeline and
the Richmond Road line. The Green Road storage basin will be located on Green
Road near its intersection with Wilson Mills Road. It is included in all of
the EIS alternatives. These storage areas will be underground, but their
initial construction will disrupt some commercial land, probably causing the
temporary loss of some grassy areas.
All proposed conveyance lines for Alternatives EIS-2, EIS-3, and EIS-4
are located parallel or contiguous to existing road right-of-ways. Construc-
tion of these lines should have a minimal impact on terrestrial biota. Some
roadside vegetation may be removed during construction along rural roads and
shoulders.
The proposed northern interceptor for Alternative EIS-1 (the cross-
country line) will be constructed just north of Cuyahoga Airport, crossing one
of the few remaining large, undeveloped areas within the FPA. Alignments
through this area will disrupt a strip approximately 20- to 40-feet wide.
Displacement of most animals in this section would be temporary, coinciding
with the duration of the construction. No known endangered plant species will
be affected by construction; however, terrestrial communities will suffer some
negative impacts. Natural habitat, including grassland, old field, brushland,
and forested wetland and upland, would be affected by construction of this
sewer segment. Generally, construction in these habitat types will not create
serious long-term negative impacts because similar habitat is located nearby
(Havens and Emerson 1986). Construction impacts in areas covered by mature
forest will be locally significant because mature forests are not abundant in
Cuyahoga County and are not quickly or easily replaced (OEPA 1985a). It is
estimated that approximately 1,000 feet of this sewer alignment, between Miner
and Bishop Roads, will cross forest community habitat.
The grassland and brushland communities, which cover substantial portions
of the cross-country easement, should recover quickly from construction
impacts. Grass will be replaced after construction (Havens and Emerson 1986),
and ecological community dynamics should stabilize shortly thereafter. Some
shrubs, grasses, and tree saplings will be permanently displaced from the
brushland. However, due to large brushland areas outside the easement (Havens
6-20
-------
and Emerson 1986) their loss will not be significant. The same applies to
animals inhabiting this habitat type.
The old field community, covering only a small portion of the easement,
will experience minor displacement and loss of some plants and animals.
Sufficient area exists outside of the easement to compensate for this damage
(Havens and Emerson 1986).
The brush forest community comprises the largest area to be impacted by
sewer construction. The majority of trees are red maple saplings (OEPA
1985a); their loss to construction is not considered significant. A small
portion of the brush forest community has been designated as wetland by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Loss of this wetland area is not considered
significant and is discussed in greater detail in Section 6.1.7.
Forest communities occupy scattered portions of the easement between
Miner and Bishop Roads. These areas are dominated by moderate- to large-sized
hardwoods, with beeches dominating (Havens and Emerson 1986). Due to the
relatively mature age of the trees and lack of mature forest habitat in
Cuyahoga County, construction in forested areas will result in the most sig-
nificant terrestrial disturbance caused by the cross-country sewer segment
(OEPA 1985a). Trees will be removed and backfill will be placed to create an
accessible and easily maintained sewer easement. The forest habitat will
likely be converted to a grass and/or low herbaceous cover. Although removal
of mature trees will be avoided if possible and replanting is planned, the
area will not be fully restored to its original condition, causing a marginal
decrease in habitat quality (OEPA 1985a).
The loss of terrestrial habitat under Alternative EIS-1 is not considered
significant on a regional level, since this habitat is not locally unique and
because comparable protected habitat is readily available nearby (e.g. Chagrin
Reservation) (OEPA 1985a).
Construction activities associated with the four proposed action alter-
natives would not destroy any extensive stands of unique native vegetation.
No known endangered plant species will be impacted by construction of the
6-21
-------
cross-country alignment (Biffel 1987). No significant impacts to terrestrial
wildlife are expected.
6.1.7 Wetlands
Minimal impacts to riparian wetlands associated with Euclid Creek are
expected to occur from all proposed stream crossings (see Section 6.1.3). The
Euclid Creek watershed is characterized by steep embankments, so a limited
amount of riparian wetland habitat is available at these sites. The habitat
should reestablish itself once construction activities have ceased and the
disturbed areas are brought back to grade.
Construction of the proposed cross-country interceptor in Alternative
EIS-1 (see Figure 5-1) would result in the loss of all or part of a 1.6-acre
palustrine forested wetland (PF01, see Figure 4-4). This loss would be small,
representing a 2.4 percent reduction of the total 68 acres of palustrine
forested wetland habitat available within the FPA. A permit may be required
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the placement of fill in wetlands
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (PL 95-217). Alternatives
EIS-2, EIS-3, and EIS-4 will not directly impact wetlands, although this same
1.6-acre wetland may be lost to induced development after the proposed project
is implemented (refer to Section 6.2.3).
Construction and improvement of the wastewater collection system will
lead to residential development pressures on wetlands within the FPA (Stumpe
1987). One major parcel available and slated for development is the Highlands
Greens development located within the bounds of White Road, Miner Road, Bishop
Road, and Highland Road (see Figure 4-10). The proposed construction of the
northern, cross-country interceptor for Alternative EIS-1 could service the
development or it could tie into sewer lines on SOM Center and Highland Roads.
6.1.8 Demographics
Total population levels and the locations of households in the FPA are
not expected to change due to construction and operation of any of the four
alternatives. However, demographic effects of providing sewer service in
currently unsewered portions of the FPA will occur; these are discussed in
6-22
-------
Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Although construction will cause temporary delays
for residents as well as other short-term negative impacts such as an increase
in traffic congestion, dust, and noise, these are not expected to change FPA
demographic patterns.
6.1.9 Land Use
Most sewer construction in the four action alternatives is proposed to
occur within rights-of-way of existing roads and will not significantly affect
adjacent land uses. Spoils from construction activities will be disposed of
in local landfills (see 6.2.4). The overland sewer route proposed for
Alternative EIS-1 is located in an undeveloped area and will not significantly
impact existing land uses. However, Saxon Acres, a private picnic area, may
be temporarily affected during construction depending upon the location of the
route at the design stage. Construction of storage basins proposed for
Alternatives EIS-1 and EIS-4 will not significantly affect adjacent land uses,
since these are either industrial or are undeveloped areas that are zoned for
industrial use.
One pumping station proposed for Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3 on Richmond
Road, at its intersection with Chardon Road, is also located on undeveloped
land zoned for industrial use. However, despite the industrial use zoning,
the proposed pump station site is situated between two existing residences.
To minimize impacts on these residences, the design of the pump station should
be aesthetically compatible with residential neighborhood standards. Other
adjacent land uses will not be significantly impacted.
6.1.10 Economics
Construction of sewers proposed under the four action alternatives will
temporarily disrupt access to some local businesses and will therefore
decrease the number of customers these businesses attract. This impact will
only occur during construction activities and should be minimized by using
construction techniques that reduce the amount of time each roadway segment is
under construction. Site-specific impacts on business access are discussed
below.
6-23
-------
Alternative EIS-1
Open-cut construction for Alternative EIS-1 occurs along two roads where
a small number of commercial businesses are located—Highland Road and
Richmond Road (see Figure 4-11). In addition to the above, construction at
the intersection of Highland and Wilson Mills Roads will disrupt traffic flow
into Richmond Mall, the largest concentration of shopping in the FPA.
Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3
Construction of Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3 will affect the same areas
along Richmond Road as Alternative EIS-1. Construction will also affect
access to commercial businesses along Wilson Mills Road, which includes more
commercial areas than Highland Road. This disruption will be most severe at
the intersection of Richmond Road and Wilson Mills Road adjacent to the
Richmond Mall; at the intersection of Wilson Mills Road and SOM Center Road;
and between Eastwood Avenue and 1-271.
Alternative EIS-4
Business access impacts along Richmond and Highland Roads will be the
same as in Alternative EIS-1. Since this alternative follows Wilson Mills
Road instead of Highland Road, the impact will be greater than in EIS-1 due to
the greater number of businesses along Wilson Mills Road. As with Alternative
EIS-1, the lower level of construction around Richmond Mall will result in
less access disruption than with Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3.
6.1.11 Fiscal Standing
Fiscal impact analysis compares direct costs of the proposed project with
the fiscal solvency of the municipality financing the project. In the Hilltop
FPA, four municipalities and one sewer district will finance different aspects
of the project. The previous discussion of economic impacts reviews the
manner in which costs will be distributed.
Municipal costs for local sewers vary for each system alternative. There
is no single alternative that places uniformly lower demands upon municipal
obligations of each of the financing jurisdictions. If only average local
6-24
-------
costs are considered, Alternatives EIS-1 and EIS-4 would be the least expen-
sive, requiring less than $14 million of local funding, and Alternatives EIS-2
and EIS-3 would be the most expensive, requiring nearly $16 million of local
funding. Due to regional sewer alignments only Highland Heights, Mayfield
Village, Richmond Heights, and Willoughby Hills are expected to assume the
responsibility for the municipal debt necessary to fund local sewers. It was
assumed that, although portions of Gates Mills and Mayfield Heights within the
FPA will be included in the service area, they would not be responsible for
financing local sewer improvements.
Local municipalities generally finance capital improvements through one
of three methods. In the first method, general obligation bonds are issued
and the project is financed through general revenues that retire the bond.
This results in the entire incorporated area paying an ad valorum tax for the
required capital expenditure. In the second method, a special taxing district
is established. The revenues from this district would be used to retire a
general obligation bond. This method assesses an appropriate ad valorum tax
upon those individuals in a community who derive a direct benefit from a
capital improvement. Establishment of a special district often requires a
local referendum. In the third financing method, a surcharge is added to an
already metered public service such as a water and sewer bill. This surcharge
is then used to retire general revenue or general obligation bonds. It may
also require the establishment of an enterprise fund and a public referendum.
Local jurisdictions may use each of these funding mechanisms alone or in
various combinations.
USEPA and Ohio EPA use various economic indicators to evaluate the fiscal
health of a community and to determine if a proposed project may put a com-
munity in economic stress. One of these indicators is the average annual
population growth rate. This rate should be greater than 1 percent. For most
of the communities in the Hilltop FPA, the rate is below 1 percent, and in
some cases, the community is projected to lose population. A slow growth rate
is an indicator of decreased economic activity. The financial outlook for
these communities is generally considered to be weak. Highland Heights is the
only community with a growth rate above 1 percent in the Hilltop FPA, a level
categorized as "average." If an increase in housing units instead of popu-
lation was used as an indicator, this rating would shift from "weak" to
"strong" or "average" for most FPA communities.
6-25
-------
Because most of the communities in the Hilltop FPA (1) do not rely on the
property tax for most of their general revenue, (2) have a bonded debt that is
less than 10 percent of annual operating revenues, (3) have large investment
reserves, and (4) use income taxes to finance a significant portion of their
general operations, they have received average to above-average bond ratings
from Moody's Investment Services. This indicates that investment analysts
consider the outlook of these communities strong and stable.
Components of a municipal finance analysis are shown in Table 6-5; it
lists several economic indicators using 1984 operating budget information.
This table shows that Highland Heights has several weak indicators such as a
high expenditure per person, a large bonded debt per capita, and an unusually
high debt limit with no surplus available for new capital expenditures.
Richmond Heights has the lowest bonded debt per capita and expenditure per
capita but has other weak indicators such as low investment reserves and
expenditures that exceeded revenues in fiscal year 1984.
Further analysis of fiscal accountability will be required once the
preferred alternative is chosen, the method of finance is defined, and the
amount of outside funding, including Federal and State grants, is assured.
6.1.12 Recreation
Each of the system alternatives was designed to improve water quality in
area streams through the elimination of overflows and failing septic systems.
Improved water quality should increase the potential for recreation in the
Euclid Creek Reservation and the Chagrin River Reservation.
In order to construct the tunneled portions of each of the alternatives,
staging areas will be needed to store machinery and access the tunnels.
Although the locations and sizes of the staging areas cannot be determined
until the project reaches final design, use of some areas may temporarily
disrupt recreation in the Hilltop FPA. These impacts are discussed below.
Alternatives EIS-1 and EIS-4
The crossing of Euclid Creek at Euclid Avenue (Stream Crossing 1, Figure
6-1) and the use of a staging area between Euclid Creek and Chardon Road will
6-26
-------
CL,
|
§•
S
4-J
O
2
.ia
•H -H
£» ffl
S
V)
a
i m IH
r^ r^
' »H -tf
a
en
8
r^
CM CM
f~- c~- m PO t—i
PI co en co csj
ro co
•8 .
CM i—l O OS
8S U S
in
csj
^~
in
CM
m o o
in
I""*-
in
CM
CM
co
m m
r-
in os
cH
v
3
s
2
ts
1 a 1
^ 3
'is a ^
O CM
en • -
CO Os
S*
r--
CM
a so- §8
oo
CM
§
8
«
VO
CSI
PI >O O
58
CM
p
§
CM
a
a
CM
CQ
o m
8
CS
ft
»
!n
v3
?3
vt
CM
R
d
CM
^J r-4 CO *••*
^ o in in
^ -^ fsJ •
* P: R
m o
r
en
cs
a
oo
in
r--
CM
S3
OS
en
•£/>
s
<— 1
Pi
i *;
•H
CL
8
4J M
-H 1— 1
S S™ 3
M I
4-J
3 8
6-27
-------
eliminate recreational use of this area for the duration of construction
activities. This area is a mowed grassy field with few trees and is currently
used for passive recreation and various field activities. The cross-country
portion of Alternative EIS-1 would also affect the recreational use of (1) an
undeveloped area between Bishop and Miner Roads, and (2) Saxon Acres, a
private picnic area south of White Road in Highland Heights (Figure 4-9). In
addition, a multi-purpose field on Euclid Avenue currently used for soccer,
football, and other activities will be affected.
At Stream Crossing 1, a deep open cut will be required in the west bank
of Euclid Creek. At present, this bank is a nearly vertical wall, more than
20 feet above the stream elevation, composed of native shale. Although the
open cut will be repaired and stabilized following construction, the aesthetic
qualities of this natural feature cannot be restored.
Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3
The Euclid Creek Reservation (Figure 4-9) is used for various activities
including cross-country skiing, hiking, picnicking, biking, and passive recre-
ational uses such as walking and enjoying the natural scenery. Construction
activity involved with the Euclid Creek crossing at Monticello Boulevard
(Stream Crossing 2, Figure 6-1) will affect the use of the area for these
activities. The extent of disruption will be dependent upon the location of
construction activities in relation to the existing bridge, picnic area, and
other activities. Plans are not detailed enough to precisely evaluate this
impact.
The existing Monticello Boulevard bridge, built in 1954, has an arched
design which complements the natural surroundings of the Euclid Creek Reserva-
tion gorge. Under Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3, construction of a free-
standing pipe bridge to carry the sewer line across Euclid River will disrupt
the aesthetics of the area both during and after construction. Appropriate
standards that consider both the design of the existing bridge and the natural
setting should be used in this area to minimize long-term aesthetic impacts.
6-28
-------
6.1.13 Transportation
Each of the four system alternatives involve open-cut trenching and/or
tunneling to construct regional interceptors. Most of the open-cut construc-
tion is proposed to occur in the rights-of-way of existing roads in the FPA.
These construction activities will temporarily affect traffic flow on the
affected highways; these impacts are outlined below. In addition, tunneling
operations will require the use of an unspecified number of staging areas to
access the tunnels and to provide for the storage of construction machinery
and the removal of spoils. At the current level of generalized planning it is
difficult to accurately identify the locations and sizes of staging areas. At
the end of each tunnel segment, although an access shaft and some staging area
will be necessary, the precise location and size of each associated staging
area can vary significantly. In some locations obvious areas of open land or
parking areas will be utilized, in other areas acceptable staging areas are
not readily available and may require temporary use of the roadway above the
tunnel route. Without more detailed designs identifying exact sizes and
locations of staging areas, this evaluation can only highlight area roads
where traffic disruption will be the most serious based on current levels of
use and congestion.
Alternative EIS-1
This alternative involves tunnel construction which may require the use
of staging areas in Chardon Road, Euclid Avenue, and Green Road. In addition,
open-cut construction may affect traffic on Richmond, SOM Center, and Highland
Roads.
Euclid Avenue is a major crosstown artery that connects the eastern
suburbs to downtown Cleveland. The affected portions of Euclid Avenue have
four through lanes and two parking lanes. Traffic along Euclid Avenue is
heavy during most daytime hours and is very congested during rush hours
(Eckner 1987). Although Euclid Avenue would not be completely closed during
tunnel construction, partial lane loss and/or parking loss may occur at tunnel
shaft/staging area locations. Any partial lane loss or parking area loss may
cause severe congestion and traffic delays during rush hour and traffic
disruption during non-rush hours.
6-29
-------
Chardon Road has two through lanes and carries commuter traffic. Since
Chardon Road has less traffic and fewer lights than Euclid Avenue, traffic
congestion on this: route is not as severe as on Euclid Avenue. Tunnel con-
struction along the route of Chardon Road will cause limited traffic delays if
lanes are narrowed or traffic re-routed to accommodate staging areas. Green
Road has two through lanes and carries moderate levels of traffic; some tempo-
rary traffic disruption will occur if staging areas cannot be located outside
the roadbed.
Richmond Road, a major north-south artery carries commuter traffic as
well as commercial/retail traffic associated with Richmond Mall and nearby
business areas (Eckner 1987). Richmond Road has two through lanes north of
Highland Road and four through lanes south of Highland Road. Traffic is heavy
most of the time and congestion occurs at its intersections near the Cuyahoga
County Airport and Richmond Mall (O'Brien 1987a). Open-cut sewer construction
along Richmond Road will severely affect traffic north of Highland Road, where
the limited number of lanes will make rerouting traffic difficult. In addi-
tion, construction of the airport storage basin will affect traffic in and
around the Cuyahoga County Airport.
SOM Center Road is a major two lane north-south artery that serves resi-
dential areas south of Wilson Mills Road. Traffic congestion occurs during
rush hours and delays are encountered from left turning vehicles. Traffic
flow will be interrupted by open-cut sewer construction along this route. Any
restriction to traffic flow will shift traffic to adjacent north-south streets
such as Miner Road or Bishop Road. Construction from Highland Road to Beech
Hill pump station along SOM Center Road, Thornapple Drive, and Oakland Drive
should have only short-term minor effects on residential areas and local
traffic.
Highland Road,, an east-west route, has two lanes and carries commuter
traffic without regular congestion problems. The segment between Richmond
Road past Meadowlane Drive to the Williamsburg pump station will experience
some short-term traffic disruption during sewer construction.
6-30
-------
Alternative EIS-2
This alternative involves tunnel construction which may require the use
of staging areas on Euclid Avenue and Green Road. In addition, open-cut
construction will affect traffic on Richmond and Wilson Mills Roads and
Monticello Boulevard.
Tunnel construction access shaft/staging area locations may affect
traffic on Green Road and at the intersection of Green Road and Euclid Avenue.
Any restriction of traffic flow along Euclid Avenue will have significant
short-term impacts to traffic flow, especially during rush hours. Impacts to
traffic from a potential staging area on Green Road should not be significant.
Open-cut construction along Richmond Road and portions of Wilson Mills
Road involving installation of force mains will have less extensive impacts to
traffic flow than similar operations under Alternative EIS-1, due to the
smaller diameter and shallower installed depth of these sewer lines. Some
traffic delays will occur on Monticello Boulevard between Green and Richmond
Roads. Construction of the Wilson Mills and Beech Hill pump stations and
sewer construction on Wilson Mills Road between Richmond and SOM Center Roads
will cause short-term traffic disruption along these routes.
Alternative EIS-3
Alternative EIS-3 is similar to Alternative EIS-2 except that the Wilson
Mills pump station is eliminated and replaced by a new tunneled gravity sewer
along Wilson Mills Road and Monticello Boulevard. Construction along these
roads will cause minor traffic delays near the tunnel access shafts if these
cannot be located out of the roadbed. Other traffic impacts are the same as
identified above for Alternative EIS-2.
Alternative EIS-4
Implementation of this alternative will result in traffic impacts similar
to those described for Euclid Avenue and Richmond and Chardon Roads under
Alternative EIS-1. Traffic disruptions along Wilson Mills Road would be
similar to those discussed under Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3.
6-31
-------
Mitigation
To minimize traffic hazards, control devices such as blinkers and barrels
should be placed in the construction area during day and night to warn
motorists of restricted lanes. Flagmen should be employed during construction
working hours to minimize traffic congestion and to protect the construction
workers.
The construction should also be phased to minimize land closure. A short
section of the interceptor will be completely constructed at one time before
the next section is begun. Road surfaces should either be repaved or backfill
maintained to permit resumption of normal traffic movement as soon as each
section is completed.
6.1.14 Energy Resources
Energy costs each year during operation of the alternatives will depend
upon the conveyance methods (gravity or pumping) and the extent of use of each
type of conveyance. Energy costs for each of the action alternatives are
estimated below.
Alternative EIS-1
This alternative includes approximately 15 miles of sewer construction,
with roughly 4 miles of that length tunneled and the remainder constructed
using the open-cut method. This alternative is the longest of the alterna-
tives and will, therefore, require the most energy during construction.
Since no major pumping stations are included with this option, Alterna-
tive EIS-1 includes a very low annual energy cost. The small pumping stations
that would still be used (Scottish Highlands, Hickory Hills, Suffolk Country
Estates, Woods, and Thornapple) would not account for major energy consump-
tion. This alternative would have the lowest energy costs of the four action
alternatives, estimated at $49,600 per year.
Alternative EIS-2
This alternative includes approximately 9 miles of sewer construction
and, with the exception of 1,000 feet of tunneling, relies on the open-cut
6-32
-------
method. Construction of this alternative or Alternative EIS-3 will require
the least amount of energy of the four action alternatives. Because this
alternative makes use of three major pumping stations, annual energy costs
will be the highest of the four action alternatives. With a total pumping
capacity of almost 50 MGD, annual energy costs are estimated at $192,900.
Alternative EIS-3
Because the route of this alternative is the same as the route in
Alternative EIS-2, energy consumption during construction will be similar to
that for Alternative EIS-2. This alternative also relies on pumping for a
majority of the wastewater conveyance system and will therefore have higher
energy requirements. This alternative, in comparison to Alternative EIS-2,
eliminates the Wilson Mills pumping station, resulting in somewhat lower
estimated energy costs of $176,400 per year.
Alternative EIS-4
Alternative EIS-4 is approximately 12 miles in length with 4 miles of
that length tunneled. Construction of this alternative will require less
energy than Alternative EIS-1 and more than Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3.
This alternative has lower annual energy costs than Alternatives EIS-2
and EIS-3 as a result of using only one major pumping station. Annual energy
costs for this alternative are estimated at $92,000. This alternative has
higher annual energy requirements than Alternative EIS-1 because of continued
use of the Beech Hill pumping station.
Accurate estimates of energy usage or energy costs during construction
cannot be prepared at the current level of design. However, energy resources
used during construction will be dependent upon the type of construction and
the length of the interceptors.
6.1.15 Cultural Resources
None of the four system alternatives includes construction that will
directly affect known sites of historic or archaeologic significance.
Historic and archaeologic resources in the FPA and nearby areas are shown in
6-33
-------
Figure 4-11. The following discussion identifies construction activities
under each of the alternatives that may affect undiscovered archaeological
sites. As mentioned in Chapter 4 (Affected Environment), there is a higher
probability for disturbing prehistoric site locations during construction in
areas near the Chagrin River and Euclid Creek than in other parts of the FPA.
The high bluffs overlooking these two streams may contain as yet undiscovered
sites relating to a number of prehistoric periods. Included are cultures of
the Paleo-Indian Tradition, the Archaic Development Stage, the Woodland
Period, and the Late Prehistoric Period. The Ohio State Historic Preservation
Officer has been consulted concerning these archaeological considerations as
well as other related cultural resources.
Each of the four system alternatives involves construction of a storage
basin adjacent to Euclid Creek near the intersection of Green Road and
Monticello Boulevard. This construction will have potential impacts to
undiscovered archaeological resources due to the site's location on the bluffs
overlooking Euclid Creek. In addition, Alternatives EIS-1 and EIS-4 involve
construction of two sewer line crossings of Euclid Creek (Stream Crossings 1
and 3, Figure 6-1) that may have potential impacts to undiscovered archeo-
logical resources. Alternatives EIS-2 and EIS-3 involve construction of a
free standing pipe bridge across Euclid Creek at Monticello Boulevard (Stream
Crossing 2, Figure 6-1) that may also have potential impacts to undiscovered
archaeological resources. In each of the above instances, mitigation of
potential impacts should be accomplished through field surveys once designs
are completed and before construction begins.
6.1.16 Public Health
Disease transmission through water use, including consumptive and recre-
ational uses, can represent a serious problem. Inadequate or malfunctioning
private sewage disposal systems in the FPA may present health hazards by
contaminating water resources with elevated concentrations of nitrates and
pathogenic bacteria and viruses.
Under the no-action alternative, inadequate and failing septic systems
will remain in the FPA. Since the smaller streams that drain the FPA are not
6-34
-------
used for drinking water or significant body contact recreation, the potential
health risks of no action will not be significant. Although viruses and
bacteria in discharges from onsite systems can represent a potential health
hazard further downstream, recreational use of Euclid Creek Reservation has
not resulted in documented outbreaks of waterborne diseases. Without epidem-
iological surveys or extensive water quality sampling more accurate forecasts
of public health impacts under the no-action alternative are not possible.
The beneficial public health impacts to Euclid Creek and its tributaries
resulting from the four system alternatives are also difficult to estimate
since there have not been documented cases of disease outbreaks. However, it
is safe to assume that any decrease in bacterial or viral concentrations will
reduce health risks to some extent. Replacement or upgrading of onsite
systems in the FPA would eliminate potential surface water contamination and
would protect against contamination of well water.
6.2 SECONDARY IMPACTS
6.2.1 Demographics
In order to assess the secondary growth impacts of proposed improvements
to wastewater facilities in the Hilltop FPA, it is important to review current
population projections and other economic indicators. This analysis assumes
that growth and development projections were prepared without consideration of
proposed wastewater facility improvements and were prepared using basic demo-
graphic techniques. Population projections for small areas usually consider
the following parameters: current population levels, existing development
patterns, building permit activity, zoning patterns, and vacant developable
land. The following discussion reviews these indicators and assesses the
potential for secondary impacts or induced growth due to proposed wastewater
facilities in the Hilltop FPA.
Secondary impacts occur when the action taken changes projected growth,
accelerates anticipated growth, or redirects the location of residential and
commercial development. Growth can be relocated from one community to another
within a metropolitan housing market when a developer perceives one site to be
more economically viable than another. This generally occurs when there are
6-35
-------
less growth constraints in one area than another or when one community can
provide services another community can not. Municipal activities that
generally affect local growth levels include (1) restrictive or permissive
zoning ordinances; (2) the placement and/or quality of local public schools;
(3) highway construction that provides new or improved access to employment
centers; and (4) provision of centralized water and/or sewer service to an
area not previously served. If a proposed project is in response to projected
growth and addresses the existing pollution abatement needs without redirect-
ing or inducing additional growth, secondary impacts do not occur.
As stated in Chapter 4 (Affected Environment), population levels in the
Hilltop FPA as projected by NOACA are expected to remain roughly constant
throughout the planning period. Although combined population levels in the
communities of Highland Heights and Villoughby Hills are expected to increase
by 4000 individuals in the period between 1988 and 2008, the more established
communities of Gates Mills, Mayfield Village, and Richmond Heights will have a
combined loss of over 6000 individuals. This will bring the 2008 population
in these six Hilltop FPA communities to 48,150 individuals. Sixty-eight
percent of this population will be located in the FPA.
Chapter 4 also explored possible explanations for this low projected
population growth rate. These include an aging population, a decreased family
or household size, reduced vacant available land, and slow economic growth.
Traditionally, the Hilltop FPA has attracted affluent (upper income) families.
The average household size exceeds 2.8 persons per household; this is slightly
higher than the 1980 national and regional average of 2.7 persons per house-
hold. Most of the residential development is located in single family
detached units located on lots greater than one-half acre. Population
projections for the area assume that this large lot development pattern will
continue while the household size decreases. In the early 1980s when most
population projections were prepared, the economic outlook for "rustbelt"
areas such as Cleveland was bleak. More recent trends predict increased
economic activity in the metropolitan area. The impacts of this brighter
economic outlook are discussed later in the land use section (Section 6.2.2).
6-36
-------
Housing activity (i.e., the type and location of new housing units) is
one of the most important parameters used to make population projections.
Table 6-6 lists the number of housing units in the FPA in both 1980 and 1985.
The number of projected units are compared with the actual number of building
permits issued. The number of building permits issued during that 5-year
period falls short of the total number of anticipated units. In the case of
Willoughby Hills, 2913 units were projected and only 78 permits were issued.
There are several reasons for this slower than anticipated building
activity. First, mortgage rates were high during the early 1980s. Second,
the nation experienced a slight recessionary period in 1982. Third, during
this period more stringent controls on permitted septic systems and package
plants were enforced in Cuyahoga County. Of these three factors, controls on
septic systems and treatment plants have placed the greatest constraint on
building permit activity in the FPA. The Cuyahoga County Health Department
has denied over 200 septic system requests during this 5-year period. A
septic permit is required before a building permit is issued to sites located
outside existing sewered areas. Based on interviews, local developers
consider the lack of adequate wastewater treatment facilities to be a serious
constraint to development (Somrak 1987b).
Larger developers are finding alternative methods to overcome this prob-
lem. For example, one large development in Highland Heights has contracted to
send wastewater to the Euclid Creek wastewater treatment plant. In general,
developers of larger subdivisions (20 acres or more) can afford alternative
methods of processing domestic wastes. Smaller subdivisions and single lot
property owners are forced to postpone their plans until adequate service is
available (Paris 1987).
NEORSD is currently conducting an indepth survey of local developers.
Preliminary results indicate confirmation that inadequate sewer service is a
serious constraint to growth and has resulted in demand for housing in the
Hilltop FPA. Continued inability to meet housing needs will result in a
failure to reach already modest population projections.
6-37
-------
o
•H. •-!
,3 o
|-
'2PS3
"S3.
i-> Q
Si-S
I
CO
4-J
I
I
3
o
CM O rH CO CO
in O CNl r-l
Csl CS| CO C^
n
co n cr\
00
O^CS 00^
CsT^-To"
o i—( co r^ csi
in co csi st co
i-J cs
ON r- n in st r-~
co co cr> ro in TH
r< r-» CM \o i-l co
Oj rj -H -
6-38
-------
Local sewers tributary to the NEORSD regional interceptors will be
financed and built by local municipalities and developers. The placement of
these local sewer lines will have significant effects on future growth. These
alignments will permit growth in the areas where currently unavailable sewer
access is made readily available.
6.2.2 Land Use
Table 4-19 lists the acreage of vacant and developed land for each FPA
jurisdiction according to general zoning classifications. All of the juris-
dictions in the Hilltop FPA have available vacant land, mostly zoned residen-
tial. With the exception of Gates Mills, zoning in each of these communities
includes a commercial and/or industrial category. Two major interstate
highways, 1-91 and 1-271, bisect the FPA, while the Cuyahoga County Airport is
located in the northeast portion of the FPA. These facilities give the FPA
rapid access to the entire Cleveland metropolitan area and the midwestern
United States. These zoning and access factors create a strong demand for the
area's vacant commercial and industrial land. Based on interviews, area
developers foresee this land being used for distribution centers and/or office
complexes; however, these land uses are considered intensive and require an
adequate wastewater collection and treatment system.
In addition to its excellent transportation network, the Hilltop FPA is
an attractive area for growth and development for the following reasons: ample
vacant developable land, a general acceptance of commercial and industrial
development by local officials, and the sociological benefits created by its
proximity to the North Chagrin Reservation, a major regional park. Mayfield
Village and Gates Mills are both located adjacent to this reservation. Gates
Mills is considered a prestige community in the Cleveland metropolitan area.
As stated in the earlier demographic analysis, pressure for development
in the FPA is significant. Housing construction levels are not meeting
demand. Similarly, commercial and industrial development is currently con-
strained by inadequate sewers. Industrial and commercial developments gen-
erally cannot change their densities or make other adjustments to locate
adequate sewer service or accommodate inadequate sewer service in the same
6-39
-------
manner as residential development. As illustrated in Table 4-19, most of the
land slated for development in the FPA is in residential categories.
One of the ways in which residential development can respond to inade-
quate sewer service is to decrease the number of dwelling units built on each
acre of land in order to accommodate onsite septic systems. In most cases in
the FPA, this doubles and sometimes triples the land requirements for each
unit. Since the soils in the FPA are not well suited to onsite septic sys-
tems, even many large lots (those over 2 acres) have been denied permits.
Subdivisions designed to accommodate onsite septic systems are highly con-
strained and, where built, display a typical large-lot sprawl pattern. Crea-
tive planning techniques that cluster housing to retain larger open spaces are
more difficult to encourage in areas reliant on onsite septic systems. Clus-
tering housing units is an efficient method of providing services and meeting
housing demands, but generally requires a centralized sewerage system.
Without significant improvements in sewer service, the FPA will not meet
its economic potential. Commercial and industrial development will continue
to be delayed or postponed. The area will not be able to meet rising demand
for more compact, smaller dwelling units responding to the area's smaller
household size. Residential development will continue as large-lot detached
single family units. Needs of the area's older fixed-income residents and
younger families just entering the market for smaller, more affordable housing
will be difficult for developers to meet.
There is proven demand in the FPA for increased multi-family units and
commercial and industrial development. For this reason, the four system
alternatives (EIS-1 through EIS-4) would accommodate the demand in areas with
inadequate sewer service rather than inducing growth from surrounding areas.
6.2.3 Sensitive Environmental Resources
Increased development resulting from the proposed action may subject
sensitive environmental resources to secondary impacts. Secondary impacts may
include increased air pollution, loss of habitat, or decreased water quality.
Projected secondary impacts are discussed in this section.
6-40
-------
6.2.3.1 Atmosphere
The proposed alternatives are not expected to contribute to any further
long-term deterioration of air quality. As described in Section 6.2.1, popu-
lation projections for the FPA show little increase in population levels over
the planning period. Therefore, no air quality-related secondary growth
impacts are expected.
6.2.3.2 Surface Water
Impacts from local sewer development under the four alternatives should
be similar. Temporary inputs of sediment from construction activities will
cause short-term water quality degradation. Proper sediment control measures
should be employed to minimize these impacts. Increased nonpoint source
pollution from urban runoff due to projected growth in the FPA is not expected
to significantly affect surface water quality.
6.2.3.3 Floodplains
Secondary development under any of the alternatives is not expected to
affect the 100-year floodplain areas within the FPA since the terrain is very
steep and is not conducive to development.
6.2.3.4 Wetlands
A total of 36.7 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, 54 percent of the
forested wetlands within the FPA, could be destroyed by secondary induced
development from Alternative EIS-1. One acre of open water wetland (POWZ, see
Figure 4-6) would also be lost to development in this area. This specific
potential secondary impact is common to all of the action alternatives under
consideration. Additional wetlands within the FPA may also be lost to devel-
opment as a result of the improved/extended sewer lines. However, it is
difficult to estimate when or if these wetlands will be disturbed.
6.2.4 Community Facilities
Development resulting from the proposed action might secondarily affect
community facilities in the FPA by increasing demand for schools, waste
disposal, energy, and other municipal services. Projected secondary impacts
on community facilities are discussed in this section.
6-41
-------
6.2.4.1 Schools
The Hilltop FPA is currently served by three school districts: the
Richmond Heights School District, the Mayfield City School District, and the
Willoughby/Eastlake School District. The Mayfield City School District has
the largest service area in the FPA, including Gates Mills, Highland Heights,
Mayfield, and Mayfield Heights (Moore 1987a). The Willoughby/Eastlake School
District includes Willoughby Hills, Willoughby, Eastlake, Willowick, Lakeline,
Timberlake, and a portion of Waite Hill (Stojetz 1987). The Richmond Heights
School District includes just Richmond Heights (Bowdourif 1987). The enroll-
ment of each district is illustrated in Table 6-7. Declining enrollments in
these school districts have forced a number of school closings in the past few
years. Both elementary schools in Willoughby Hills were closed and these
affected students now attend school in nearby Willoughby at Edison Elementary.
The Willoughby/Eastlake School District continues to operate seven elementary
schools, three middle schools, two high schools, and one technical school (see
Table 6-7). The two elementary schools in Willoughby Hills that were closed
will be used to handle any increased demand (Stojetz 1987). Richmond Heights
operates one elementary school and one secondary school. According to Dr.
George Bowdourif (1987), Superintendent of the Richmond Heights School
District, a need for additional capacity is not anticipated. The Mayfield
City School District operates four elementary schools, one school for the
hearing impaired, and one high school. Due to declining enrollments two
elementary schools and one middle school were recently closed. The elementary
schools were subsequently razed. Future planning in the Mayfield City School
District calls for construction of a new elementary school in Highland Heights
and the use of the closed middle school if enrollment begins to increase
(Moore 1987a). Based on population projections (Section 6.1.8), significant
growth is not anticipated. Therefore, secondary impacts on schools will be
minimal.
6.2.4.2 Solid Waste Disposal
Disposal of solid waste is currently handled by independent contractors
who contract with Highland Heights, Mayfield, Mayfield Heights, and Richmond
Heights, and with individual homeowners in Gates Mills and Willoughby Hills.
Businesses and industries also hire independent contractors for refuse dis-
posal. The majority of solid waste is taken to two landfills in Lake County.
6-42
-------
1
Oi
3
|
&
a
'8?
rict/
CO
in
oo
CM
8
Q vg O rn
in en in r-l
sf i-l ro
CM r-(
m in
^3- ro
H M-r1
a> w v^- vo m co
op in co o oo
\r\ -* in csi r-1
r»» in CM -3" CM
CM
Ill
>
cp
co
-K
6-43
-------
One of these landfills, built in 1976, is owned by Lake County and is located
in Painesville. This landfill has approximately 15 years of use available at
present use rates (Neroda 1987). The second landfill, built in 1950, is owned
by Waste Management, Inc., and has approximately 12 years of use remaining at
present use rates (Orange 1987). A third landfill, the Inland Landfill, pri-
vately owned and operated in Cuyahoga County, is also used by private haulers.
This landfill has approximately 12 years of use remaining at present use rates
(Moore 1987b).
Expansion of area solid waste disposal sites or the installation of new
technologies for the disposal of solid waste will be needed in approximately
10 years (Moore 1987b). Managers of each of the landfills previously dis-
cussed are currently investigating additional land to meet this need. It is
likely that any land acquired for future solid waste disposal will be located
in surrounding counties. Also, Cuyahoga and Lake Counties are both re-
searching the use of high technology waste disposal systems. No adverse
effects on solid waste disposal from the proposed action in the Hilltop FPA
are anticipated.
6.2.4.3 Electrical Service
The Cleveland region's electrical service is provided by the Cleveland
Illuminating Company which has a total capability of 4,372 megawatts of power
per day. Usage during 1986 was up 1.2 percent from 1985 (DeChant 1987). This
jump involved an increase of 4 percent in residential use, an increase of 5
percent in commercial use, and a decrease of .5 percent in industrial use.
Although tightened controls on the use of high sulphur coal may require
closing some plants or installing scrubbers, the Cleveland Illuminating
Company expects to meet all future demands (DeChant 1987).
6.2.4.4 Water Service
Most drinking water for the Cleveland region and for the Hilltop FPA is
provided by the Cleveland Department of Public Utilities which pumps approx-
imately 400 million gallons per day (MGD) and has approximately 400,000
accounts. This central water supply comes from Lake Erie and is stored in
6-44
-------
reservoirs (O'Brien 1987b). The Lake County Department of Utilities has begun
serving portions of Lake County including areas in Willoughby Hills. The
department has approximately 28,000 accounts and pumps 11 MGD, yielding a 70
percent storage capability (Pizzi 1987). Both departments expect to meet
future demands (Pizzi 1987, O'Brien 1987b). In addition to centralized water
systems some portions of the Hilltop FPA rely on groundwater (see Chapter 4).
Use of groundwater will decline as centralized service is made available.
6.2.4.5 Public Safety
The communities in the Hilltop FPA area have mutual aid agreements if a
fire or police emergency exists. These agreements increase the reliability
and quality of service in such situations. Communities involved in the mutual
aid agreements and not in the Hilltop Facility Planning Area include
Lyndhurst, Pepper Pike, and Chesterland.
Fire Service
Currently, Mayfield has seven full-time and 16 part-time firemen (see
Table 6-8). A minimum of one additional full-time or part-time fireman is
needed per shift to ensure adequate service (Mohr 1987). Mayfield Heights has
25 full-time firemen and 10 part-time firemen. This level of service is
sufficient for projected area growth, and there are no plans to add additional
personnel in the future (DeJohn 1987). Gates Mills currently has 31 volunteer
firemen. The service currently provided in Gates Mills is sufficient, and
there are no plans to modify the type of fire service or the current level of
manpower. In Highland Heights, Richmond Heights, and Willoughby Hills, the
projected increase in households is significant (see Table 6-6). Currently,
Richmond Heights has 11 full-time and 11 part-time firemen. The city will be
adding three full-time firemen at the end of 1987 (Boyle 1987). Service is
considered adequate, but with any further development, an increase in per-
sonnel would be necessary (Stesancik 1987). The city of Highland Heights
currently has 11 full-time firemen and 14 part-time firemen. Current fire
service is inadequate and with further development an increase in manpower
would be needed (Bencin 1987). The Highland Heights City Council is currently
studying the possible provision of paramedic service. If approved the council
may hire an additional three or four full-time firemen (Bencin 1987).
6-45
-------
8
£
8-
"8
.S
2
U
3
s
PT 1
O
a T> T)
•* ° S S3 P
o
.H
n
u
5 O rH Vg
< .H rH rn
.
O t— 1
r-4
8?
ll
N
4-<
01
a
8R
*TH
1
figure
Hillcrest
nteer fire
liary poli
The
Volun
8
a
b
c
d
-------
Willoughby Hills currently has two full-time firemen and 36 part-time firemen.
While Willoughby Hills recognizes a need for additional manpower, there are no
plans for additional personnel at present (Heckler 1987).
Police Service
The current level of police service in Gates Mills is good, but with an
increase in population the police department would need to hire additional
personnel (Hughes 1987). The department currently has 11 full-time policemen,
and four part-time policemen who are used during special events and for
traffic control (see Table 6-8). The village of Mayfield currently has 14
full-time, six part-time, and four auxiliary policemen. This level of service
is good, but with future industrial development planned, additional personnel
will be needed (Stevens 1987). Mayfield Heights currently has 34 full-time
policemen and 25 auxiliary policemen who are used for special events and for
traffic control. The level of police service in Mayfield Heights is con-
sidered good, but with increased industrial development adjacent to 1-271,
there may be a need for additional manpower (Caprara 1987). Richmond Heights
currently has 19 full-time policemen and 13 auxiliary policemen who are used
for special events and traffic control. The current level of police service
is not considered adequate and an increase in personnel is needed (Dietz
1987). The city plans to add three to four policemen over the next 2 years to
meet this need (Boyle 1987). The city of Highland Heights currently has 18
full-time and three part-time policemen. This level of service is good, but
with the addition of development already under construction and future devel-
opment, additional personnel will be needed (Woodie 1987). Willoughby Hills
currently has 13 full-time and six part-time policemen. According to Police
Chief George Malek (1987), the city does not anticipate a need for additional
personnel.
6.2.4.6 Transportation
Very little data is available to quantitatively determine the extent of
secondary impacts on the FPA's road network. Impact assessments are based on
information gathered through telephone interviews with traffic planners and
engineers at the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA). There
appear to be few secondary impacts from the four action alternatives to the
6-47
-------
FPA road network. As previously discussed, most FPA roads experience normal
traffic movement during nonrush hours, and minimal traffic problems during
rush hours. Two exceptions to this observation are Richmond and SOM Center
Roads.
Richmond Road, north of Highland Road, experiences heavy traffic conges-
tion most of the time, especially at intersections near the Cuyahoga County
Airport and Richmond Mall. SOM Center Road experiences significant traffic
congestion during rush hours; frequent delays are encountered from left-hand
turning vehicles (O'Brien 1987a).
Any growth in the FPA, even the modest levels forecast, will worsen traf-
fic on Richmond and SOM Center Roads. No capital improvements are currently
projected for these routes. No significant impacts are projected for other
FPA roadways due to induced growth.
6-48
-------
CHAPTER 7. SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter identifies the cost-effective system alternative for solving
the present and future wastewater treatment needs of the Hilltop FPA. Includ-
ed in this chapter is a description of the cost-effective system alternative
from the Chapter 5 analysis, including environmental impacts, mitigation
measures, and estimated user costs. Because sufficient facilities planning to
document the need for all aspects of the cost-effective system alternative has
not occurred, and because part of the cost-effective system alternative is
based primarily on ultimate future needs, the EIS recommends a component of
the cost-effective system alternative to solve the identified needs of the
planning area for the 20 year planning period.
The purpose of the proposed improvements to the Hilltop wastewater col-
lection and conveyance system is to solve the current problems in the Hilltop
area. These problems include pump station control problems, excessive I/I,
poorly operating package plants, and septic system problems. In addition,
decisions made during facilities planning for the Easterly Separate Sewer Area
(ESSA) were also considered.
The most serious problem with the existing sewage transport system is the
operation of the Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills complex (BBW). During
periods of extremely wet weather, the Wilson Mills pumping station becomes
overloaded, and signals the Beech Hill pumping station to shut down. Beech
Hill in turn signals a sluice gate to divert flow to the Bonnieview Storage
Tank. Although a majority of the flow is diverted to the storage tank, flow
from the tributary area north of the Beech Hill pumping station is not
diverted. If pumping is not resumed at Beech Hill, the wet well will continue
to fill and eventually overflow to a tributary of the Chagrin River. If
pumping is not resumed at Beech Hill, the Bonnieview facility will eventually
become full and overflow.
These excessive flow volumes that occur during wet weather are a result
of I/I problems in the local collector system. Many of these problems are the
result of common trench construction (see Section 2.3). As discussed in
7-1
-------
Section 1.1.2, the Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) outlined several
sewer rehabilitation and relief sewer projects for the local communities which
will help relieve a portion of the I/I problem. The NEORSD is currently
working with the communities to coordinate these rehabilitation and relief
projects.
Several package plants exist within the Hilltop Facility Planning Area
(FPA) and operate with varying degrees of efficiency as discussed in Section
2.2. These plants discharge poor quality effluent to area waterways and thus
have problems meeting the NPDES permit limitations.
The original facilities planning efforts listed basement flooding as a
problem within the Hilltop area. During the preparation of this EIS, it was
determined that sewer maintenance on portions of the existing collector system
would help relieve this problem. As previously discussed, the SSES outlined
several relief sewer and sewer rehabilitation projects which would increase
the sewer capacity and reduce the incidence of basement flooding in the area.
These projects are all local improvements and are not part of the scope of
this EIS. Operation of the BBW complex is not the cause of basement flooding
in the area. A few homes around the pumping stations do suffer basement
flooding problems, but this is a result of basement floor elevations below the
overflow of the pumping stations' wet wells. Most of these homes have had
plumbing modifications to correct the problem.
Failing septic systems within the Hilltop FPA were noted as another
problem throughout the facilities planning process. Since a complete study of
the problems has never been conducted, the actual extent of failing systems in
the area is relatively unknown. Although a complete study of existing onsite
systems has not been conducted for the Hilltop FPA, facilities planning
identified poor soils in the area, the relative age of the onsite systems, and
the fact that construction projects have been rejected because of no sewer
access as indicators that the existing onsite systems should be eliminated.
Along with these problems, several other factors were involved with
developing a system for the Hilltop area. Since the Hilltop FPA was origi-
nally part of the regional solution for the Easterly Separate Sewer Area
7-2
-------
(ESSA), several regional decisions were made in the planning process which
affect the Hilltop FPA. The USEPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) was
used to route peak flows thoughout the entire ESSA. Based on the SWMM
modeling results (discussed in Section 3.1.3.1), flows from the East and
Central Belvoir Areas (shown in Figure 3-6A) were routed along some of the
same routes as the Hilltop flows. Approximately 202 MGD of flow from the
Central Belvoir area will be routed to the Heights interceptor along Green
Road (Contract G). Flow from the East Belvoir area will be routed to the
Hilltop area along Richmond Road (Anderson Road diversion of Contract H), for
conveyance to the Heights interceptor. This amounts to approximately 59 MGD
of peak flow capacity required for the East Belvoir area in the Hilltop
transport system.
As described in Sections 1.1.2 and 5.2, Contract G (the Green Road
segment of the Heights project) sizing would depend on decisions made for the
Hilltop FPA. The 1984 FNSI for the Heights project included Contract G but
acknowledged that sizing would depend on the alternative selected for serving
the Hilltop FPA. Based on the cost analysis in Appendix G, the cost for
Contract G without any Hilltop flows is $8,395,683. Though the costs for
Contract G were included for comparison in the analysis in Chapter 5, only the
incremental costs of sizing the segment beyond that which is needed for the
Heights flows are directly attributable to the Hilltop project. Thus Table
7-1, which presents the costs for the EIS cost-effective system alternative,
presents different costs than included in Table 5-6.
7.2 COST-EFFECTIVE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE
Considering the current problems and conditions in the Hilltop area, this
EIS evaluated several options that would serve the needs of the area. Several
criteria were evaluated for each EIS alternative, including cost, implemen-
tability, reliability, energy use, feasibility, and environmental factors.
Since sufficient facilities planning to document need for local sewers to
serve the entire FPA has not been conducted, the EIS (Section 7.3) recommends
an approach to solve the documented existing needs. Based on the analysis in
Chapter 5, Alternative EIS-3 (shown in Figure 7-1) was selected as the best
system alternative to serve the entire Hilltop FPA.
7-3
-------
1/1
<
z
LLJ
o;
O
O
7-4
fl
Q
O
•*-
CM
O
-------
Although EIS-3 was not the lowest cost alternative (see Table 5-6), it
was determined that removal of the Wilson Mills pumping station would be
environmentally advantageous to the system. As previously discussed, the
Wilson Mills pumping station has caused many of the problems for the existing
system. Therefore, EIS-3 was selected over the least cost alternative based
on this factor.
The analysis conducted in the Chapter 5 compared alternatives on the
ability to provide service to the entire Hilltop FPA (for transport of flows
to the Easterly WWTP) within the planning period. This was done to maintain
the level of detail used throughout the facilities planning process, and to
compare all alternatives on equal terms. This analysis, however, was a worst
case analysis since it assumed that ultimate growth would occur and that all
septic systems, small pump stations, and package plants needed to be replaced
by the central and local sewer systems. In reality, only portions of the
local sewer system may need to be built to relieve these problems.
The cost-effective system alternative from Chapter 5 would consist of
upgraded facilities at the Beech Hill pumping station (A) and Bonnieview
storage tank, and an expanded Richmond/White pumping station (D) to serve the
northern areas. The Beech Hill pumping station would be sized at 11.6 MGD
based on the flows projected in the SSES, and the Richmond/White pumping
station would be sized at 12.9 MGD based on the connection of the unsewered
areas, several package plants, and ultimate growth. Approximately 8,900 feet
of new 30" pipe would be required for the Beech Hill force main, and about
13,400 feet of new 30" pipe would be required for the Richmond/White force
main.
The Wilson Mills pumping station would be replaced by a new 60" gravity
sewer. Historically, the Wilson Mills pumping station has created problems
for the existing system. The majority of overflows from the existing system
result from capacity problems at the Wilson Mills station, which signals the
Beech Hill pumping station to shut down. By removing this problem source from
the system, the overall reliability would be greatly increased.
7-5
-------
As described in Chapter 5, the new control system for the pump stations
would also improve the reliability of the entire system. Remote monitoring
and control of each pumping station by a central control computer will provide
a continuous report of all system functions. Central control will also
respond to problems in the system with corrective actions. Automatic onsite
controls at each pumping station would also contribute to the reliability of
the system for EIS-3. Manual controls for onsite operators would also be
available at each station.
The major pumping stations would also be designed with sufficient pumping
capacity to handle; the peak flow rate with one pump out of service. Coupled
with separate power grids and onsite backup power generators, the major
pumping stations for EIS-3 are designed for continuous reliable operation.
The Bonnieview facility would be upgraded with comminutors, grit removal,
6-inch water line, and odor control measures.
The cost-effective system alternative in Chapter 5 includes provisions
for eliminating several package plants and small pump stations and all onsite
systems in the Hilltop area with local sewers (Figure 7-2). Under this worst
case scenario, Scottish Highlands and Hickory Hills package plants would be
eliminated by constructing pump stations and force mains to new local gravity
sewers; Richmond Park, Sleepy Hollow, and Pleasant Hills package plants would
be eliminated by gravity sewers tributary to local sewers. While Richmond
Mall, Franklin, Williamsburg, and Picker X-ray pump stations would be
eliminated, several pump stations would remain in use, as shown in Figure 7-1.
Before any of these package plants, pump stations, or onsite systems can be
eliminated, additional facilities planning by NEORSD is necessary to show that
elimination is cost-effective.
The crossing of Euclid Creek along Monticello Boulevard was assumed to be
by a free standing pipe bridge supporting twin 54" sewers. Actually, a single
66" pipe could be used with the existing 30" sewer which is in place under the
bridge if the existing pipe is found to be in good condition. This option
would be less expensive than using twin 54" sewers, however twin 54" sewers
are used in cost estimates as a worst-case assumption.
7-6
-------
l-O
O
I
LO
u:
_j
h-
7-7
-------
The analysis in Chapter 5 included a free standing pipe bridge supporting
twin 54-inch sewers for the crossing of Euclid Creek along Monticello
Boulevard. This is a worst case assumption since it is not known whether the
pipes could be suspended from the existing road bridge as is currently done
with the existing 30" sewer. In actuality, twin 48" sewers could be used with
the existing 30" sewer which is in place under the bridge. The smaller diam-
eter lines would be easier to suspend and would be less expensive than the
twin 54" sewers. If the pipes are suspended from the existing bridge, twin
sewers are needed to balance the load on the bridge. If the free standing
pipe bridge is built however, it would be less expensive to use a single 66"
pipe with the existing 30" pipe instead of the twin 48" sewers.
The projected costs for Alternative EIS-3 are provided in Table 7-1 and
Appendix F.
7.3 RECOMMENDED PLAN
Although EIS-3 is the cost-effective system plan for serving the entire
Hilltop area, a need to serve the entire area (specifically the unsewered
areas) has not been sufficiently demonstrated. This section will describe an
approach to serve the area's identified needs for the 20 year planning period.
The immediate needs for the Hilltop area are to relieve I/I problems in
existing local sewers and overflows caused by excess flow to the existing BBW
complex. This will be done by implementing the recommendations for sewer
construction and rehabilitation outlined in the SSES and constructing
modifications to the existing BBW complex.
As previously discussed, the NEORSD is currently working with the com-
munities to coordinate several rehabilitation and relief sewer projects.
These projects were outlined in the SSES and included as a grant condition for
the Heights project. As they are implemented, they will help relieve the I/I
and basement flooding problems. See Appendix I for several articles from
NEORSD's "Pipeline" newsletter, which describe some ongoing programs for sewer
rehabilitation.
7-8
-------
Table 7-1. EIS-3: Cost-Effective System Alternative Cost Summary
Capital Costs
Transport System $25,825,572
Local Sewers 16,008,346
Total $41,833,918
Annual O&M Costs
Sewer Maintenance $ 49,600
Power 176,400
Labor 330,700
Miscellaneous 16,500
Total $573,200
Present Worth
Capital $41,016,293
O&M 5,788,345
Salvage 5,108,397
Net $41,696,241
Table 7-2. EIS-Recommended Alternative
(A Component of EIS-3) Cost Summary '4
Capital Costs
Transport System $26,131,1133
Annual O&M Costs
Sewer Maintenance
Power
Labor
Miscellaneous
Total
Present Worth
Capital
O&M
Salvage
Net
$ 49,600
176,400
330,700
16,500
$ 573,200
$25,973,070
5,788,345
2,954,361
$28,788,964'
Costs shown in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 for EIS-3 do not include those costs for
Contract G already covered by the Heights FNSI ($8,395,683).
See Appendix G for detailed costs.
All sewers under this alternative are considered to be interceptor sewers.
Costs were revised during additional evaluations performed in response to
comments on the DEIS; these are described in Chapter 8. These evaluations
did not shift the recommended alternative and therefore corrections were not
made throughout this document to reflect the additional evaluations in
Chapter 8.
7-9
-------
Because of the problems created by the Wilson Mills pumping station, it
should be replaced by a gravity sewer (approximate capital cost of $7 million,
see Appendix G) as soon as possible. This would remove the main control
problem of the existing BBW complex. Downstream capacity along Monticello
Boulevard would also need to be increased to handle the full peak flow from a
5-year, 1-hour storm event in the Hilltop area. A 60" gravity sewer is
recommended for this segment. The existing 30" sewer over Euclid Creek at
Monticello Boulevard has sufficient capacity to handle this peak storm event.
Upgrading the Beech Hill pumping station (approximate capital cost of
$494,500, see Appendix G) and installing the control system (approximate
capital cost of $52,000, see Appendix G) could be done during the same time
frame as the Wilson Mills elimination. Along with upgrading the Beech Hill
pumping station, the force main should also be replaced (approximate capital
cost of $2.3 million,, see Appendix G) as soon as possible. This will allow
the Beech Hill pumping station to operate at full design capacity without the
concern of pipe failure. The proposed improvements to Bonnieview, as included
in EIS-3, should also be implemented.
As shown in Figure 7-2, all of the proposed local sewers for the cost-
effective system alternative are tributary to the Richmond/White pump station.
Thus the system sizing of the pump station and force main in EIS-3 was such
that all onsite system flows were included. As discussed previously, this
need has yet to be established.
In order to solve the documented existing needs of the Hilltop area, the
Richmond/White pump station should be upgraded to 1.8 MGD and a 12" force main
to Wilson Mills Road constructed. With this configuration, Scottish Highlands
and Richmond Park package plants could be eliminated (if demonstrated to be
cost-effective by NEORSD) by a gravity sewer from Richmond Park to Richmond/
White (to eliminate Richmond Park) and a force main from Scottish Highlands to
the new gravity sewer, as shown in Figure 7-3. The Richmond/White pump
station would then convey the flows from the eliminated plants and flows from
areas now tributary to the pump station (see Section 2.4.2). Though facili-
ties planning by NEORSD to show the cost-effectiveness of package plant elimi-
nation has yet to occur, the costs for this approach have been included
(Appendix G).
7-10
-------
J—
<
z
Q
y z
U. l_| J
o
u
LU
<
V
o
—
z
z
^J
Q.
Q.
O
(—
— I
_
X
^
CO
LU
U
<
C£
O
t—
LO
Z
O
H
<
h-
-------
Additional study of the onsite systems areas is needed before any local
sewers could be determined to be cost-effective. Innovative options such as
cluster systems, mound systems, and small diameter collection systems would
need to be evaluated in order to identify a cost-effective solution.
Decisions made for handling the unsewered areas, including areas currently
undeveloped, may affect the need for additional capacity at Richmond/White
pumping station. The recommended plan proposes sizing the pump station
structure to accommodate pumping capacity for the future while only recom-
mending pumping equipment capacity for existing needs until planning can be
completed.
Since the extent of needed local sewer coverages is unknown at this time,
an alternative solution (besides that proposed in system alternative EIS-3)
for removing the Hickory Hills package plant from service was also developed.
Flow from the Hickory Hills plant could be pumped to Beech Hill pump station
via an 8" force main. As with the elimination of Scottish Highlands and
Richmond Park, the costs were included for this option (Table 7-2 and Appendix
G) even though facilities planning by NEORSD needs to be done to establish if
this option is cost-effective. It should also be noted that these sewers
which eliminate package plants would be considered interceptor sewers and not
local sewers.
The Sleepy Hollow and Pleasant Hill package plants were not a focus of
any of the previous facilities planning efforts. Modification may be needed
on these plants, and they may eventually be removed from service by the
centralized system; however, this will depend on the extent of the local sewer
coverages and on future facilities planning to establish the cost-
effectiveness of that option.
As previously discussed in this section, the existing sewer under the
Monticello Boulevard Bridge now has capacity to handle the existing flows from
the area. Additional capacity for the aerial crossing will be needed when the
Eastern Belvoir flows; enter the Hilltop system. This is currently planned for
1994. The costs for the segment to convey the Eastern Belvoir flows
($897,803) and for the aerial crossing of Euclid Creek ($948,750) were
included in Table 7-2 and Appendix G. These costs do not pertain directly to
7-12
-------
solving the needs of the Hilltop FPA, but are included since decisions to
route the Belvoir flows through the Hilltop system were made prior to the EIS.
Only the incremental costs for handling Hilltop flows were included in Table
7-2 for Contract G.
The net present worth cost of the ElS-recommended alternative to solve
the identified and existing wastewater treatment needs for the Hilltop FPA is
$28,788,964. The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs included in Table 7-2
are the same as those included in Table 7-1 for the EIS-3 alternative. Though
the alternative to solve existing needs will obviously require somewhat less
O&M, the draft EIS does not refine the O&M figures beyond the system level
analyses.
Section 7.5 provides estimated annual user costs for the proposed
alternative.
7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section summarizes the primary and secondary environmental impacts
of construction and operation of the recommended system alternative and the
recommended alternative to solve existing needs. Chapter 6 provides a
detailed description of the potential impacts of the alternatives. The
primary impacts of the cost-effective system alternative and the recommended
component of the cost-effective system alternative to solve existing needs are
similar for the common components of each project. However, since no local
sewers are proposed for the latter, some of the primary impacts and the degree
of secondary impacts will be less. This is discussed later in the section.
7.4.1 Primary Impacts
Construction of the selected alternative will result in some short-term,
temporary degradation of air quality. A primary impact will be the generation
of fugitive dust from construction activities. Impacts will be mitigated
through watering, the rapid covering and seeding of disturbed areas, and other
measures. In addition, demolition of the Wilson Mills pump station will
generate localized, short-term dust and noise impacts. Noise levels in the
area will increase during construction activities. However, project construc-
tion specifications will include provisions for minimizing these short-term
7-13
-------
impacts. In accordance with standard practice, all construction activities
will be performed during regular working hours and all vehicles will be
equipped with mufflers. The selected alternative will relieve the nuisance of
sewage overflows to creeks, which contribute to ambient odors.
Construction of the selected alternative may result in some erosion and
subsequent sedimentation in area drainageways and streams. Erosion potential
will be greatest during the spring when rainfall is heaviest and the ground-
water tables are highest. Control of erosion and sedimentation should be
achieved by limiting the duration and area of soil disturbance and by using
appropriate measures to control runon and runoff of precipitation from dis-
turbed areas. These measures include temporary diversion of surface water
from open cuts, stockpiling excavated soils under cover, and quickly reestab-
lishing vegetative cover. At a minimum, the Ohio Department of Transportation
requirements for erosion control will be observed.
The cost-effective system alternative would result in a net improvement
of water quality in Euclid Creek and the Chagrin River. The proposed col-
lection system will remove three existing waste discharges from the Euclid
Creek drainage area—the Richmond Park, Scottish Highlands, and Pleasant Hills
wastewater treatment plants. Two discharges will be eliminated from the
Chagrin River drainage area—the Hickory Hills and Sleepy Hollow plants.
These package treatment plants are reported to have a poor history of opera-
tion and maintenance (USEPA 1984d), and their removal would enhance existing
conditions.
Adverse water quality impacts resulting from construction of the selected
alternative should be temporary, associated with short-term runoff of sediment
and attached pollutants from construction activities. The cost-effective
system alternative involves one major and five minor crossings of Euclid
Creek tributaries. The major crossing will have the most severe potential
impact on water quality. Some additional impact to surface waters will occur
from construction of sewer lines in the Euclid and Chagrin River drainage
areas and from the five minor crossings. Construction of sewer lines in the
road right-of-ways will result in sediment runoff that will flow into roadside
drainageways and into local streams. The potential adverse impacts resulting
7-14
-------
from this sewer construction include some nutrient and other pollutant inputs
to the Euclid watershed.
The one major Euclid Creek crossing in the selected alternative is
located at Monticello Boulevard east of Green Road. The Monticello Boulevard
crossing of Euclid Creek is planned as a free standing pipe bridge next to the
existing road bridge. Adverse impacts to water quality could occur if the new
structure requires construction in the waterway (e.g. abutments). However,
this will not be decided until the designs are finalized. These impacts can
be minimized by following proper sediment and erosion control practices
adjacent to the stream bed. If in-channel construction is necessary the site
can be dewatered and installation should be performed within cofferdams, thus
significantly reducing sediment inputs and associated turbidity and water
quality degradation. The environmental impacts of in-channel construction
should be minimal if it is accomplished quickly and if there are no heavy
rains. Construction should be scheduled during periods of low flow (during
the late summer) to reduce potential sediment resuspension and associated
adverse water quality impacts.
Under the selected alternative, interceptor lines will be laid along
Richmond Road between White Road and Wilson Mills Road. This section of road
crosses two small Euclid Creek tributaries. Sediment input from construction
could further degrade these streams. The selected alternative also includes
an interceptor along Wilson Mills Road between SOU Center Road and Bishop
Road, yielding three minor stream crossings of headwater tributaries of Euclid
Creek. Impacts of these crossings on water quality should be minimal.
For all stream crossings, potentially erodible bank-cuts should be
stabilized to prevent erosion. Also, even if the abutments are located
outside the creek, construction materials (e.g. excavation, backfill, cement)
for any new bridge structures should be kept out of the waterway. Permits for
all or some of the stream crossings may be required from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers pursuant to Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899) and/or
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (PL 95-217).
7-15
-------
Floods with an expected 100-year return interval do not presently
inundate existing wastewater treatment facilities within the FPA. None of the
facilities proposed in the selected alternative is located in the 100-year
floodplain. Minimal and temporary encroachment into the floodplain will occur
with the construction of sewer line stream crossings. Abutments for the
proposed aerial crossing will not impact the floodplain of Euclid Creek.
Data on the aquatic biota of Euclid Creek suggest that the system is
already stressed. The creek's low species diversity and faunal composition
characterized by pollution-tolerant species are typical of poor quality
streams. There are no known Federal or State endangered species in Euclid
Creek. Sediment introduced to the stream by sewer line construction adjacent
to stream drainageways under the selected alternative will further degrade
available habitat for benthic fauna. Impacts can be minimized by the imple-
mentation of proper mitigative measures during construction activities. Since
disturbed areas will recolonize after construction has ceased, overall impacts
to aquatic biota for all the alternatives will be minimal.
The five minor open-cut crossings of Euclid Creek tributaries will have
minor impacts on stream biota. Habitat will be lost and organisms buried
during excavation and filling of the stream bed. Sediment released from
construction will cause increased turbidity and will temporarily cover bottom
habitat. The benthic community will recolonize the disturbed areas after
construction activities have ceased. The damage to benthic fauna can be
minimized by performing as much work as possible in the dry part of the year
to reduce sediment resuspension. Impacts to fish species should be temporary
and minimal since they are mobile and can leave the impacted area during
construction. To further reduce potential adverse impacts, construction
activities in the waterway should be scheduled to avoid spawning periods for
the fish species present.
The crossing of Euclid Creek proposed for Monticello Avenue east of Green
Road will have some impact on aquatic biota. Construction of abutments in the
waterway, if required in the final engineering plans, will impact benthic
organisms by destroying available habitat. Sediment from the construction
activities will also smother sections of habitat, but sediment runoff can be
7-16
-------
minimized by employing proper sediment erosion control measures. Runoff can
also be minimized by performing the construction quickly during dry weather
periods.
No significant, adverse long-term effects to aquatic biota would be
expected during normal operation of the collection systems proposed for the
Hilltop area. The system should improve water quality, potentially encour-
aging the reintroduction of more pollution-intolerant species.
Construction activities associated with the selected alternative could
impact wildlife and vegetation. The placement of sewer lines, construction on
and around pumping stations, and construction of new holding basins will
disrupt existing biota. No adverse impact on Federal- and State-listed
threatened and endangered species are anticipated to occur from the proposed
work. All proposed conveyance lines are located parallel or contiguous to
existing road rights-of-way. Construction of these lines should have a mini-
mal impact on terrestrial biota. Since construction activities associated
with the selected alternative will not destroy any extensive stands of unique
native vegetation, no significant impacts to terrestrial wildlife are
expected.
Minimal impacts to riparian wetlands associated with Euclid Creek are
expected to occur from proposed stream crossings. The Euclid Creek watershed
is characterized by steep embankments; a limited amount of riparian wetland
habitat is available at the Monticello Avenue crossing and the five minor
tributaries crossed by sewer routes.
Construction and operation of the selected alternative will not lead to
or cause any relocation of residences. Most sewer construction of the
selected alternative is proposed to occur within rights-of-way of existing
roads and will not significantly affect adjacent land uses.
Construction of sewers proposed under the selected alternative will
temporarily disrupt access to some local businesses and will therefore
decrease the number of customers these businesses attract. This impact will
only occur during construction activities and should be minimized by using
7-17
-------
construction techniques that reduce the amount of time each roadway segment is
under construction.
The Euclid Creek Reservation is used for various activities including
cross-country skiing, hiking, picnicking, biking, and passive recreational
uses such as walking and enjoying the natural scenery. Construction activity
involved with the Euclid Creek crossing at Monticello Boulevard will tempor-
arily affect the use of the area for these activities. The extent of disrup-
tion will be dependent upon the location of construction activities in rela-
tion to the existing bridge, picnic area, and other activities. Improved
water quality should increase the potential for recreation in the Euclid Creek
Reservation and the Chagrin River Reservation.
The existing Monticello Boulevard bridge, built in 1954, has an arched
design which complements the natural surroundings of the Euclid Creek
Reservation gorge. Construction of a free standing pipe bridge to carry the
sewer line across Euclid River may slightly modify the aesthetics of the area.
Appropriate standards that consider both the design of the existing bridge and
the natural setting should be used in this area to minimize long-term aesthe-
tic impacts.
The selected alternative involves open-cut trenching and tunneling to
construct regional interceptors. Most of the open-cut construction is pro-
posed to occur in the rights-of-way of existing roads. Tunnel construction
may require the use of staging areas on Euclid Avenue, Green Road, and Wilson
Mills Road. In addition, open cut construction will affect traffic on
Richmond and Wilson Mills Roads and Monticello Boulevard. Any restriction of
traffic flow along Euclid Avenue will have significant short-term impacts to
traffic flow, especially during rush hours. Impacts to traffic from potential
staging areas on Green and Wilson Mills Roads and Monticello Boulevard should
not be significant. Open-cut construction along Richmond Road and portions of
Wilson Mills Road involving installation of force mains will have minimal
impact on traffic flow, due to the small diameter and shallow installed depth
of these pressure sewer lines. Some traffic delays will occur on Monticello
Boulevard between Green and Richmond Roads. Construction of the Beech Hill
Pump Station and sewer construction on Wilson Mills Road between Richmond and
SOM Center Roads will cause short-term traffic disruption along these routes.
7-18
-------
None of the construction for the selected alternative will directly
affect known sites of historic or archaeologic significance.
7.4.2 Secondary Impacts
Secondary growth impacts occur when the action taken changes projected
growth (or rate of growth) or redirects the location of residential and com-
mercial development. Population levels in the Hilltop FPA as prepared by
NOACA are expected to remain roughly constant throughout the planning period.
There are several possible explanations for this low projected population
growth rate. These include an aging population, a decreased family or house-
hold size, and slow economic growth. Traditionally, the Hilltop FPA has
attracted affluent (upper income) families. Population projections for the
area assume that an existing large lot development pattern will continue while
household sizes decrease.
Housing activity (i.e., the type and location of new housing units) is
one of the most important parameters used to make population projections. The
number of building permits issued during the 5-year period from 1980 to 1985
falls short of the total number of projected units, due in part to more
stringent controls for permitting septic systems enforced in Cuyahoga County,
since the passage of an Ohio statute in 1978 that set minimum lot sizes for
septic systems. The Cuyahoga County Health Department has denied over 200
septic system requests during this 5-year period.
While larger developers can find alternative methods to overcome the soil
limitation problem, absence of sewer service remains a constraint to growth in
i
the Hilltop FPA. Local sewers tributary to the NEORSD regional interceptors
would be financed and built by local municipalities. The placement of these
local sewer lines would have significant effects on future growth. Various
alignments would permit growth in the areas that presently have no central
sewer system and where soil and site conditions inhibit use of septic fields.
The Hilltop FPA is an attractive area for residential growth for the
following reasons: an excellent transportation network, ample vacant devel-
opable land, a general acceptance of development by local officials, and the
7-19
-------
sociological benefits created by its proximity to the North Chagrin
Reservation, a major regional park. All of the jurisdictions in the Hilltop
FPA have available vacant land, mostly zoned residential. With the exception
of Gates Mills, zoning in each of these communities also includes a commercial
and/or industrial category. Zoning and access factors create a strong demand
for the area's vacant commercial and industrial land. In summary, there is a
demand in the FPA for increased single and multi-family units as well as com-
mercial and industrial development.
Growth levels with the cost-effective system alternative are not expected
to contribute to any long-term deterioration of air quality. Temporary inputs
of sediment from construction of new developments will cause short-term water
quality degradation. Proper sediment control ordinances could be adopted to
aid in minimizing these impacts. However, increased nonpoint source pollution
from urban runoff due to projected growth in the FPA is not expected to signi-
ficantly affect surface water quality. Secondary development under any of the
alternatives is not expected to affect the 100-year floodplain areas within
the FPA, since the terrain is very steep and is not conducive to development
adjacent to the waterways. A total of 36.7 acres of palustrine forested wet-
lands, 54 percent of the forested wetlands within the FPA, could be destroyed
by forecast levels of development. One acre of open water wetland could also
be lost to development in the FPA.
Development resulting from the cost-effective system alternative might
affect community facilities in the FPA by increasing demand for schools, waste
disposal, energy, and other municipal services. Projected secondary impacts
on most community facilities will not be significant. Increased need for
police and fire services will represent the greatest demand on local juris-
dictions for improved services. Additional households will also increase
traffic pressure somewhat on local roadways such as Richmond and SOM Center
Roads.
In the recommended plan to solve existing need (Figure 7-3) most of the
proposed local sewer lines shown in Figure 5-6 and associated with Alternative
EIS-3 are not retained because the need to serve much of the unsewered portion
of the Hilltop FPA has not been demonstrated. The local sewer lines retained
7-20
-------
in the recommended plan (now termed interceptors) are principally for the
purpose of eliminating package plants (subject to demonstration by NEORSD that
eliminating them in lieu of plant upgrade is cost-effective). This recom-
mended interceptor system does not significantly extend central sewer service
beyond currently served areas and, as such, will not induce growth to the
Hilltop FPA. Portions of the Hilltop FPA with the highest growth potential
such as the airport vicinity are sufficiently close to existing regional
sewers to enable developers in these areas to provide connections with private
financing. Most of the larger, centrally located parcels of vacant land in
the FPA (those in Highland Heights) are large enough that the cost of pro-
viding connections or adding reserve capacity to regional sewers could be
absorbed in the cost of site development. Finally, most of the smaller infill
parcels in the FPA are located in substantially sewered areas such as Mayfield
Heights. Many of the sewers in these areas are currently being rehabilitated
or replaced. For these reasons, the growth inducement potential of the
recommended plan to solve existing needs is considered low.
7.5 ESTIMATED USER COSTS
This discussion identifies the estimated annual user costs to residents
of the six jurisdictions in the Hilltop FPA for the recommended system
alternative and associated local sewers. To understand how the costs shown in
Tables 7-1 and 7-2 will translate into annual user costs, it is first neces-
sary to understand how the NEORSD apportions costs. NEORSD is divided into
two subdistricts: Sewer District 1 (SDI) which includes most of the City of
Cleveland and Sewer District 2 (SD2) which includes a large portion of
Cuyahoga County. Each district pays a standard operation and maintenance fee.
Capital improvements are paid for by the affected district. Since most of the
physical plant requirements are already in place for SDI its debt service
costs are about half of those paid by the customers of SD2. For this reason
SD2 pays the bulk of the system's expansion costs. In most instances, the
entire SD2 service area (comprised of over 250,000 customers) pays for
required NEORSD capital improvements, which include upgrades at the Easterly
WWTP, construction of the Southwest interceptor, the Hilltop and Heights
projects, and so on. This practice of spreading the cost of sewer projects
throughout the region helps NEORSD keep sewer rates affordable. The user
costs presented in Table 7-3 assume an annual service charge of $181 for
customers in Sewer District 2.
7-21
-------
Table 7-3. Estimated Annual User Costs for the EIS
Fecocimended Plan Plus Current Sewer Rates
All Corn-
muni ties in
NEORSD
Gates Highland Mayfield Mayfield Richmond Willoughby Sewer
Mills Heights Heights Village Heights Hills District 2
Median Household Income (MHI) $54,913 $37,474 $47,328 $25,343 $31,2% $30,946 $25,752
"Most Costly" Approach: $ 227 $ 1,432 $ 227 $ 519 $ 510 $ 1,224 $ 227
includes EIS-3 with
no Federal $ and
full local sewers
Percent of MHI 0.41 3.82 0.48 2.05 1.63 3.95 0.88
"Laast Costly" Approach: $ 207 $ 207 $ 207 $ 207 $ 207 $ 207 $ 207
component of EIS-3
recomnended to solve
existing needs
Percent of MHI 0.38 0.55 0.44 0.82 0.66 0.67 0.80
7-22
-------
Local severs, however, will be built entirely by the local jurisdictions
in the Hilltop FPA that will be benefitted by their construction. Because
these jurisdictions have a much smaller number of residents to bear these
sewer costs, the local sewer component of estimated annual user costs can have
a very significant effect on the affordability of the project to Hilltop FPA
residents. These components will be paid by users directly to the local
jurisdictions, not the NEORSD.
Annual user costs were estimated for two approaches to implementing the
selected system alternative, Alternative EIS-3:
o A "most costly" approach detailed in Table 7-1 which assumes the
NEORSD will build Alternative EIS-3 (Figure 7-1) without Federal
grants, and the local jurisdictions will construct the full set of
local sewers shown in Figure 7-2
o A "least costly" approach detailed in Table 7-2 which assumes the
NEORSD will build the recommended component of EIS-3 as described in
Section 7.3 with 55 percent Federal grants.
Actual costs will probably fall somewhere between these two approaches.
Estimated annual user costs for the most costly and least costly approaches to
implementing the selected system alternative are shown in Table 7-3. Addi-
tional details of user cost development are included in Appendix H.
The significant variation shown in Table 7-3 between annual user cost
estimates for the most and least costly approaches occurs because the costs of
new local sewers cannot be distributed among a large rate base the way the
NEORSD does with regional facility costs. Because this variation is so great,
it is important to keep in mind the preliminary nature of plans for local
sewers and factors which may reduce the extent and cost of local sewers
actually built in the future. It was these factors that led to the recom-
mendation in Section 7.3 for a sewer plan which meets immediate, proven needs
and minimizes local costs. For example, local sewers shown in Figure 5-6
represent a "worst case" evaluation and it may not be necessary to convey
wastewater from all of the Hilltop FPA to the NEORSD regional sewers. Also,
some needed sewers may be built by larger developers. In addition, some parts
of the Hilltop FPA may elect to continue relying on septic tank leach fields
or utilize a septic tank management system if further evaluation shows that
7-23
-------
this is feasible and desirable. Most of the funding decisions which could
affect the cost of facilities to local residents have not been made; Federal
grants for 55 percent of the cost of regional facilities may or may not be
available. Depending on the date of construction, loans from an expanded
State revolving fund may be available.
7.6 CONCLUSIONS
This EIS evaluated four system alternatives to solve the wastewater
treatment problems of the Hilltop Facility Planning Area in a cost-effective,
environmentally sound manner. These alternatives are consistent with the
level of detail in the Facilities Plan and employ the assumptions used during
the facilities planning process. Therefore, the analysis of EIS system
alternatives assumed ultimate growth, the elimination of all package plants
and several pump stcitions, and the sewering of all areas previously served by
onsite systems. Based on these assumptions, EIS-3 was selected as the cost-
-effective system alternative for the Hilltop area.
During the EIS process it became apparent that the facilities planning
documentation necessary to establish the need for EIS-3 has not been produced,
as noted in Section 7.3.
Based on the existing documentation, the EIS recommends a component of
the EIS-3 alternative to solve the existing needs of the area. This alter-
native provides for conveyance of the existing Hilltop flows to the Easterly
WWTP. The EIS also encourages the local communities to continue working with
NEORSD to develop and implement relief sewer construction and rehabilitation
programs, as recommended by the SSES and required by a grant condition, to
help control infiltration and inflow problems in the sewers tributary to the
regional system and to allow for elimination of basement flooding problems and
maximum conveyance of wastewater.
The cost-effective component of EIS-3 which this EIS endorses is illus-
trated in Figure 7-3. This alternative addresses all documented needs for the
service area at a present worth cost of $28,788,964 and has flexibility to be
compatible with future growth and additional documented pollution abatement
options. Furthermore, the ElS-recommended alternative can proceed as soon as
resources are available to correct existing problems.
7-24
-------
8.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
In June, 1987 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published the
Cleveland Hilltop Planning Area, Ohio Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). Copies of the Hilltop DEIS were circulated to a large number of
federal, state and local agencies and organizations as well as numerous
private citizens who had expressed interest in the project. On August 12,
1987 two public hearings were held at IrOOpm, and 7:00pm in the Highland
Heights Community Center in Highland Heights, Ohio to receive comments on the
DEIS. The period for receipt of written comments was open for 45 days,
closing on August 27, 1987.
Forty-one comments received in writing or at the public hearings led to
minor corrections reflected in the text of this Final EIS. In addition, 32
comments were selected to which direct responses were prepared. Section 8.2
presents reduced copies of the full texts of all written comments received,
with numbers added to the margins identifying the 73 comments for which
corrections or responses were prepared. Section 8.3 presents a listing of all
73 comments including the 32 direct responses to comments on the DEIS.
8.2 COMMENT LETTERS
8-1
-------
RECEIVED A.. 2
0 1587
4101 FullonPafkway
Cleveland Ohio44144
(216)351 6300
Metroparks
July 30, 1987
Valdas V. Adamkus, Regl. Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
RE Draft Environmental Impact Statem
Hilltop Facilities Planning Area
Cleveland, Ohio
Dear Mr. Adamkui, •
The Cleveland Hetroparks System appreciates the opportunity to participate in
and review documents prepared as part of the environmental assessment process
for Water Pollution Control Act Program facilities in our area. Because the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hilltop Facilities Planning Area
identifies certain proposed pollution control facilities having direct and in-
interest of protection and enhancement of thtbe resources.
ments made regarding these issues on the Draft E.I.S. These comments are or-
ganized in general Categories as follows:
1. Overall effect of potential facilities on water quality in
the planning area
2. Impacts and
specific fac
nmental consequences of implements!ion of
3. Adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in iden-
tifying and assessing these impacts and consequences.
The overall effect of potential facilities on^yatet ^ualjtj' in the^lanninj are.
the potential to accomplish significant goals in tre improvemen
in the planning area. (Lake trie and the Euclid Creek and Chagr
streams) Because of the strong commitment of the Cleveland Met
improved water quality, we offer all
liable supfort to effor
i River tributary
iparks System to
s to implement
facilities plans having the greatest potential to accomplish th-_ __,.
Of the alternative plans evaluated In the Draft E.I.S., the one identified as
Board ol Park Commissioners
Eleanor* Kapel President Fred ftzapka Vic
Lou E Tsipu Executive Director-Secretary
idem Joseph p Madietonfc
RECEIVED „.
Valdas V. Adankus
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
.mpa
cts
ind environmental
of imple
The
Stream C
pp. 7,6-
the mean1
f>tructlO!
tion of <
would be
viewscape
vigorousl
of the Eu
much less
essential
Crosbing
struct10
recommended alternatives fc.IS-2 and fclS-3 require the construction of
rossings of Euclid Creek near Monticelio Boulevard (See Draft E.I.S.
'.H, 7.14-7.18, etc.,). The impact of construction of this crossing by
i-related and long-term aesthetic and compatibility effects of construe-
extremely negative. The effect of this construction within the aesthetic
of the existing Monticelio Bridge would be unacceptable and would be
• opposed by the Cleveland Metroparkt, System. The environmental impacts
lid Creek crossing under Alternates hIS-1 and EIS-4 are potentially
ly ae outlined in the Draft t.I.S. Long-term effects of Stream
•lear Eucl Id Avenue should leb^en over t ime as areas disturbed by con-
©
lequacy of the Draft Environmental Imp
Stf
. Cro
sing 2 (EIS-2 and fc.IS-3) near Monticelio bridge is stated to have
tne effect of disrupting the aesthetics of the area during dud alter the construe
Eton. The Cleveland Metroparka System is strongly opposed to any
struction method asbociated with Stream Gror ~- - - "
©
RECEIVED AUG 2 0 198*
Valdas V. Adamkus
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
July 30, 1987
The capital costs for an environmentally acceptable Euclid Creek crossing
at Site 2 have not been identified in the Draft E.I.S. In part because of insuf-
ficient development of plans for such a crossing. (Drafc E.I.S. p. 6-27) Plans
detailed enough to precisely evaluate the potential impact and necessary capital
costs for complete mitigation should have been developed as a part of the Envi-
ronmental Assessment and factored into the overall cast effectiveness evaluation
©
USDeporimenr
of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
August 7, 1987
HPP-05
process for this important project.
<3te|j)ftn D. Coles
Chief o! Park Pl
L.Stumpe, NEO Regl Sewer Hist
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Fnvironmentai planning Sec^ior, SWFP
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
The Federal Highway Administration has completed its review of
the draft EIS for the Cleveland Hilltop Planning Area, Cleveland,
Ohio. The following comment is offered for your consideration in
developing the final EIS.
Si net re! y yours,
Herbert R. Teets
Regional Adminjstrator
F. w. Heathcock
Director, Office of Planning
and Program Development
©
8-2
-------
RECEIVED SEP 3 (987
The City of Richmond Heights
Zk C,b, Tf'.lA Ik lava
497 RICHMOND ROAD
RICHMOND HEIGHTS, OHIO 4414.1
RESOLUTION NO-: 98-37
INTRODUCED BY; GASE
August 11, 1^8
',!r, Harlan D. ,Urt, "hief
Environmental Planning option
U.C. F°A ?,YFP, 230 o. . earborn St.
."*:catfo, 1 60604
Dear '.Ir. hirt,
Endowed u a >opy of ^solution No. 98-B7, which was passed and
approved by our 7ity Council on August II, 1987. 't u a resolution supporting
the position of Northeast :hio Regional Sewer Distri-t with respect to the
Hilltop Intercepter Sewer planned.
Very truly yours,
Sharon L. Daviso
;lerK of Council
cc: U. S. Rep. Edward F. Feighan
End.
sld
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE POSITION OF NORTHEAST OHIO
REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT WITH RESPECT TO THE HILLTOP
INTERCEPTED SEWER PLANNED.
WHEREAS, Northeast Ohio Regional Sever District has developed a
plan for the Hilltop Intercepter sewer system based upon a gravity flow of
Che problems encountered by Hilltop coamualtl«s including the City of
Richmond Heights; and
WHER£Ab, Che United States Environmental Protection Agency has
recoomentiad th« use of pumping stations rather than a gravity flow which
would save initial construction costs but would greatly add to the aewer
maintenance and operational costs for users ID the eastern suburbs over a
long period of time; and
WHEREAt), the federal plan deals only with immediate needs rather
ttian long-term projected growth and long-term feasibility of the system; and
WHEREAS, U. S. Representative Edward f. feighan has indicated tie
would argue fiercely against the U. S< Environmental Protection Agency's
proposal for a combination gravity/pump sewer system; and
WHEREAS, this Council supports the position of Representative
Feighan and the plan proposed by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District.
NOW, THEREFORE, fle It Resolved by the Council of the City of
Richmond Heights, State of Ohio, that:
Section 1: The Mayor and Council of the City of Richmond
Heights do hereby strongly object to the proposed Uaited States
Environmental Protection Agency plan for a combination gravity and pump
eastern suburbs. Including Che City of Richmond Heights, as the same will
not *>e an effective resolution of the problem.
Section, 2: The Mayor and Council of the City of Richmond
Heights herebjTsTrijngly Indicate their approval of the plan developed by the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District for a complete gravity flow syatem to
address immediate and lon^-range problems with the northeast suburbs with
respect to sewage treatment.
Section, 3; The Clerk of Council be and she Is hereby authorized
and directed to submit a copy of this Resolution to Harlan D. Hirt, Chief,
Environmental Planning Section, U.S. EPA, 5WFP, 230 i>. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, IL 60604, and to United States Representative Edward F. Feighan.
bectlon_t«: This Resolution shall take effect and be In force
Immediately upon Its passage and approval bythe Mayor.
Sharon Daviso,
Clerk of Council
Ray
President of Council
I, Sharon Daviso, as Clerk of the City of Richmond Heights, Ohio,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. -87, adopted by the Council of said Municipality on the
da, of , 1*87.
Sharon Daviso,
Clerk of Council
HILLTOP AREA PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Providing Dirt'ction for Development of Water Pollution Control Facilities in the Hilltop Area
August 12, 1967
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Environmental Planning Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5WFP-TUB-08
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604-1586
Mr. Joseph J Singer, Acting for
Mr. Lawrence M. Baker, Chairman
HiHtop Area Public Advisory Committee
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Hilltop Facilities Planning Area
The Hilltop Area Public Advisory Committee (HAPAC) was
formed to follow the preparation of the Hilltop Environmental
Impact Statement, Our membership is comprised of a broad
range of interests, including loca1 elected officials,
private citizens, area businessmen and representatives of
envi rorimentaJ and special interest groups. (Our membership
list is attached.)
Since its formation in September of 1986, the Commit tee
has invested a considerabJe effort to become aware of the
issues and to formulate positions regarding future water
pollution control facilities in the HilItop area. The
Committee has conducted regular monthly meet ings which were
well attended and open to the public. Minutes of these
meetings were sent to your agency and other interested
elected officials, as well as agencies and individuals
8-3
-------
Page 2
Additionally, the group formed fojr subcommittees which met
separately, usually monthly, to perform detailed analysis of
issues in specific areas. The four subcommittee subject
1. Technical
2. Growth and Development
3. Environmental
4. Economic
As a product of this substantial local effort, the full
Committee v Members of the Growth and Development Subcommittee
contributing to this position paper include: Joseph J. Singer,
Jack Wolfe, Julius Paris, Jack Craig, Robert Parry, Willoughby
Hills Mayor Melvin Schaefer and Richmonc Heights Mayor Robert
J. Boyle. Lester Stuinpe, NEORSD plannirg manager, serves as
staff person to this subcommittee,
Population Project ions
The facilities planning work which has been conducted
by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD), to
date, has been based upon official population projections
prepared by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency
{NOACA). Under authority of Section 208 of the Clean Water
Act, NOACA has been designated as the areawide planning agency
responsible for developing population projections to be used in
facilities planning efforts. NOACA also prepares population
projections for use in its other roles such as transportation
plan ning.
TABLE 1 POPULATION*1'AND SE*ER SERVICE PROJECTION
1980
Community
Highland
; Total 12)
Hts.
Gates Mills
Fayf leld
Mayf leld
Richmond
Hts.
Hts.
Willoughby Hills
5
2
3
21
10
8
,739
,236
,577
,550
,095
,612
Sewer ' ^ )
4,
3,
12,
7,
764
870
215
650
542
0
2005
Total<2>
7
2
2
18
13
11
,032
,344
,653
,522
,065
,774
Sewer131
7
1
2
10
10
4
,032
,027
,653
,872
,883
,996
29,041
55,390
37,463
(1) Based upon official NOACA population projections.
f2' In service area
'31 in service area and sewered.
8-4
-------
Page 3
To make population projections, NOACA has relied on an
approach which involves a population model known as the Newling
Model. A summary of the theoretical basis of the Newling Model
is included as Attachment 1. The basic approach of the Newling
model is to assume that an area will eventually reach the
standard density assigned to one of four categories which
describes the particular community in question. The four
categories are: Rural Area, Rural Small Town, Urbanizing and
Rapidly Urbanizing. For instance, Highland Heights has been
classified as an Urbanizing community. Ultimately this type of
community is expected to reach a specified density level. The
community's projected rate of growth is a function of the gap
between the present population and the ultimate assumed
density. A final critical factor concerning population figures
developed by NOACA for its area is that the projections must
agree with a pre-assigned population level determined by the
State of Ohio. To meet this pre-assigned total population
level, the model can be calibrated to produce either higher or
lower population projections by adjusting the ultimate density
level for each of the four categories.
One of the shortcomings of the model is that it does
not account for actual development plans and schedules. As
mentioned above, the Newling model projects growth rates as a
function of how far a certain consnunity is from its ultimate
population density. This approach is likely to produce
erroneous data where specific large development projects
subsequently undertaken are not known at the time the
projections are developed.
Page 4
Based upon the material which follows, we expect the
development of 1,547 homes in Highland Heights in the next 20
years. Assuming an average of 2.5 persons per household, this
results in an estimated population increase of 3,867. NOACA
has projected a growth of 1,293 or 2,574 fewer people than we
estimate.
Subcommittee Development Survey
As a result of the concerns about existing population
projections discussed above, the subcommittee determined that
it was appropriate to develop its own data on proposed
development projects. To keep the scope of its task within a
manageable level the subcommittee decided to focus primarily on
the community of Highland Heights. Our initial knowledge of
the situation (substantial undeveloped land tracts and
desirable zoning) prompted us to suspect that existing official
population projections for Highland Heights are low.
At an initial meeting the subcommittee developed a
three-point approach for collecting and assessing likely
development in the area. The first step consisted of surveying
land holders concerning their development plans and schedules.
The second step consisted of asking area realtors to assess the
development projections in light of their own knowledge of
market conditions. The third step consisted of looking at
historical absorption rates as a check on the data developed in
the previous two steps.
Page 5
The subcommittee began by developing a survey
questionnaire. The next step was to develop a list of parcels
within Highland Heights which had some potential for
development. This information was then supplemented by a check
of property tax records for all parcels which were identified
as having some potential for development.
Realizing that the market is affected by surrounding
developments, the committee also developed a list of known or
likely development projects in surrounding communities to be
surveyed. It is important to note that while the ultimate
survey does produce data on a substantial number of
developments in surrounding communities, it is by no means as
complete as the work done in our Highland Heights focus area.
The survey results are shown in Attachment 2. They
are further summarized in the table below.
HIGHLAND HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT
Development Type l9Bj>-9jj 1991 -95 199 6 -J35 TojtaJ
722
612
213
1,547
Residential (Units)
Industrial (Sq.Ft.) - -
Office (Sq.ft.) 300,000 500,000 200,000 1,000,000
Commercial (Sq.ft.) 200,000 200,000 - 400,000
Page 6
HILLTOP COMMUNITIES'11
Development Type
Total
284 2,079
600,000 1,380,000
Residential (Units) 1,113 682
Industrial (Sq.Ft.) 450,000 330,000
Office'2' (Sq.Ft.) 2,294,000 2,183,000 1,234,000 5,711 ,000
Commercial (Sq.Ft.) 238,000 238,000 39,000 515,000
<1> includes Highland Heights, Gates Mills, Mayfield,
Mayfield Heights, Richmond Heights, Willoughby Hills-
f 2) includes an estimate for Larderhaven development of 1.5
million square feet which is not in Hilltop sewer service
area .
Evaluation of Market Demand
The second step was to compare development survey
results with actual market demands. The subcommittee proceeded
by inviting representatives of two of the major realtors in the
area to a subcommittee meeting to discuss survey results. In
these discussions we did not narrow our focus to the Highland
Heights data. The subcommittee reasoned that market demand
should consider all developments in the general Hilltop area.
8-5
-------
Paije 7
The next step was to assess development projections in
light of historical absorption trends. The subcommittee felt
comfortable with the figures shov;ing the development and sale
of 2,079 homes over the next 15 years as shown in the survey
results. To assume this level of development over the 20-year
planning period only acts to add another layer of assurance
that the development estimates will be realized. (1,547 of the
new homes will be in Highland Heights.) Assuming 2.5 persons
per household results in 3,867 residents added. This is 2,574
more people than projected by NOACA for the 20-year period.
The subcommittee has some reservations about the
ability to absorb 5,711,000 square feet of office space over
the next 20 years, (i.e.,285,000 square feet per year). A
survey of absorption rates for office space by Victor S.
Voinovich Company shows that historica1 absorption rates for
all the eastern suburbs over the past five years has been at a
rate of 200,000 square feet per year. (It should be noted that
the survey area encompasses about 25% of the area included in
the Voinovich east side study). The subcomittee also noted a
Regional Planning Commission stud>'^^containing office rate
absorption for the Rockside and 1-77 area, noted for its rapid
office development. It showed an absorption rate of 150,000
square feet per year between the years 1974 and 1984.
(1) "Economic Impact Analysis Relocated U.S. 422" by Regional
Planning Commission. 11/1/84
Page 8
The group did note that the area included in its
survey includes four distinct office areas. These are the
Cedar Road-Lander Road-I-271 area, the Wilson Mills Road and
1-271 area, the Delta Business Park area located along Bishop
Road, and the Cuyahoga County Airport area. After reviewing
all of the data available, the group concluded that there was
substantial concern that our survey projections were too high
for office space development. The final conclusion of the
group was that actual office space development for a 20-year
period will probably only achieve 60% of the 5.7 million square
feet projected {i.e., 3.4 million square feet). However, the
group also felt that the amount of commercial development
projected by the survey is too low. Survey results show
projected retail development at 515,000 square feet over the
next 20-year period.
Schools, Storm Drainage, Water Supply, Roads
The subcommittee briefly reviewed other basic
community services in addition to sewerage facilities to assess
the area's ability to absorb growth.
A check with Steve Hovancsek, Highland Heights city
engineer, found that major culverts transporting storm flow
from the area between Bishop and Miner Roads and north of
Highland are adequately sized for full development. A culvert
on White Road, just east of Bishop was noted as needing
enlargement. Thus storm drainage is not expected to be a
Page 9
problem, if adequate storm sewers and retention facilities are
installed during land development. The area around the County
Airport in Richmond Heights was noted as an area needing
drainage improvements to allow full development. The County
and Richmond Heights are presently cooperating in developing a
solution to this problem. Drainage problems are presently
encountered on the developable land between 1-271 and SOM
Center Road that runs through the Cleveland Metroparks.
Further development in this area will likely need to
incorporate extensive measures for drainage control.
It should be noted that development is likely to cause
substantial changes in runoff characteristics, particularly
increased sedimentation of receiving streams during
construction. Communities should monitor development and
perhaps institute programs of mitigative measures. NOACA and
the County soil and water conservation district can be a
resource for program development.
The Hilltop Area's water supply is provided by the
City of Cleveland's Nottingham plait. The plant and the main
feeder line on Highland Road are expected to meet growth
demands without any substantial improvements.
Dr. Robert G. Stabile, the superintendent for the
school district serving Mayfield Heights, Mayfield Village and
Highland Heights, reports a presen'. ability to absorb
approximate 3,000 additional students.
Roads presently serving undeveloped areas, such as
Bishop Road, are not considered adequate to handle traffic
volumes created by the projected anount of development.
8-6
Although some road improvements are presently under
construction, it is likely that a major road-widening
program would be needed to accommodate increased
traffic flow. Logically, this increased development
will also impact the major interchange with 1-271 at
Wilson Mills Road and Bishop Road and 1-90.
In summary, some services are in place; where
services are not in place, it appears that they can be
provided in conjunction with development.
/mm.
-------
§
i.---
S 8 S
o E p
S
8 .
I I ii 11 I III i
K tf
?
1 ? ? ;
88 t i
" "" ^ -
i
OJ
6 i §
1 i 7
,p * S £
£ t: 5 ~
ll I ?
i| 1 2
E S S
= H
" ~ o1
8 2
V
il
o
b. 0
Is * I
c a. :e t/
% * S •o c
S S 1 e . S
i ° s °
Z i! I = !
? & * 8 J 2
= «J .c LJ in i C
S £ £
s . s s
S o
, II
s s
III
I 1 1
_" _
— — ~ - £ «
s III '!!*£=
I
s
w
1
u
* s
>- £
« ^ i
s^ ! s
=1 if is
i ii II s
* 6 * 1 ~
-. C ul
- S3 E g.
S ? 1 f
" I !
Jii » .
* 1 7, s c s 1
^3 o c o & tr a-
g o^?c£ 5 £5""" c
IB ||! ; ^ i 1 !- I
It => |c 1 11!- I
-~™ls "„- s.ss* , »
ii -i* :s. t > • * I
s a s s . " s S 5 s t I
°f.lg J . » S S i I ~*
* « £ s : ei £ Sal! S
. 3
J - . . • \ , 1 1
• • § .
g
= :
si
" "
^ c
f . ... sss, ?,,'''" 2
° - °° » » c a S '
" g 8 ° « * A c
,
5.
a L
o
:
^ i* i* « r ^ -
! 1 g o s ' j ;
. . | 2s.'
! c" " cT ° ^ c
n * ^ & So'
= ^ 5 § S J
-3 •§ i 5 § * ' ' ' '
t! " £ ti u £
: !
t
4 C
" :
• _i -• "
40 *
- S = g
u in n
fl
£
| „ |
*K « 2 „ J&S
I I "^ | " £ | ., |i |
«t5 tiuu w a-OJa££i5
ii 1 ^ i ^ l«ilil*
"SU fltfi,fi. U ^a^l^CL-'S
S OCO 0 ScLOOCtT'
i* .JiAr!- A ^AA^^^^'
O 000 0 cESoC'CCi
a> IEOJIC of coccaisizictafica
c.
'
8-7
-------
• 5 * T
IE S i
I
s !.
- «
s s
1
1 !
4 1
o £
i § s
• i ,
OD a a
5 S
s s
I 1
l-» LI
S 5
3 S
> 5 o
1
g
o
^"
1 1 S
OOP
a IB a
11
c
1 I
L S.
5 o (j ^
>:
-------
The iAPAC technical subcommittee met on Wednesday, July 22. tu
finalize a position paper on the draft If IS tor the hilltop area.
Subcommittee members present at thi.s meeting included jam Babic, ",t-->
Hovancsek, Dick Hyland, Mike Kalstrom, Moe ^ulich, and Dave Klun.-i.ngi
John Croft had a previous engagement, but bas also reviewed the. sunn,
pobitions taken by the subcommittee ^hese positions
®
gi'.ing a tjtal of roughl ; t, nillior ^lluis >r
s torage , ard -.air-p ietei' iJtilixi^'f *'~i'1 jvailablt
1©
®
©
AL COMMENTS ON
August 1, 1987
pumping pla
8-9
-------
pumping system the possibility of a mechanical malfunc-
tion still exists. Environmentally, a discharge from the
system is unacceptable, but is ccnsidered secondary in
comparison to basement flooding. The potential tor pub-
lic health problems and the cost tio the homeowner associ-
nt flooding warraits consideration during
ign
pump
The proposed crossing of Euclid Creek at the Monticello
Boulevard bridge in the pumping alternatives will have a
permanent impact on the aesthetics of the bridge and the
park area below it. In addition, the existing crossing
is over 30 years old, is leaking, and in its, present
location, is difficult to maintain and repair. The EIS
for a new crossing that would tra isport all flow, provide
the aesthetics of the bridge and ju
alternative may be difficult to implement during
construction. We agree that open-cut crossing of the
creek will have a negative environmental impact. We
a partial tunnel/partial open-cut method during the
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BUFFALO DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
August 13, 1987
Regulatory Branch
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) lor the
Cleveland Hilltop Planning Area, Ohio
Mr. Joseph Jarnot who can be contacted at 716-876-5454,
extension 2316, or by writing to the above address.
The Buffalo District -- Leadership in Engineering.
Sincerely,
/Daniel R.
Colonel, U.S.
Command ing
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Cleveland Hilltop Planning Area, Ohio
Barlan D. Hirt , Chief
Environmental Planning Section, 5WFP
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604-1586
Dear Mr. Hirt :
This letter pertains to your request for comment s in regards
to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Cleveland Hilltop Planning Area, Ohio.
Dnder Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Secretary of
the Army, acting through the Corps of Engineers, regulate* the
temporary and/or permanent discharge of dredged and/or fill
material into wetlands and other waters of the United States.
Euclid Creek is a water of the United States. Therefore,
Department of the Army approval is required for all project
features which Involve the discharge of dredged material or fill
(earth, stone, concrete, sand, etc.) below the plane of Ordinary
High Water (OHU) of Euclid Creek or in adjacent wetlands.
Any temporary fills, such as cofferdams, also require
Department of the Army authorization.
De par tmen
f Feder
r the disch
llity lines
ere is no c
terial must
nditlons of
P rt 330,5(b)
d fined as an
g seous , llq
p rpose , and
a y purpose o
messages, and
t of the Army regulations at Title 33 of the Code
330.5(a)(12) provides authorization
arge of material for backfill or bedding for
Including outfall and intake structures, provided
(e
be removed to an upland disposal area) and the
Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are met (copy enclosed). A "utility line" is
y pipe or pipeline for the transportation of any
id, llquifiable, or slurry substance, for any
any cable, line, or wire for th« transmission for
f electrical energy, telephone and telegraph
radio and television communication.
A final determination of Department of the Army jurisdiction
cannot be made until we receive a copy of the final project
plans and a description of the work methodology*
• n-rt )Xl ) .f <
8-10
-------
ictl tetltii. i
t tfct •BUM*!** fl'Ml kf »t4l*t. It «*»!••'t«
T ••»"» <*• Ilitrlct ««lii
LAND USE AND TREATMENT SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CLEVELAND HILLTOP PLANNING AREA. OHIO
5 WFP-TUB-08
Requested by: U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, M I mo is 60604
Requested of:
Attention 5 WFP-TUB-08
Soi1 Conservation Service, U.S.D.A.
Assisted by: James D. Storer, District Conservationist
Valley View Field Office
Soil Conservation Service. U.S.D.A.
6100 West Canal Road
Valley View, Ohio 44125
Te1ephone:
Date:
216-524-6580
August 13, 1987
Techn i ca1 review made by the Soi 1 Conser vation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, at the request of the Cuyahoga
trtct. A review of the design
pecificat fons has not been
made.
Soi1 and Water Conservation Di
calculati
<» M«t
(I) All I
SITUATIONl The Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A. was
asked to review on Environmental Impact Statement {EIS). The
E/S 15 for the Cleveland Hi!)top Planning Area, Ohio sanitary
sewer p1 an5. The project takes place in Cuyahoga and Lake
Counties, Ohio, The VaMey View Field Office reviewed the
draft copy of the EIS. The SoU Sjjr^vey of Cuyahoga County,
Ohio issued December 1980, and the Sot 1 Survey of Lajke Co_unt y,
Ohi o issued January 1979, were used to check the 501 Is
f oformation in Chapter 4 of the EIS. These pub I'cat(ons can
be obtained free of charge from the Cuyahoga and Lake SoiI and
Water Conservation District offices.
Several components of the write-up on soils were
referenced to either USDA 1979 or USDA I960. The U5DA 1979
appears to be the Soi 1 Sur yey of Lake County, Oh i o issued
January 1979. The USDA 1980 appears to be the Soi1 Survey of
Cuyahoga County, Onio issued December 1980.
EIS - Cleveland Hilltop Planning Area, Ohio
Page 1
5 f x so i I associat ions are I isted on page 4-11. These
were stated as to being in either Cuyahoga or lake Counties
The Tloga-EucMd-OrviMe soil association was listed as being
In Cuyahoga County. 1t is not in Cuyahoga County. However,
thfs soil association is fn Lake County.
The So M Associations map on page 4-13 (figure 4-1) is a
composite map. 11 appears to be taken from the genera 1 soi 1s
maps from the two soil surveys. This map appears to be
correct.
There seems to be some ex i sting and potentia 1 prob1 ems
with the table titled "Soil Characteristics and Limitations"
on page 4-l2. The tab 1e Is broken down f nto different units.
These units are eva1uated be 1ow. In the fo1 1ow i ng materia I
the soi! surveys are numbered for abbrev tated references. The
"Soi 1 Survey of Cuyahoga County, Ohio" issued December 1980 t s
number I. The "Soil Survey of Lake County, Ohio" issued
January 1979 1s number 2.
D«pth to High W«t«r T«bl« {!nch«»)i
1 , The un i t s of measure are not unfform. The first
2 . The title should inc1ude the word "seasona i". It i
a Sedsona1 High Water Tab 1e.
3. The depth 15 incorrect in the Mahoning-E Msworth
unit. It should be 0.5 - 1.5 feet (21
Dtpth to Bedrock (tnch*»)i
1, The depth for Darien-Mahoning is incorrect. It
should be 40" - 60" (2).
Drainagei
1. The Uadsworth-Rittman and Mahoning-EMsworth soil
associations are listed as somewhat poorly drained. The
soi 1 surveys 1 1st them as ranging from moderately we 1 1 to
somewhat poor 1y drained.
Permeobt)\ty fInches/hour):
1. The Wadsworth-Rittman soi ) assoclat)on is I t sted as
slow to very slow. The Soil Survey (1) lists It as
moderate above the frag ' par. and s low i n the f rag f pan ,
2 The Tioga-fTuc t i d-Orv i Me so M as^oc iat f on f s I i sted
as slow to very slow. The Soil Survey (2) lists these
soils individually as ranging from moderate to moderately
s 1 ow. The Tioga 1oam is rated as moderate'y rapi d to
EIS - Cleveland Hilltop Planning Area, Ohio
Page 2
ftatfng For Scptfc L««ch FUldn
1 , The Urban Land-M 1 1 1 wanga so i I assoc lates fa (Is to
I i st the "wetness" character i st i c
2 . The si ow percolation characteristic was not I i sted
for the f o I 1 ow ing soil assoc I at i ons .
Dar i en-Mahon i ng
Wadswor th-Ri ttman
Mahon i ng-E 1 1 sworth
T joga-Euc 1 i d-Or v i 1 ) e
Ratings for Shallow Exc«v«tfon«i
I . The Urban Land-M i t i wanga so i I assoc i at i on does not
list the wetness characteristic.
2 . The Mahon i ng-E 1 I s worth so i 1 assoc i at i on does not list
characteristics (2). "Slippage" is given as an
additional characteristic in the So i 1 Survey o_£ C uy a ihg.9a_
3. The Tiogd-Euclid-Orville soil association does not
give the "flouds" characteristics (2). The SoM Survey
of Cuyahogd Courit y ± Qh_i_.Q also 1 i sts the "cut banks cave"
character i st i cs for these so M s .
Risk of Corrosion - uncoated steel i concrete i
concrete as moderate to high (EIS). The So i { Survey ( 2 }
to high
as a
1 1 d i d not come
it as low
In two places the EIS table 4-5 lists "texture
limitation. It is not c I ear what this means .
from the USDA Soil Surveys.
The written descriptions of the soil associations have
some omissions and incorrect information.
Mltlwano* Sotli The EIS states that this soil exhibits
moderately rap'd to moderate permeability. Page 39 of
the Soil Survey (1) states that "Permeability is
modei ate . "
D«r 1 en-Mahon ( no tol I flssoc fat ton i The E I S states that
this so i 1 assoc i at i on has moderate to si ow permeab i 1 i ty .
The soil survey (2) states the permeability is slow or
very si ow ( page 5 ) .
Tloga-Eucl Id-Orvl 11 <• toll ••toe tat Ion i The tin
itat ions
i ppage"
8-11
EIS - Cleveland Hilltop Planning Area. Ohio
Page 3
-------
are not mentioned (1 and 2).
in reference to potential soil erosion and sedimentation
problems the E!S (page xxx) states that 'Vt a minimum, the
Ohio Department of Transportat i on requirements for eros1 on
control will be observed." The major area of soil erosion and
sediment control problems will be at the stream crossings.
GENERAL COMMENTS)
The soil information in the EIS lists the USDA as the
source of the information. The dates 1979 and 1980 imply that
the Cuyahoga and Lake soil surveys were used. However, these
documents do not appear to be adequately represented fn the
information.
It is possible that any two soils
appear s to be conf1 icting f nformation o
urveys can give what
the same soi 1. Thi s
racteristics for the
particular mapping units can vary from county to county. In
this case both mapp1ng un i ts wouId st iII comp1y with the soi1
dates of pub 1 ication. Soi1 science is a dynamic science. 11
is i n a constant state of change. Updated i nformat ion can be
used to alter the text of two soi 1 survey between pr t nting
dates. The most current information for the so i t s in any one
county can be found in the field office TechnicaI Guide for
that county.
In reference to soil erosion and sedimentation it should
be noted that sfeam crossings are not the on 1 y potent ia 1
problem. The upland areas should not be taken 1 ightly. Soi1
erosion in these areas can quickly cause off site
sedimentation and damage. Care needs to be taken to keep all
silt out of storm sewers and on the area under construction.
Storm sewers are a direct pathway to streans, rivers, ponds,
lakes and other drainageways. Silt can also cause damage to
adjoining properties.
RECOMMENDATIONSi
A complete Soil Erosion and Sediment ;entral Plan should
be developed before construction begins. Then th i s plan
should be aggressively followed and enforced.
The errors and omissions in the soils i nformation shouId
be corrected.
It would be helpful to most users of "his EIS if a
glossary was added. The terms used In the sol 1s sect 1 on cou1d
be def i ned in a glossary. This wou 1 d not
-------
RECEIVED SEP I 0 «tf,^
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
^|*7 Slate of Ohio - Office of Budget and Management
30 EASf BROAD STREET • 3jftH~FLOOR VcOLUMfiUS, OHIO432660411~ """•"(614) 466 0697 / 0698
U S FNVlRONMI-NTAl PROUGUON AGFNCY
?W SOUtH WWBQR* SfKfH, 5WFP, CNtftRNL PLWG
CHICAGO 1L 60604-OOGO
Attention HARIAN D HIRI, CHIEF
Phone (000)000-0000
RF Statp Clpannghouv Intergovprntnental Review-Application Clearance letter
Project Description ORAFI FIS, CIFVElAN!) HI I HOP PI AWUNG AREA, C1IV OF
ClFVElANO. CUYWKXiA COUNTY. OHIO
SAT Niflfcer OH870T10-IOB9-36552
Proposed federal Funding
$00
The State Clearinghouse (Single Point of GonUct) has reviewed the application for the above
identified project that is covered by the Intergovernmental Review Process (Presidential Executive
Order 123J2) and Gubernatorial Executive Order authorized under Ohio Revised Code, Section
10T.18(A]
Following the guidelines of Presidential Executive Order 1?37? and Ohio's Intergovernmental
Review Process, this application has been simultaneously reviewed by the inuacted Area
Clearmghouse(s) and other interested agencies
As a result of our review we have determined that your application is consistent with
State or local plans, programs, and objectives Therefore you should proceed with your
application to the appropiate funding agency
A copy of this clearance letter should bo attached to your application In addition, the
St.Uc Appliwtion Identifier {SAO »irt?pr rioted on ttv top of tfiis form mist appear xt \tm
number 3 on the Federal Standard Notification Form 4Z4, which is a part of your application
The results of this review arp valid for one year A continuation or renewal application
must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse and impacted Area Clearinghouse^) annually An
application not submitted to the funding agency, or not funded within one year after completion
of this review, must be resubmitted to receive a valid intergovernmental review
Sincerely,
larry U Weaver, State Federal Funds Coordinate
Office of Budget A Hanagrment
OFFICE OF BUOGbT AND MANAGEMENT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TRANSMITTAL
i
,f\ v_l MA'f JPPI luuinti iniNiiriFH wn nuiono inoi nw
\J) WPI iijml ii <; rnvinn>iBfm»i mtrrTiON MJUTI
PLEASL Tr-PE THE FOLLOWING INFORM A
ONoEFfc
St*t« of OWo EnvfarMunenul F'rotectlon Agency
PO Box 1049 1800 WaterMark Df
Columbus Ohio 43266-OU9
August 21, 1987
RECEIVED SCP 2 1987
Richard F Celeste
The Environmentai Planning Section is concerned that where adverse
environmental impacts are possible, that these impacts be minimized
General mitigation i
below
.sures that should be used for this project are disci
:ussed (3Q
Mr Harlan D Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
ATTH 5 WFP - TUB 08
U S EPA, Beg.ion V
Dear Mr Hirt
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Cleveland
Hilltop Planning Area Enclosed are comments from the Division of Water
Pollution Control, Environmental Planning Section. Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
p 1-13 The next to last sentence in the second paragraph is incorrect When
a community chooses to construct wastewater treatment facilities
without financial support from the State or the Federal government,
satisfied,
p 4-51 The last sentence in the first paragraph does not agree with the
table on p 4 50 According to the Ohio Data Users Center, the State
of Ohio will have a 3 21. decline from 1980-2005, not the region The
Cleveland HSA will decline by 91 over this period of time
p 4-56 The economic outlook for the entire Cleveland area is less than
strong As population ages and as population in the metropolitan
area diminishes, the economic factors of the areas in the FPA that
an; alrt;ad> oevolcped could be affected These factors are lower
demand for housing and households on fixed incomes
p 4-71 Richmond Road between Hayfield Road and Cedar Road has already been
widened to four lanes
Appendix B 2 - For future reference, the State of Ohio does not have a
Department of Justice, a Department of Energy or a Department of
Parks and Recreation The Ohio Department of Health and the
Department of Development are the official titles of state
departments that are referenced incorrectly
To minimize traffic hazards, control devices such as blinkers and barrels
should be placed in the construction area during day and night to warn
motorists of restricted lanes Flagmen should be employed during construction
workers
The construction should also be phased to minimize lane closure A ahort
section of the interceptor will be completely constructed at one time before
the next section is begun Road surfaces should either be repaved or backfill
maintained to permit resumption of normal traffic movement as soon as each
section is completed
Erosion and sedimentation impacts should be minimized by the following
techniques
Permanent erosion control sti
be incorporated into the sit'
The contractor •
for on the plan:
ign where appropriate
;houLd grade, fertilize, seed, and mulch areas as called
; or AS directed by the engineer
The contractor should provide for temporary seeding or sodding as called
for on the plans or as directed by the engineer
Well-planned construction phasing takes in.to consideration the adverse effects
mpleted while
ssult from
by clearing all
ften obliterated
(5
in which work will be left partially c
ally
thi:
case, such
construction continues elsewhere These situat
attempts to reduce costs of mobilizing earth mo
the area at once Under such circumstances the savings are
by increased costs generated by erosion and sedimentation
a policy would result in an increased load of sediments and pollutants washed
into surface waters A preferred phasing policy would call for completion of
all necessary construction in a section before proceeding to the next
section This will prove more expensive in short term costs, but
environmentally advantageous in the long-term
8-13
-------
Page 3
Noise impacts should be minimized by the following techniques
Vehicles and motorized equipment should be properly muffled to state
standards
Surface construction work should occur only during normal workday hours
Any activity potentially causing excessively high noise levels (e g.,
blasting) should be carried out in accordance with applicable state and
local regulations
Noise barriers should be used around sitas where required by the local
authorities
Dust
Dust should be control led by wetting down co 1struction sites as necessary
Piles of excavation spoils, potentially blown about by the wind, should not be
allowed to accumulate Such material should be immediately removed from the
construction site and disposed of at approve* sites in accordance with local
regulations Blasting should be used only when rocky conditions make it
necessary.
Stream Crossing
Since the method of crossing Euclid Creek ha'i not been determined, the amount
of mitigation that will be needed is not yet clear If an independent pipe
bridge is necessary, impacts to the stream would be greater than suspending
the pipes from the existing bridge, for which mitigation would not be
necessary
From an environmental standpoint, utilizing i.he existing bridge would be
preferable to constructing a separate bridge to support the proposed sewer
lines. However, if use of the existing bridge is not structurally possible,
then construction techniques minimizing streiim impacts and proper mitigation
should be employed in building a separate pipe bridge
For building a pipe bridge, stream crossing construction techniques could
involve either total or partial diversion of the creek Total diversion of
Euclid Creek would be unwise due to the lack of a suitable diversion course
and the water volume in the creek Other possible techniques would involve
either partial diversion with temporary impoundments, dredging, or boring
under the creek bed
Diversion of half of the creek at a time would be the preferred method for
crossing Euclid Creek with a pipe bridge. This would entail building an
embankment completely around the construction and forming a channel for half
of the river width at a time. Both the building of the embankment and the
channelization of the stream would cause some increase in erosion and
urbidity in the stream This would in turn cause some detrimental impacts o
downstream aquatic life These impacts should be mitiga
the embankments and bridge during low flow periods, and
downstream sediment traps as necessary Care should be
construction to properly remove temporary embankments an
not to cause further sedimentation, to stabilize and '
ed by constn
istructins
aken following
sediment traps so as
ire stream banks with
and to return the
its original condition
If there area any questions concerning the above comments
Robert Monsarrat of ray staff at (614) 481-7090
Gregory H. Smith, Manager
Environmental Planning Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
GHS/SSF
RM/ep
0662D/5-8
cc . Reading/File
NORTHEAST OHIO REGICDNAL SEWER DISTRICT
3BP6 EUCLID AVENUE • CLEVELAND OHIO <
August 26, 1987
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Planning Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5WFP-TUB-08
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604-1586
Re: Draft Environment.il Impact Statement
Cleveland Hi11top Planning Area, Ohio
Dear Mr. Hirt:
The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District {NEORSD) has
previously presented comments on the subject Draft EIS at the
public hearing of August 12, 1987. A copy of these comments is
included as Attachment A. At this time we are providing the
following additional comments:
1. It is suggested that the EIS contain a section putting the
EIS process in context relative to the Construction Grants
Program. Several points should be covered:
a) A number of comments in thu Executive Summary and
throughout the report call for further study. The EIS
should be clear that this :urther study is not required
for private and govemmentiil agencies to proceed
outside the realm of the Construction Grants Program.
b) The EIS should clarify tha': costs in the EIS are
developed for comparative purposes in selecting a
recommended alternative. Actual cost for the purpose
of construction grant funding will be developed during
the detailed design and the subsequent grant awards
process.
c) Specific eligibility determinations for the purposes of
the Construction Grants Program will be made at the
state level by the Ohio EPA, the delegated program
authority, as a part of the construction grants
approval process.
Page 2
d) The recommended plan establishes base line facility
capacities which are eligible for full participation
under the Construction Grants Program. However,
nothing in the EIS would prohibit construction of
larger capacity facilities (for example, the
Richmond-White pumping facility and force main).
Determination of the grant eligible project cost of
facilities with larger than recommended capacities
would be conducted in accordance with construction
grant regulations, procedures, and management policies.
e) The EIS should clarify that for the purpose of the
Construction Grants Program, capacity to serve existing
needs is referenced to the date of grant award or
September 30, 1990 whichever is earlier.
The EIS should recognize that the recommended plan would
result in environmental disruption along Richmond Road
during at least two phases of construction. The
recommended plan suggests an initial force main to serve
existing needs. The plan recommends subsequent
construction to expand the force main system for area
growth. It should be noted that in addition to
environmental disruption, the final cost of the recommended
plan will be substantially greater than if capacity for
growth was provided for initially.
The EIS should not create an illusion that the recommended
plan provides for an immediate solution to existing needs
of the Hilltop study area. The entire sewer system
downstream of the Bonnieview-Beech Hill-Wilson Mill
The recommended plan should include a component for the
incremental size increase to the Green Road storage basin
to accommodate flows from the Hilltop study area.
Facilities planning efforts have previously established
water quality disruptions resulting from septic tank
discharges in the area. Upgrading of area septic tanks wa
not seen as a viable alternative by U.S. EPA, Ohio EPA or
NEORSD during facilities planning reviews due to the
unsuitable nature of the area's soil and expected
development of the area.
©
®
8-14
-------
Page 3
This logic which led to screening on-site treatment from"
further consideration remain valid today. In fact, the
case is stronger as a result of the density and type of
developments occurring and expected for the area. The
EIS should eliminate on-site treatment as a viable
option during the process of screening alternatives.
Judging from a comparison of the cost-effective and
recommended plan cost tables, the EIS is including in
its recommended plan (i.e., eligible for federal
participation) a structure for the Richmond-White pump
station adequate to handle a flow of 12.8 MGD. (We note
that identical costs have been used to estimate both the
1.8 MGD and 12.8 MGD stations. In fact, this is not an
unreasonable method for cost estimating at the
facilities planning level given the above intent.)
Further, this is logical policy in that it is much more
cost-effective to initially provide adequately sized
elements such as building space and wet well capacity to
accommodate additional flows and the additional pumps
which will be needed in the future expansion. The EIS
should clarify its intent to include these structural
elements as part of the recommended plan. Also, it
should be noted that the principal comment of the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District is that the
recommended plan should include all elements needed to
provide for 20-year reserve capacity.
In addition to the preceding comments, NEORSD has in its
review of the Draft EIS noted areas where refinements to
the document are appropriate. A list of recommended
refinements is included as Attachment B.
The NEORSD appreciates this opportunity to provide these
comments. Any questions regarding these comments may be
addressed to Mr. Lester Stumpe, Planning Manager.
Sincerely,
®
Erwin J. Odeal
Director
EJO:mm.
Attachments
A711DRAP
Page 2
The Draft EIS, published by EPA in June 1987, now
projects that the cost difference between pumping plans and the
all-gravity plan is even greater than NEORSD's estimates. (In
a comparison of all-gravity to the two-pump-station plan, the
EIS projects a capital cost difference of $23.5 million as
compared to $16.6 million estimated by the District.)
Our review of the Draft EIS suggests there should be some
revisions to the cost data, however, it is clear that the
capital cost differences continue to be substantial. In
conducting a present worth analysis, it appears that EPA cannot
go outside its regulatory guidelines in considering such items
as planning periods, discount rates, and rules for determining
operating costs adjusted for inflation. Thus, the present
worth analysis using EPA's parameters show the all-gravity plan
to be substantially more costly. (In a comparison of
all-gravity to the two-pump-station plan, the EIS projects a
present worth cost difference of $15.4 million vs. the
District's $8.7 million estimate.)
In contrast to this clear cost difference shown by the
economic analysis, the advantages of the all-gravity plan elude
quantification and conversion into a monetary value. For
example, it has been difficult to quantify the environmental
benefit which would result from the superior reliability of an
all-gravity system. _
ATTACHMENT A
NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT
JBr'f ! LI. Jf ."LT3 AVI r Jl 'I. ' 1 , i yf. LA" ,( Ml t . ,,',,.• i
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT HILLTOP EIS
FOR PRESENTATION AT U.S. EPA PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 12, 1987
A regional sewering plan to serve the Hilltop area has
been in the planning stages for more than a decade. As a part
of its facilities planning efforts, in 1981, the Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) recommended a gravity
interceptor to serve the Hi11top area. Another alternative
that had been considered was to reconstruct the existing pump
station system.
A cost analysis of the two alternatives indicated that
over a 20-year period, the cost differential was not
significant, In terms of reliability, there was no question
that the gravity plan was the best way to serve the area. And
as an added advantage, the gravity plan would provide a
skeletal structure of sewers that would aid in the
implementation of a logical pattern for future local sewering.
Subsequent to that facilities planning effort, EPA
required the District to do further studies to determine the
size of the interceptors. Detailed monitoring of sewer flows
during wet weather showed that much larger sewer sizes were
needed than previously anticipated. As a result of these
Changes, EPA required NEORSD to evaluate pumping alternatives.
This evaluation showed that the costs had shifted to
substantially favor the pumping alternative. In turn, this
precipitated the need for an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
Page 3
The NEORSD supports the recommendations of the Draft EIS
to eliminate the Wilson Mills pumping station by constructing a
gravity interceptor. Elimination of the Wilson Mi11s pumping
station and the provision of adequate downstream sewer capacity
are, in the NEORSD's opinion, the most critical factors in
establishing highly reliable sewer service for the Hi11top
area. NEORSD continues to believe there are substantial
advantages to the gravity plan. However, assuming that Wilson
Mills pump station will be eliminated, NEORSD believes that it
could accept a plan which retains some pumping facilities,
provided the remaining pumping facilities are designed for a
high level of reliability. Either the all-gravity system or
the EIS-recommended alter native which employs two ma ]or purrp
stations would bring about dramatic environmental improvements.
The issues of providing sewer service to the Hilltop area
have generated considerable discussion at the local level. As
a resuIt, NEORSD believes there are new points of view and
technical comments that warrant serious consideration in the
final selection and refinement of the recommended plan.
Since no sewer improvements can proceed in the Hilltop
area until the EIS is finalized and additional delay would
negatively impact the District's ability to proceed with
downstream portions of the Heights/Hilltop Interceptor and
Contract G up Green Road, we urge EPA to move quickly to
address these concerns and issue the final EIS.
As a part of the public hearing process, NEORSD submits
the foil owing general comments. Further detailed comments will
be provided during the public comment period.
8-15
-------
Page 4
1, The NEORSD strongly maintains that the subject
portion of the Hilltop interceptor is "grandfathered"
under facilities planning regulations by virtue of being
a segment of the District's total program for which
facilities planning was approved prior to October 1,
1984, Inasmuch as we believe the subject project is
"grandfathered" it should be eligible to receive 75%
federal funding and federal participation in providing
for "20 years reserve capacity."
2. The recommended plan is deficient in not addressing
the growth needs of the area which would be served by the
Richmond-White pump station. The EIS should develop a
recommended plan to serve this area throughout the
20-year planning period. The Hilltop Interceptor is part
of the Heights/Hilltop Interceptor, already under
construction, which was sized to handle this growth.
Further, proceeding with a long-term regional solution
which accommodates 20-year growth w:ll assure maximum
environmental protection and minimise expenditures for
interim solutions.
3. NEORSD believes that it has successfully concluded
facilities planning requirements through the aggregate of
previously submitted studies. This was confirmed to us
as part of the scoping effort for the present EIS during
which it was clearly established that the EIS is a post
facilities planning effort rather than as a concurrent
Page 5
effort with facilities planning. Recognizing, however,
that the EIS may recommend a fundamentally different
route than the all-gravity plan, NEORSD is willing to
participate in the preparation of a general plan for
sewering of the areas in question.
A general sewering plan would establish the
economics of alternate sewer routes as well as the
economics of elimination of point sources. We also call
upon Ohio EPA to play a lead role in coordinating the
implementation of practical interim solutions which are
in concert with long-range sewering plans.
4. The final EIS should acknowledge that despite high
quality operation and maintenance of a pumping system
there is a statistical probability, however slight, that
a pump station and its force main system will malfunction
and cause dry weather overflows to the environment. Such
overflows from pump stations would have a negative
environmental effect but are clearly more acceptable than
allowing sewage to back up into basements.
5. If pump station facilities are included in the final
recommendations of the EIS, they should be designed to
meet high standards of reliability. Public discussion of
the reliability issue has generated proposals to increase
the reliability of pumping systems which warrant
©
Page 6
consideration. A detailed consideration of some of these
proposals seems to be beyond the scop«2 of the EIS.
NEORSD suggests that these proposals could be
appropriately considered as a part of the detailed design.
For example, evaluation of the n;use of the Beech
Hill structure versus construction of a new facility,
continued use of the existing Beech Hill force main as an
emergency conduit, or developing a plan which provides
for dual force mains from Richmond-White as part of a
phased expansion of that facility to accommodate growth.
NEORSD suggests that the EIS structure its recommended
plan to allow costs for items which will increase
reliability and can be shown as cost-effective during
detail design.
We than* you for this opportunity to comment and pledge
our support to work with U.S. EPA in its efforts to finalize
the EIS.
LAS:mm.
A700COHM
®@
ATTACHMENT B
REFINEMENTS TO DRAFT HILLTOP EIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(PG IX) THE DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE EIS-1 STATES
THAT "BONNIEVIEW STORAGE BASIN WOULD ALSO BE REMOVED UNDER
THIS PLAN" AS INDICATED IN FIGURES 2 AND 3. THIS SEEMS TO BE
INCONSISTENT WITH TABLE 2, COST ANALYSIS, WHICH ANALYZES
EIS-1 UNDER SCENARIOS WITH AND WITHOUT THE BONNIEVIEW
FACILITY.
(PG xxill) "STORAGE TANK" SHOULD BE USED HERE AND
THROUGHOUT THE TEXT WHEN DESCRIBING THAT PORTION OF THE 1(40)
BONNIEVIEW FACILITY.
* INTRODUCTION (PG 2-1)
THE EASTERLY WWTP SERVES THE CITY OF CLEVELAND AND ITS
SUBURBS.
* SECTION 2.1
(PAGE 2-4) THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FLOW CAPACITIES OF
THE EASTERLY WWTP, FOUND IN THE FIRST AND LAST PARAGRAPHS ON
THIS PAGE, SHOULD BE CONSISTENT KITH EACH OTHER.
(PAGE 2-5) THE EASTERLY WWTP WAS UPGRADED TO AN
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT IN 1938. THE PLANT WAS FURTHER
UPGRADED AND EXPANDED FROM 1974-76.
(PAGE 2-5) CONCERNING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE TREATMENT
STEPS AT EASTERLY: a) SCREENING OCCURS BEFORE GRIT REMOVAL.
b) FLOW FROM THE PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS IS INTRODUCED TO THE
EIGHT FOUR-PASS AERATION TANKS.
(PGS 2-6,2-7) FIG.2-2,2-3 THESE FIGURES ARE OUT OF
DATE. WE HAVE ATTACHED UPDATED DIAGRAMS OF THE EASTERLY
LAYOUT AND FLOW SCHEMATIC. THE ATTACHED FIGURES WERE TAKEN
FROM THE CURRENT EASTERLY OSM MANUALS.
]®
®
8-16
-------
* SECTION 2.4.1
(PG 2-26) a) THE BEECH HILL PUMP STATION IS LOCATED AT
6830 WILSON MILLS ROAD.
b) BEECH HILL WAY OPERATE A MAXIMUM OF TWO SMALL
PUMPS (MODIFIED BY THE DISTRICT TO 150 HP) FOR 2700 GPM EACH
(5400 GPM) OR ONE LARGE PUMP FOR A MAXIMUM STATION OUTPUT OF
6200 GPM. BEECH HILL PUMP STATION CANNOT OPERATE THREE PUMPS
SIMULTANEOUSLY DUE TO POWER CONSTRAINTS AND SEWER PROBLEMS
DOWNSTREAM OF THE BBW COMPLEX.
c) A DIESEL-DRIVEN GENERATOR AT BEECH HILL
PROVIDES EMERGENCY POWER TO OPERATE ONE SMALL PUMP.
d) THE DISTRICT DOES NOT OWN THE BBW COMPLEX.
THE DISTRICT OPERATES THESE FACILITIES UNDER A LEASE
ARRANGEMENT WITH CUYAHOGA COUNTY.
(PG 2-28) a) THE BEECH HILL PUMP STATION IS COUPLED WITH
THE BONNIEVIEW HEADWORKS, NOT THE STORAGE TANK.
b) THE BONNIEVIEW HEADWORKS INCLUDE A GRIT
CHAMBER, COMMINUTORS, GRIT TRANSFER PUMPS AND CLASSIFIER AND
DIVERSION FACILITIES TO THE STORAGE TANK.
c) THE WILSON MILLS PUMP STATION MAY OPERATE
THREE PUMPS AT ONE TIME, HOWEVER, PUMP STATION DISCHARGE IE
LIMITED TO 10,400 GPM MAXIMUM DUE TO DOWNSTREAM SEWER PROBLEMS.
d) WILSON MILLS PUMP 14 (10V4800 GPM) IS
OPERATED BY A DIESEL ENGINE THROUGH A RIGHT-ANGLE DRIVE UNDER
EMERGENCY CONDITIONS.
e) SEWAGE FROM THE 2500 ACRE SERVICE AREA SOUTH
OF BEECH HILL PLOWS TO THE GRIT REMOVAL AND COMMINUTOR BUILDING
AT THE BONNIEVIEW HEADWORKS. DURING DRY WEATHER, SEWAGE
BYPASSES THE STORAGE TANK, NOT THE HEADWORKS AT BONNIEVIEW.
(PG 2-30) a) UNDER WET WEATHER CONDITIONS, WHEN THE WILSON
MILLS PUMP STATION CAPACITY IS ABOUT TO BE EXCEEDED, FLOW FROM
THE 30" SEWER LINE AT BONNIEVIEW IS DIVERTED TO THE STORAGE
TANK THROUGH A 30" OVERFLOW CONTROLLED BY A FIXED SET-POINT
SLUICE GATE.
b) ALTHOUGH THE BONNIEVIEW STORAGE TANK REMOVES
A MAJOR PORTION OF THE FLOW TO BEECH HILL, THE 15" GRAVITY LINE
TO BEECH HILL CONTINUES TO FILL THE BEECH HILL WET WELL,
EVENTUALLY OVERFLOWING TO A TRIBUTARY OF THE CHAGRIN RIVER.
FLOW IN THE 15" LINE IS FROM THE TRIBUTARY AREA NORTH OF THE
BEECH HILL PUMP STATION AND DOES NOT FLOW THROUGH THE
BONNIEVIEW FACILITY.
c) THE OVERFLOW FROM THE BONNIEVIEW STORAGE TANK
IS EQUIPPED WITH SCUM BAFFLES AND WEIRS TO TRAP FLOATING SOLIDS.
d) SHORT DURATION SURCHARGE CONDITIONS AT WILSON
MILLS ARE CAUSED BY EXCESS FLOWS IN THE GRAVITY SEWERS
TRIBUTARY TO THE WILSON MILLS PUMP STATION COMPOUNDED BY
RESIDUAL FLOW IN THE GRAVITY LINE FROM BEECH HILL PUMP STATION
AFTER SHUT DOWN.
©
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 4
* SECTION 4.3.3.2
(PG 4-27) THE WELL SYSTEMS LISTED ARE IN THE MUCH
LARGER 201 PLANNING AREA AND ARE NOT LOCATED IN THE HILLTOP
EPA. THE HILLTOP EPA IS SERVED GENERALLY BY THE CITY OF
CLEVELAND WATER DEPARTMENT.
* SECTION 4.7
(PG 4-54) MORE DISCUSSION OF THE PURPOSE AND
APPLICABILITY OF TABLE 4-12 WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.
* SECTION 4.8.2
(PG 4-58) ..."LOCAL INTERCEPTOR SEWERS"
THE CORRECT DESCRIPTION IS "LOCAL SEWER."
IS INCORRECT.
(PG 4-60) TABLE 4-16 IE MISLEADING. THERE ARE OTHER
COMPONENTS OF "TOTAL REVENUES" AND "TOTAL EXPENDITURES" .
THE INFORMATION PRESENTED ON "OUTSTANDING BONDS" AND
"INVESTMENTS" IS NOT A PART OF THE CALCULATION LEADING TO
"REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES" AND SHOULD APPEAR AS MEMO OR
FOOTNOTE ITEMS
(PG 4-61) a) THE BASIS FOR "LOCAL OBLIGATIONS OF S20 TO
S80 MILLION" IS UNCLEAR. THE EIS SHOULD IDENTIFY WHAT IS
INCLUDED IN THESE COSTS.
b) COMMUNITY EXPENDITURE OUTPACING COMMUNITY
REVENUE IS AN INDICATOR OF FISCAL STRESS ONLY UNDER
CONTINUOUS OR RECURRING CONDITIONS.
(PG 4-62) THE PRESENTATION OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF
REVENUES, SOURCES OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND BONDED
INDEBTEDNESS WOULD BENEFIT FROM MORE DISCUSSION
« SECTION 4.8.3
(PG 4-63) a) THE NEORSD WAS ESTABLISHED BY COURT ORDER
UNDER O.R.C. 6119, NOT BY THE STATE OF OHIO.
b) THE "32 SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES" REFERRED
TO IN THE TEXT REFERS TO THE COMMUNITIES SERVED BY THE
DISTRICT AT THE TIME OF ITS FORMATION. THE DISTRICT NOW
SERVES 43 SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.
c} CUSTOMERS IN SUBDISTRICT 1 PAY CAPITAL
CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOB CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BENEFITING
SUBDIETRICT 1 CUSTOMERS AS WELL AS OSM COSTS.
d) TABLE 4-18 PRESENTS SELECTED BALANCE SHEET
DATA NOT "NEORSD INCOME AND EXPENSES FOR 1984 AND 1985".
]©
]©
(PG 4-64) STANDARD AND POOR'S AAA RATING FOR NEORSD IS
DUE TO THE DISTRICT'S PURCHASE OF BOND INSURANCE WHICH IS
ALSO AVAILABLE TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES.
* SECTION 6.1.12
(PG 6-28) THE DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS RELATED TO STREAM
CROSSING 1 APPLIES TO ALTERNATIVES EIS-1 AND EIS-4 ON PG
6-27, NOT EIE-2 AND EIS-3 AS IT APPEARS HERE.
CHAPTER 5
* SECTION 5.3
(PCS 5-20 TO 5-34) THE EIS SHOULD NOTE THE COST OF THE
DISTRICT PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE RICHMOND-WHITE
PUMP STATION, IN THE TABLES PRESENTING THE COSTS OF
ALTERNATIVES IN THIS SECTION.
(PG 5-22) ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR EIS-1 WILL DIFFER
BETWEEN THE OPTIONS WITH AND WITHOUT BONNIEVIEW.
CHAPTER 6
« SECTION 6.1.7
(PG 6-21) THE HIGHLAND GREEN'S DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO TIE INTO SEWER LINES ON S.O.M. CENTER ROAD., 1-271
LIES BETWEEN MINER AND S.O.M. CENTER ROADS.
* SECTION 6.1.11
(PG 6-24) THE STATEMENT DESCRIBING THE LOCAL SEWER
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR GATES MILLS AND MAYFIELD HTS.
IN THE HILLTOP AREA IS UNCLEAR. INSERT "LOCAL" BEFORE
"SEWER" IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON THIS
PAGE.
(PG 6-25) a) A LOW GROWTH RATE IS NOT A TRUE INDICATOR
OF DECREASED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. PER CAPITA INCOME IS MORE
INDICATIVE OF THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY OF THE COMMUNITY.
b) THE DESCRIPTION OF "SUPERIOR" BOND RATINGS
OF THE HILLTOP EPA COMMUNITIES IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
DISCUSSION OF THE SAME BOND RATINGS IN SECTION 4.8.2, PG
4-62 AND TABLE 4-17 WHICH DESCRIBE THOSE RATINGS AS
"AVERAGE".
(PG 6-26) THE REASONABLE DEBT LIMIT, SHOWN IN TABLE
6-5, FOR GATES MILLS (SI,649,500) APPEARS TO BE INCORRECTLY
CALCULATED FROM THE DATA PRESENTED IN THE TABLE. SINCE SO
IN OUTSTANDING BONDS ARE IDENTIFIED, THE REASONABLE DEBT
LIMIT SHOULD EQUAL THE ANNUAL REVENUES (51,691,962).
J'
CHAPTER 7
» SECTION 7.1
(PG 7-1) THE DISCUSSION OF THE RESIDUAL FLOW TO BEECH
HILL AFTER MOST FLOW IS DIVERTED TO THE BONNIEVIEW STORAGE
TANK SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT THIS RESIDUAL FLOW TO
BEECH HILL IS FROM THE TRIBUTARY AREA NORTH OF THE BEECH
HILL PUMP STATION. IF PUMPING IS NOT RESUMED AT BEECH HILL,
THE BEECH HILL WET WELL CONTINUES TO FILL AND EVENTUALLY
OVERFLOWS TO A TRIBUTARY OF THE CHAGRIN FIVER.
* SECTION 7.3
(PG 7-8) THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF THE HILLTOP EPA ARE TO
RELIEVE I/I PROBLEMS IN EXISTING LOCAL SEWERS (NOT RELIEF
SEWERS) AND OVERFLOWS CAUSED BY EXCESS FLOW TO THE BBW
COMPLEX.
(PG 7-10) THE EIS SHOULD PROVIDE A CLEAR ACCOUNTIl
THE SOURCES AND FLOWS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE 1.8 MGD
ASSOCIATED WITH THE RECOMMENDED PLAN.
• SECTION 7.5
ING OF ~~|
(PG 7-21) THE DISCUSSION OF HOW USER COSTS FROM EACH
SUBDISTRICT ARE APPORTIONED BY THE DISTRICT IS INCORRECT.
SUBDISTRICT 1 USERS DO PAY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
WWTP'S AND SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WHICH AFFECT THAT
SUBDISTRICT IN ADDITION TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
DISTRICT FACILITIES. BASICALLY, USER COSTS ARE APPLIED TO
THE SUBDISTRICT AFFECTED BY SPECIFIC PROJECTS. BOTH
SUBDISTRICTS WOULD PAY FOR WWTP IMPROVEMENTS. ALSO, THE
ANNUAL USER (SERVICE] CHARGES CITED ARE NOT DISTRICT
CHARGES. DISTRICT USER CHARGES ARE UNIFORM ($6.457/MCF)
OVER THE ENTIRE DISTRICT. ADDITIONALLY, SUBDISTRICT 1 USERS
PAY S2.093/MCF FOR DEBT SERVICE RETIREMENT WHILE SUBDISTRICT
2 USERS ARE CHARGED $4.603 FOR DEBT SERVICE RETIREMENT PLCJS
EQUITY EQUALIZATION WHICH IS SUBDISTRICT 2 PAYMENT TO THE
CITY OF CLEVELAND (SUBDISTRICT 1) FOR CLEVELAND'S WWTP AND
8-17
-------
FACILITIES ACQUIRED AS A RESULT OF THE DISTRICT'S FORMATION
SERVICE CHARGES ARE LOCAL COMMUNITY CHARGES FOR OiM, ETC.
THE COLLECTOR SEWERS WHICH ARE OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL
COMMUNITIES. CONSEQUENTLY, THESE CHARGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE
TO THE DISTRICT. THESE LOCA^ CHARGES MAY BE USED BY LOCAL
COMMUNITIES TO PAY FOR LOCA* SEWER IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS
THOSE MANDATED IN THE COMMUNITY DISCHARGE PERMITS.
JDG ]
A711DRAF
8/21/81
UN
s = , • -;
£ , i s* ' S S "!•=
- ; i H i i ', Msir
liiiHii I
» 8 I - X X Z ^§
I!
II
_ t
M 3
8-18
-------
sKKirsr _ ._ ,|y»
XlT^1;™- "~~~W
D, A,V,_; — .»•
°'Q,0' o^
D, D. D: D. O, D,. - "| -
D,| Dn "" ' ~ 1
~ 1 — '
O,, O,, O,, ^ , | _
O u "* ^ -
N.
. . k£E^
®"
TtrrcM. tan n* arm WDUU '
i umrtUTw wn* i>
U Off UQTT
u MMU mr, i<« camm. BUTOI
u n«T iimw
it iuuw wsn ivrroi
i tiiciaf tax HTTCK
;
^
;
^
H-^l
A
^ i
_j
— •
-1
-1
" -\.
%
,..->•
V =
r
L
-
-1
-1
EZ±_
=£-L--
L
/
| /THCsi!
v(7ra ^TP
: — .» ' ^
^
~^tSftw
% <-.r.iw
;;«..»•?;:.*!
LE«W>
EAJTIULT
FIGUftE Vll-l
EFFLUENT F»CILITIES
LirOUT AND
FLO* PATH
^r.",";',",":,:".0,
*r-t-" c'D SEP
198?
STEPHEN HDVANCSEK & ASSOCIATES. INC
269 RICHMOND ROAD CLEVELAND OHIO 44143
12161 731 62SS <2lfc)3Bll953
August 26, 1987
US EPA
Region 5
Mr Harlan D Hirt, Chief
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Cleveland, Ohio
August 26, 1987
Page 2
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attention: Mr. Harlan D Hirt, Chief,
Environmental Planning Commission
5-WFP-TUB-08
fie DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Cleveland Hilltop Planning Area,
OHIO
Dear Mr Hirt
For the past twenty-f,ive years, Stephen Hovancsek, of the firm of
Stephen Hovancsek & Associates, Inc. has represented communities
in the Hilltop Planning Area as their Engineer City of Richmond
Heights (1962 to 1972}, Village of Mayfield (1969 to present),
City of South Euclid (1973 to present) and City of Highland Heights
(1979 to present)
In the past and up until' the fall of 1984, the Beechhill Pump Station
and the Wilson Mills. Pump Station were represented to the communities
by the County and later by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
that the Pump Stations were temporary facilities which would be abandoned
when the Hilltop Interceptor gravity sanitary sewer was installed
After the communities endured and tolerated the hardships of pump
station malfunctions, force mam breaks, etc the EPA DRAFT EIS now
states that the gravity interceptor is too costly and that the Beechhill
Pump Station would be renovated and become permanent pump station
The DRAFT EIS skims over the environmental issue and considers a gravity
system and a sanitary sewer system with two large pump stations as being
environmentally equal I strongly recommend that the EIS be modified
to include holding tanks with d 24-hour dry weather flow capacity, at the
two large pump stations This would make the reliability of the two
systems more nearly equal
The dual forcemains are definitely needed due to the subsoil
conditions and the need to make the reliability of the Pump Station
system more nearly equal to the gravity system
The permanent BeechhiM Pump Station, ?f constructed, should be
placed on the ten-acre Beechhill Site located opposite Bonnieview
It is the recommendation of the undersigned that the gravity alterna-
tive should be chosen because this system has no moving parts and
is, therefore, not subject to mechanical equipment failure end human
error as is the pumping alternative
The cost of a gravity sewer system over a slightly longer period of
time would permanently become less costly to the users and I request
that the local government be allowed to install the gravity system,
and if necessary, pay the difference
0
The gravity system is the most effective system
technically and in the long run, econonn cally
ronmentally
Very trulji yours,
j&^L /^
Stephen^jJ^Hovancsek
cc Mayor fred Carmen, Mayfield Village
Mayor Arnold D'Amico, South fuclid
Mayor Thoirwb Huyhes, Highland Heights
SJH jr
8-19
-------
ER-87/930
RECEIVED SEP 1 5
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE^OF ENVIRONMENT AL PROJECT RtVIEW
CHICAGO ILLINOIS 6D6U«
August 31, 1987
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
The Department of the Interior (Department) has riviewed the draft
environmental Impact statement (statement) for tht Cleveland Hilltop Planning
Area, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, This statec*nt pertains to the proposed
construction of wasteuater collection and treatment facilities in an area that
encompasses about 20 square miles northeast of Cleveland on the border of
Cuyahoga and Lake Counties.
Gene
al Com
ents
In general, the statement adequately addresses the environmental consequences
of improving the wastewater collection and treatment system. The Department
concurs with the selection of alternative EIS-3 as the recommended alternative,
as It la environmentally preferable to the originally proposed project,
alternative ElS-1. Alternative EIS-l would have directly Impacted mature
forest and 1.6 acres of forested wetlands. Alternative EIS-3 avoids these
Impacts.
However, the draft statement does not mention mineral resources in the proposed
project area. An examination of library and file data, without benefit of
field investigation, revealed that mineral resources in Cuyahoga and Lake
Counties Include salt, clay, lime, and peat. According to Pennwell's 1982 Map
of Natural Gas Pipelines of the United States and Canada, a natural gas
pipeline and a gaafleld are in or near the project area. The final statement
should describe nlneral resources and discuss impacts on them that may occur as
a result of project implementation. Plans for relocating or protecting
pipelines should also be Included. If no adverse impacts to mineral resources
and pipelines are identified, a statement to that effect should be included in
the Affected Environment Section of the final statement.
Mr. Valdai V. Adaukus
In addition, the proposed project could have an Impact on several parks which
were developed or acquired with Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance.
These parks Include:
Project No.
39-00110
39-00176
39-00434
39-00537
39-00900
39-00945
Project No.
39-00112
39-00644
Cuyahoga County Park
Quarry Park
Mayfield Heights Park
Cleveland Heights Blkeways
Wlnslow Park
Euclid Creek Trail
City Park Pool
Lake County Park
Willoughby Hills City Park
Willoughby Hills City Park
Any construction Involving above-listed park land may be la conflict with
Section 6(f)O) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Public Law 69-578,
as amended). Section 6(f)(3) states: "No property acquired or developed with
assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary (of
the Interior), be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses."
The project sponsor should consult with the official who administers the Land
and Water Conservation Fund program in the State of Ohio to determine potential
conflicts. The administrator of the program for Ohio is Mr. Joseph J. Sonmer,
Director, Department of Natural Resources, Fountain Square, Building D-l,
ColuBbus. Ohio 43224.
The proposed project could also have an impact cm the following sites which
were developed with funding assistance under the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Act of 1978:
Project No.
39-035-CNTY-79-01
39-035-CNTY-80-02
39-035-CNTY-84-01
Cuyahoga County Sites
Alta House
Cumberland Pool
Superior Hill Park
Foot Memorial Park
Cleveland Heights High School
Taft Park
Euclid Memorial Park
Bohlken Park
Staford Park
Miller Park
Purvis Park
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus
3
Any conversion of all or any part of these sites to other than public
recreation use oust comply with the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act and
the specific requirements for any such conversion specified in 36 CFR Part 72
(51 Federal Register pages 34186-7). Any application for such conversion
should be Bade to the Regional Director, Midwest Region, National Park Service,
1709 Jackson Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2571, and should describe compliance
with the specific requirements of 36 CFR Part 72.
Specific Co amenta
pen water wetland would be elimi
hould be Included in the final statement
Page 6-20 states that the loss of terrestrial habitat is not considered to be
significant on a regional basis because of the abundance of similar cover
outside the project easement. No data are presen:ed In the statement to
support this conclusion. The final statement should provide acreage figures
and additional locations of where such habitat can be found to support the
conclusion of nonslgnificance. The loss of wetland habitat was also considered
not to be significant. Data to support this conc.uslon should also be added to
the final statement.
Page 4-47 identifies Haliaeetus leucocephalus as i he southern bald eagle. The
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephal
endangered species in the contermi
Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wi
listed as a federslly threatened s
southern populations as indicated
final statement should be amended
Ohio. Additional information rela
fish and wildlife resources can be
Field Office, Fish and Wildlife Se
Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 (FTS 943-
us) is currently listed as a federally
nous United Stales, except for the States of
consin, and Michigan. In those States, it is
pecies. There s no listing by northern or
in the draft statement. In addition, the
to state that the bald eagle does nest in
ted to threatened and endangered species or
obtained from the Field Supervisor, Columbus
rvice, 6950-H Aciericana Parkway,
6923 or 614/469-6923).
The opportunity to comment on this draft statement is appreciated.
Sincerely,
d
Sheila Mloor Huff
Regional Environmental Offi
Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Environmental Planni
U S. EPA (5WFP)
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
8-20
-------
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
present time or system as laid out
according to a 75 percent funding form
and do it as soon as possible. Let's get
on with this. We've been discussing jt
fora long time.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to come before
you today.
MR. LUECHT• Thank you. Our next
speaker is Dan Clark representing
Congressman Ed Feighan's office.
MR. CLARK. Thank you. On behalf
of Congressman Feighan, it's a pleasure
to be here today. I have written
that will be submitted to you for the
record .
Thank you for this
opportunity to comment on the
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Heights-Hi 11 top Interceptor.
Before making any comments on
the substance of your suggestions, I
would iike to take this opportunity to
publicly thank our local Sewer District
tor their responsiveness to my office and
to our community, The Buard o£ Directors
and staff of the District have worked
long and hard at trying to alleviate the
problems experienced by the residents of
the Heights-Hilltop community
The work of the Public
Advisory Committee convened by the
No
should also be recognized and commended
problems, Their work is greatly
appreciated by all of us involved in this
issue,
The Heights-Hilitop
Interceptor has been studied, debated,
discussed, revised and reviewed more than
any project I have been associated with
during my career as a public official.
During our deliberations, a
and expanded homes and businesses in the
Heights-Hilltop area. This generation
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has had to tolerate a sewer system that
would back up in their homes, overflow in
their waterways and, generally, destroyed
the quality of life they sought so hard
to naintain. Hith this in mind, I urge
the USEPA to make action their top
priorit y.
Although I am requesting a
different configuration than you have
recomnended, I think the tiost important
the Sewer District to go forward and
alleviate the tremendous problems
experienced by our residents
by
illy
have been a problem for our community
during the past two decades. Public
confidence in any system which is
dependent upon pump stations which are
still subject to failure, will be
difficult to gain
©
1 4
15
16
17
IB
19 j
20
21
24
25
A gravity sewer system would
guarantee this community a fail-safe
method of transporting sewage The
favorable topography and Mother Nature.
projected by the EIS to be 23 5 million
dollars more than the two pump stations
alternative. This cost difference will
in proper perspective within the federal
the Defense Department spends roughly 34
©
In addition, there will be
period you have taken into
Consideration No mechamca' system can
Mother Nature
1 urge yo
8-21
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the Heights-Hi 11 to? Interceptor. Our
residents have worked hard to build a
community which will provide for an
enhanced quality of life for their
children.
I think tie best way to
insure that quality of life is to build
the gravity flow sewer system.
Finally, I would urge you to
"grandfather" this project, to allow the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District to
receive 75 percent federal funding. It
uould be a travesty of justice to
maintain that this is a new project
approved after October 1, 1984. The
project is part of a whole system which
began long before the October 1, 1984
date .
In conclusion, I look forward
to working with you to build a sewer
system which insures that the environment
is protected and the citizens are
releived of the problems that they have
experienced for two decades. To that
end, I believe we sho-ild eliminate all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
pump stations and move forward as quickly
as possible. Thank you.
MR. LUECHT: Thank you. Our next
speaker is Lee Courtney.
MR. COURTNEY- Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I'm Lee Courtney. I am the
engineer for Richmond Heights and the
engineer for Gates Mills. I live in
Richmond Heights and my office is in
Mayfield Village. I've been here a long
time. I know the area well and I feel
very strongly about it.
I want to commend these
gentlemen for presenting their case
well. Unfortunately, I don't agree with
them. It was a good presentation, and if
their object was to cut the cost, they
did their job very well.
I would suggest that there is
another alternative that they didn't
present. That's the alternative to do
nothing at all, then we would have a
marvelous cost of zero. Life will still
go on. It has for the last 20 years
while all local people have been studying
8-22
-------
8.3 COMMENT RESPONSES
The following responses are keyed to circled numbers in the texts of the
preceding comment letters in Section 8.2.
Comment 1
Comment: NEORSD's proposed gravity alternative is inherently more
reliable than the recommended alternative, because gravity
sewer systems are more reliable than pumping systems.
Commentor/s: Cleveland Metroparks System
HAPAC Technical Subcommittee
HAPAC Environmental Subcommittee
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Steven Hovancsek
Congressman Edward F. Feighan
Commissioner Mary Boyle
Citizens for Land and Water Use
Arnold Gieisser
Ed Flammang
Dee Brescia
Lee Case
G.H. Goodman
Response:
Experience in Cleveland and elsewhere shows that a conveyance system utilizing
pumps with proper design, operation, and maintenance of the pumping stations
and force mains, can be as reliable as a gravity system. To ensure the reli-
ability of a pumped system, the Draft EIS included several control features
which would improve the overall reliability of the major pump stations. A
central control system was included to monitor and control all the pumping
stations in the Hilltop area. The central computer would continuously monitor
parameters at each pumping station, such as wet well level, flow volumes, and
various pump parameters, and control each system based on these inputs. The
central control system would be designed to automatically adjust for pump
station problems without affecting the normal transfer of wastewater from the
Hilltop area. Should a problem develop with the central computer, control
would automatically shift to each individual station. The controls would
continue to monitor and operate the stations normally.
8-23
-------
In addition to the central control computer, each major pumping station would
be designed with sufficient capacity to convey a peak event with one pump out
of service. Separate power grids and on-site power generators would be
included with the pump stations to avoid power failures. Automatic switching
of an on-site diesel generator would allow it to automatically start in the
event of a power outage.
It should be noted that neither gravity nor pump stations/forcemains are 100
percent reliable. Gravity sewers may develop clogs which can cause sewage to
backup and overflow from the system. They are also subject to cracks and
breaks which may result from tree roots or other factors. Similarly, pump
stations and forcemains also have potential for mechanical problems. Both a
pumped system and gravity sewers require good design and a maintenance program
to ensure proper operation. It should be noted that none of the systems
studied in this EIS is an all gravity system. Every alternative contained
some pump stations and force mains which are needed to provide transport of
wastewater from the area.
One final point regarding pump station reliability is the fact that many small
pump stations now exist within the Hilltop area (Woods, Williamsburg,
Franklin, Richmond Mall, Thornapple, Richmond-White, Suffolk County Estates,
Aintree, Mount Vernon, Picker X-Ray and Stark), and no major problems were
noted with these stations during review of material for the Draft EIS. No
comments were received during the comment period which addressed existing
problems at any of the small pump stations. The principles of operation at
these stations are the same as for the larger stations recommended at Beech
Hill and Richmond-White. Although these are on a somewhat smaller scale, they
do show that pump stations can work effectively to transport wastewater.
Comment 2
Comment: The pipe bridge across Euclid Creek proposed in Alternative
EIS-3 will seriously detract from the aesthetics of the park it
crosses. Costs shown do not reflect the costs of constructing
a compatible structure.
Commentor/s: Cleveland Metropark System
HAPAC
HAPAC Environmental Subcommittee
HAPAC Economic Subcommittee
8-24
-------
Response:
Due to concerns regarding the aesthetics of a pipe bridge over Euclid Creek
along Monticello Boulevard, costs for an independent reinforced concrete pipe
bridge which would match the existing road bridge were developed. This bridge
would not detract from the aesthetics of the area because of the use of
building materials and an architectural design similar to that of the existing
bridge. Figure 8-1 shows a conceptual drawing of the pipe bridge. As shown,
the design of this bridge enables full enclosure of the pipes, and thus they
are not visible from the adjacent land areas.
The cost estimates for this structure are as follows:
Description
14" Diameter Steel Piling filled
with Concrete
Concrete Footings
Structural Concrete Columns
Bridge Arches
Forming
Concrete
Intermediate Walls (Precast)
Top Slab (Precast)
Longitudinal Side Walls (Precast)
Grating, Primary Steel, Handrail
Steel Pipe
Painting
51,669,570
Due to questions regarding the cost variance between an aesthetically
compatible pipe bridge versus a basic design shown in the NEORSD environmental
assessment, an independent cost analysis for a basic pipe bridge was devel-
oped. The costs shown for a basic pipe bridge in the DEIS were taken from
Quantity
660 LF
150 CF
190 CY
4,800 SF
360 CY
30 units
7,200 SF
4,500 SF
12,000 SF
800 SF
Unit Cost
$70/LF
$300/CY
$450/CY
$37.50/SF
$350/CY
$2,000/unit
$18/SF
$15/SF
$10/SF
$715/LF
Contingency +15£
Total Cost
$ 46,200
$ 45,000
$ 85,500
$ 180,000
$ 126,000
$ 60,000
$ 129,600
$ 67,500
$ 120,000
$ 572,000
$ 20,000
$1,451,800
217,770
8-25
-------
8-26
0)
•H
l-l
oa
o>
a
•H
cu
rH
XI
•H
•P
ro
a
o
u
H
rH
(0
0
•H
-P
(U
,C
-P
CO
(D
I
oo
CD
S-i
-------
NEORSD facilities planning/environmental assessment sources; the costs
estimated below reflect a more detailed costing. These costs include a steel
bridge crossing with a reinforced concrete foundation. Figure 8-2 shows a
conceptual drawing of the basic pipe bridge. The cost estimates for this
structure are as follows:
Description
14" Diameter Steel Piling Filled
with Concrete
Concrete Footings
Structural Concrete Columns
Structural Steel Beam System
Grating and Handrail
Steel Pipe
Painting
Quantity
660 LF
150 CY
250 CY
105 Ton
8,000 SF
800 LF
Unit Cost
$70/LF
$300/CY
$450/CY
$l,800/Ton
$10/SF
$715/LF
Contingency +15%
Total Cost
$ 46,200
$ 45,000
$ 112,500
$ 189,000
$ 80,000
$ 572,000
$ 45,000
$1,089,700
163,455
$1,253,155
As can be seen from these data, an aesthetically compatible pipe bridge would
cost roughly one-third more than a basic pipe bridge, and would not signif-
icantly change the cost-effectiveness of the selected alternative, EIS-3.
The added costs for aesthetics may not be grant allowable.
Comment 3
Comment noted; correction placed on page 4-73.
Comment 4
Comment:
Commentor/s:
Population forecasts used in the EIS are too low.
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Committee
HAPAC Growth and Development Subcommittee
Mayor Hughes, Richmond Heights
Response:
Population forecasts used in the Draft EIS are the most recent officially-
sanctioned figures provided by the Ohio Data Users Center (ODUC). It should
be noted that sizing of sewer lines in the Hilltop area is relatively
8-27
-------
0-4
0-t
I 1
,—! i—'
td tf
i—i
• i
Figure 8-2. Basic Pipe Bridge
8-28
-------
insensitive to future population due to the high level of infiltration and
inflow in the area.
Comment 5
Comment: Figure 4-10 does not include all proposed developments and
should be updated.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Growth and Development Subcommittee
Response:
The HAPAC survey of developers cited by the comment includes additional
proposed developments, however the basic growth conclusions of the DEIS
document would not be changed by updating Figure 4-10.
Comment 6
Comment: The recommended plan does not address the growth needs of the
area tributary to the Richmond-White pump station.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Growth and Development Subcommittee
HAPAC Technical Subcommittee
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Mary Boyle
Lee Case
Response:
The EIS and facilities planning addressed alternatives for solving the
ultimate needs of the Hilltop area. Alternative EIS-3 was found to be the
cost-effective system alternative to solve the needs of ultimate growth and
provide for local sewering of all unsewered areas, most of which occur in the
northern portion of the Facilities Planning Area (FPA).
Due to insufficient documentation of the need for extensive local sewering of
the northern portion of the FPA (i.e., a lack of facilities planning which
addresses the various alternatives to a network of conventional local gravity
sewers), the EIS recommended a component of EIS-3 which would address the
needs of the 20 year planning period population and more specifically the
existing needs of the Hilltop FPA.
The EIS Recommended Plan (the component of EIS-3) includes an upgraded Beech
Hill Pump Station and forcemain, elimination of the Wilson Mills Pump Station,
8-29
-------
and expansion of the Richmond/White Pump Station with a forcemain to the
gravity sewer at Wilson Mills Road. The Recommended Plan includes provisions
for the elimination of package plants that would not depend on an extensive
network of local sewers. All portions of the Recommended Plan are sized for
20 year growth, with the exception of the Richmond/White forcemain and pumps,
which were sized for existing flows. Because it is anticipated that flows
from the northern portion of the FPA (both from existing on-site systems areas
and future growth) would be handled by the Richmond/White Pump Station, the
structure was costed out to handle the necessary 12.8 mgd capacity pumping for
the 20 year planning period. The recommended forcemain is sized for existing
needs, but the NEORSD may decide how to address reserve capacity for future
growth (depending on what alternatives are developed for the northern portion
of the FPA) in the construction of the forcemain along Richmond Road. Any
increase in capacity beyond the recommended 12" as forcemain for existing
needs would be funded locally.
Comment 7
Comment noted; an incorrect version of Appendix G was inadvertently published
in the Draft EIS. The correct appendix is included at pages G-l through G-5.
Comment 8
Comment: Costs for pump station component failures should be included in
the cost estimates.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Economics Subcommitee
Response:
While no costs associated with pump station component failures are directly
listed, they are included in the cost analysis as part of the operation and
maintenance costs. With proper operation and maintenance of the pump sta-
tions, no component failures should occur; and consequently, there should be
no overflows and other environmental concerns as a result of component
failures. The control features recommended for the pump stations should help
alert operators of maintenance requirements prior to a problem which could
cause an overflow event. Consequently, corrective actions can be taken before
a component failure can cause any environmental damage.
8-30
-------
Comment 9
Comment: Draft EIS Beech Hill pump station renovation costs appear too
low.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Economics Subcommittee
Response:
The costs associated with upgrading the Beech Hill pumping station include the
pumping system, controls, and backup generator. In addition, the operation
and maintenance costs include allowances for labor and miscellaneous other
costs. This allowance should cover routine yearly maintenance which will keep
the Beech Hill pumping station in good condition. The existing structure of
the building is sound, and does not appear to require substantial renovation.
With adequate routine maintenance, the existing structure should remain sound.
Comment 10
Comment: The 15 percent contingency used in some of the calculations is
too low.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Economics Subcommittee
Response:
In general, a contingency is usually included in planning-level cost estimates
to account for unforeseen changes in costs and any changes which may be
included in the construction stage which were not considered during the cost
analyses. A 15 percent contingency was recommended for use by USEPA. Use of a
15 percent contingency is consistent with present USEPA cost analysis guide-
lines (Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual, CD-53). This
15 percent contingency was applied consistently for all alternatives in the
draft EIS analysis and therefore, would not affect the overall economic
evaluation of alternatives.
Comment 11
Comment: The present worth assumptions used in the Draft EIS are not
realistic.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Economics Subcommittee
Steven Hovancsek
8-31
-------
Response:
The economic analysis assumptions were based on guidelines developed for the
USEPA Construction Grants program. In general, the guidelines clearly define
how a cost analysis should be conducted. The economic analysis should not
include an allowance for inflation of wages and prices. This is based on the
assumption that prices for resources involved in treatment works construction
and operation will tend to change over time by approximately the same
percentage.
The evaluation performed by the HAPAC Economics Subcommittee showed little
cost difference between the present worth of EIS-1 and EIS-3. This analysis
did include an inflation of operating costs which is not allowed by the
Construction Grants program. In addition to this inflation, the HAPAC
evalution also included an allowance of $10 million for inclusion of features
recommended by the HAPAC Technical Subcommittee. Without these additions, the
present worth of EIS-3 is still considerably less than the present worth of
EIS-1.
The issue of a 50-year versus a 20-year planning period is also governed by
the Construction Grants guidelines. A project must be cost-effective when
compared to other alternatives based on capacity to serve the area for a
20-year period.
Comment 12
Comment: The Beech Hill pump station should be rebuilt at the Bonnieview
Site.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Technical Subcommittee
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Steven Hovancsek
Response:
While the existing site of the Beech Hill pump station may have originally
been intended as a temporary location, there is no structural reason to
rebuild the existing station. The structure of the Beech Hill pumping station
is in good condition and normal operation and maintenance of the facility
should keep the existing structure in good condition.
8-32
-------
It is true that the pumping station is located in a residential area, however,
its existence does not visually detract from the area. The design is consis-
tent with the single family homes found in the area. Several large trees and
a split rail fence are present on the lot and add to the overall quality of
the area. There is no excessive noise emitted from the station.
An evaluation conducted to determine the feasibility of moving the Beech Hill
pumping station to the Bonnieview site has indicated that, while the
Bonnieview site has sufficient land space to accommodate the Beech Hill
pumping station, other factors exist which make the site less desirable. The
elevation of the Bonnieview site is higher than the elevation of the Beech
Hill site. Some type of pumping station would still be needed at the Beech
Hill site to transport wastewater from the area north of Beech Hill to the new
pumping station at the Bonnieview site. Using the new site would require the
addition of another pumping station, and comsequently the evaluation concluded
that the Beech Hill pumping station should not be relocated.
Comment 13
Comment: No provision has been made to store flows from the Beech Hill
service area north of Wilson Mills Road.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Technical Subcommittee
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Response:
As noted by the commenters, it is true that flow from the service area north
of the Beech Hill pump station cannot presently be routed to Bonnieview in
case of system upsets. As discussed in the response to Comment 10, there is
no basis for moving the Beech Hill pumping station to the Bonnieview site.
Therefore, it is recommended that an auxilliary pump and generator be
installed in the existing Beech Hill pump station to transfer flow to the
Bonnieview storage basin in the event of a system upset. A force main from
Beech Hill to Bonnieview would also be required. In the event of a problem
with the main Beech Hill transport system, flow from the area south of Beech
Hill would be diverted to the Bonnieview storage basin, while flow from the
8-33
-------
northern area would be pumped from the Beech Hill wet well to the Bonnieview
storage basin. The estimated costs for this system are as follows:
Item
12" Pipe
Manholes
Excavation and Backfill
Rock Excavation
Surface Restoration
Sheeting and Shoring
Pump
Generator
Quantity
Unit Cost
Cost
2,000 FT $27.00/FT
3 $1,465/EA
2,370 CY $10.19/CY
593 CY $66.19/CY
889 SY $33.75/SY
40,000 SF $ 1.30/SF
3 MGD
Subtotal
Contingency (15%)
TOTAL
$ 54,000
4,395
24,150
39,251
30,004
52,000
50,000
$ 29,400
$283,200
42,480
$325,680
The salvage value (not including pump and generator) is $26,902. Since this
is a standby system which would only be used in emergency situations, the
additional operation and maintenance costs would be minimal.
This system should be implemented as part of the plan recommended in the Draft
EIS.
Comment 14
Comment:
Commentor/s:
Twin force mains are essential for a reliable gravity sewer
system.
HAPAC Technical Subcommittee
HAPAC Environmental Subcommittee
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Steven Hovanacsek
Response:
The USEPA believes twin force mains are not standard engineering practice and
were, therefore, not used within the Hilltop analysis. With proper design,
construction, and maintenance the reliability of the force mains will be very
high; consequently, twin force mains are not needed.
8-34
-------
Comment 15
Comment: Emergency holding tanks are necessary to the reliable operation
of a gravity sewer system.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Technical Subcommittee
HAPAC Environmental Subcommittee
Steven Hovancsek
Response:
Emergency holding tanks at major pump stations are not standard engineering
practice. This is because the pumping stations will be designed to handle
peak flows from sanitary sewers; consequently, emergency holding tanks would
not be used. With the control system and backup power sources used at the
major pump stations, these stations should be extremely reliable and not
subject to failures which result in overflows of sewage. Investing a large
sum of money in a structure which is not intended to be used is not cost-
effective and is, therefore, not included in the recommended plan.
Emergency holding tanks would only be needed during an extreme system failure.
Such a failure would probably require substantial repairs, which would exceed
a 24-hour shutdown period. Even an emergency holding tank with capacity to
handle the 24-hour flow volume would be exceeded during such a major failure.
Therefore, overflows would probably occur from the system with or without
24-hour storage basins during the unlikely event of extreme system failures.
Comment 16
Comment: The existing 30" sewer presently in the Monticello Avenue
bridge over the Euclid River is leaking and should be replaced.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Technical Subcommittee
HAPAC Environmental Subcommittee
Response:
No evidence of a leak in the 30-inch sewer in the Monticello Boulevard bridge
over Euclid Creek was presented during the development of the Draft EIS.
References have been made to water which drips from the sewer pipe as evidence
of a pipe leak. If the dripping water is a result of a pipe leak (and not a
result of condensation, rainfall runoff, etc.), many methods are available to
repair leaks. In general, a pipe is not replaced because of a small leak but
8-35
-------
is more frequently repaired in place. At the present time, based on dis-
cussions with the NEORSD, it does not appear that this pipe needs to be
replaced. However, should it be found that the existing 30-inch sewer does
need replacement, the new pipe bridge was designed to support twin 54-inch
sewers which would be required to transport the full flow volume.
Comment 17
Comment: The Green Road Basin should be part of immediate plans.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Technical Subcommittee
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Response:
The Green Road Storage Basin was previously approved as part of the Heights
Interceptor project. This basin will be included as part of the overall
system because of the Heights project. The flows from the Hilltop area will
not have an extensive effect on the size of the Green Road basin, however, a
size increase of 0.18 mg was included with the EIS-3 costs. Not all of this
flow is attributable to the Hilltop area since an estimated peak flow of
59 MGD will be routed to the Hilltop area from the Belvoir area along Richmond
Road as a result of total system peak flow attenuation. Since the 0.18 mg
increase can not be related directly to the Hilltop area, it was not included
as part of the costs for the recommended plan.
Comment 18
Comment: The EIS did not eliminate on-site treatment as a viable option
during alternative screening.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Environmental Subcommittee
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Response:
On-site systems in the Hilltop Area were evaluated in Section 2.5 of the DEIS.
Various studies were documented on pages 2-40 and 2-41. It was concluded that
these studies, although informative, did not adequately document the need for
extending sewer service to the subject areas as referenced in 40 CFR
35.2030(a)(l).
8-36
-------
Agency guidance requires that in order to allow federal grant participation,
the need for sewer service must be adequately justified. This justification
may consist of evidence, both indirect and direct, which will yield conclusive
proof that a public health problem exists and cannot be cost-effectively
corrected via any other means. As stated, some of this evidence may be
indirect, that is, conditions unsuitable for on-site system performance may be
cited. These conditions may include the existence of poor soils, shallow
depth to bedrock, or improper lot sizes. While such indirect evidence is
important, it cannot be used to totally justify the need for sewers. The use
of direct evidence provides the strongest case for obtaining federal grant
assistance. Such evidence would usually cite hard data obtained through field
surveys, on-site investigations and sampling. Certified reports containing
evidence of nearby drinking water well contamination, surface ponding, or
sewage backups of a large percentage of residences would satisfy this require-
ment. In the absence of such information it is difficult at best to make a
judgement as to the need for obtaining federal funds to correct perceived
problems.
Comment 19
Comment: Existing problems with basement flooding should be considered
in the design of pump stations.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Environmental Subcommittee
Mayor Hughes, Richmond Heights
Response:
The issue of basement flooding in the Hilltop area was discussed in Section
2.3 of the Draft EIS. The following discussion is from that section.
Based upon discussions with NEORSD personnel, it was determined that the
majority of basement flooding problems in the Hilltop FPA are a result of
poorly maintained collector sewers. Generally, these poorly maintained sewers
cause basement floods because of tree roots or other obstructions which
decrease the pipe capacity. Increased sewer maintenance and repairs are
currently underway to remedy the problem (Kennedy 1987c).
8-37
-------
A few homes around Beech Hill and Wilson Mills pumping stations experience
basement floods because of design problems with the homes. These homes were
built with the basement drains below the level of the pump station
wet well and consequently have flooding problems when the level in the wet
well rises.
Overall, basement flooding in the Hilltop area does not appear to be a
result of the main transport system. Proper maintenance of house laterals and
collector sewers should greatly reduce the problem.
As discussed in Section 1.1.2, a condition for grant funding to the Heights
area required NEORSI) to work with the local communities to develop programs
for relief sewer rehabilitation and construction. The NEORSD is currently
working with communities to develop the necessary programs to mitigate the
problems of infiltration and inflow and basement flooding.
Comment 20
Comment: Consider using an open cut/tunnel combination in crossing
Euclid Creek under Alternative EIS-1.
Commentor/s: HAPAC Environmental Subcommittee
Response:
USEPA agrees that the partial tunnel/partial open-cut method of construction
for the crossing of Euclid Creek would be preferred if EIS-1 were the selected
alternative. While the environmental impacts would be reduced by this method
of construction, the; additional tunneling would also marginally increase the
costs of this alternative.
Comment 21
Comment: The Draft EIS confuses the Lake County and Cuyahoga County soil
associations.
Commentor/s: Soil Conservation Service
Response:
Because the Hilltop FPA includes parts of both Lake and Cuyahoga Counties, it
was necessary to generalize information prepared at different times for each
8-38
-------
county's separate soil survey. Corrections making this clearer and elimi-
nating technical concerns of the SCS have been added to the text.
Comment 22
Comment noted; a correction was made on page 4-11.
Comment 23
Comment noted; corrections were made on page 4-12.
Comment 24
Comment noted; a correction was page on page 4-51.
Comment 25
Comment noted; a clarification has been added on page 4-58.
Comment 26
Comment noted; corrections have been added on page 4-57 and 4-58.
Comment 27
Comment noted; a correction has been added to page 1-13.
Comment 28
Comment noted; a correction has been added to page 4-51.
Comment 29
Comment noted; a correction has been added to page B-2.
Comment 30
Comment: Mitigating measures should be added to some of the
environmental impact evaluations.
Commentor/s: Ohio EPA
Response:
Input from Ohio EPA regarding appropriate mitigation requirements has been
added to the text (see below).
Comment 31
Comment noted; suggested mitigation has been added on page 6-32.
8-39
-------
Comment 32
Comment noted; suggested mitigation has been added on pages 6-2 and 6-3.
Comment 33
Comment noted; suggested mitigation has been added on page 6-2.
Comment 34
Comment noted; suggested mitigation has been added on page 6-1.
Comment 35
Comment noted; suggested mitigation has been added on page 6-15.
Comment 36
Comment: The EIS should contain a section putting the EIS process in
context relative to the Construction Grants Program.
Commentor/s: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Response:
Comment noted. The EIS makes recommendations for a project to receive Federal
funds under the Construction Grants Program to solve wastewater treatment
problems in the Hilltop area. Allowability and eligibility of specific
expenditures for Federal participation is determined in the granting of funds.
The project for which funds are received must be within the recommendations of
the EIS.
Comment 37
Comment: The EIS should not create the impression that the recommended
plan provides an immediate solution to existing needs in the
Hilltop area.
Commentor/s: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Response:
The EIS makes recommendations for construction of a project to solve the
wastewater treatment needs of the Hilltop area. The EIS describes what are
perceived as the most significant problems that need to be corrected. It is
up to the grantee, NEORSD, to determine construction phasing and scheduling,
in order to implement the recommendations of the EIS. In determining the
construction scheduling for the Hilltop project NEORSD should evaluate phasing
8-40
-------
based on downstream flow constraints, but also should recognize that those
problems which are related to reliability of the pumping system could be
addressed sooner. Implementation of the recommended plan can proceed as soon
as resources are available to correct the wastewater treatment problems.
Comment 38
Comment: The project components should be eligible to receive funding at
pre-1984 rates (i.e., 75% funding and funding for 20 years
reserve capacity) as provided for in USEPA facilities planning
regulations which reduced the allowable percentages and
categories effective Oct. 1, 1984 for grants except under
specified conditions.
Commentor/s: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Response:
The level of Federal funding is identified in the EIS to facilitate estimating
the potential local costs associated with the alternatives. While the
identified levels of funding represent USEPA's current interpretation of the
applicable regulations, (40 CFR 35.2030, 35.2108, 35.2123, and 35.2152) the
content of the EIS is not a final agency decision on this matter, and the EIS
review is not the vehicle to reach a final resolution. That decision will not
be made until an application for funding is processed.
Recognizing that the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act have further
revised the categories of allowable funding, have scheduled the phase out of
the Federal grant program after 1990 and have established a revolving loan
fund, it is emphasized that the distribution of capital costs between local
and Federal sources is an estimate based on the present regulations.
Comment 39
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page ix.
Comment 40
Comment noted; revisions were placed on pages ix, xxiii, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31,
3-48, 5-5, 5-10, 5-24, 7-5, 7-6, and Index page 1.
Comment 41
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 2-1.
8-41
-------
Comment 42
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 2-5.
Comment 43
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 2-5.
Comment 44
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 2-5.
Comment 45
Comment noted; Figures 2-2 and 2-3 have been replaced with Figures 2-2 through
2-5.
Comment 46
Comment noted; revisions were placed on pages 2-28 and 2-30.
Comment 47
Comment noted; a revision was placed on pge 2-30.
Comment 48
Comment noted; revisions were placed on pages 2-31 and 2-33.
Comment 49
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 4-27.
Comment 50
Comment noted; a revision was placed on pae 4-61.
Comment 51
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 4-60.
Comment 52
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 4-61.
Comment 53
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 4-61.
Comment 54
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 4-62.
8-42
-------
Comment 56
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 4-64.
Comment 57
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 4-64.
Comment 58
Comment noted; a revision was placed on page 4-64.
Comment 59
Comment: The EIS should note the cost of the sewer district's purchase
of property in the cost tables.
Commentor/s: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Response:
The Draft EIS does not specifically note the cost of the district purchase of
property because this was not historically defined in the Facilities Plan or
Environmental Assessment. Since all the alternatives require some structure
in the vicinity of the existing Richmond-White pumping station, the land costs
should be similar. Consequently, the cost analysis would not be significantly
affected by including the land costs. The expanded Richmond-White pumping
station for EIS-2 and EIS-3 may be built on the site of the existing Richmond-
White pumping station; therefore, there may be no land costs associated with
these alternatives.
Comment 60
Comment: Annual operations and maintenance costs for EIS-1 will differ
between the options with and without Bonnieview.
Commentor/s: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Response:
The annual O&M costs for EIS-1 with and without Bonnieview will not differ
significantly. The same quantity of pipe is used in the two options, and
there is one basin included with each. For this reason, the costs in the
Draft EIS do not reflect a difference in O&M costs between the two options.
8-43
-------
Comment 61
Comment: The proposed Highland Greens development would not be able to
tie into sewer lines on S.O.M. Center Road due to 1-271.
Commentor/s: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Response:
Although it is questionable whether a developer would elect to bear the costs
to transport flow to S.O.M. Center Road, it is not impossible simply because
it would require a crossing of 1-271. A tunnel crossing under 1-271 would be
needed which may be extremely costly for a developer and would require highway
department approval. Since the general topography slopes toward the west, a
small pumping station would probably be required to convey flow to the S.O.M.
Center Road sewer. These features could make the extension prohibitively
expensive for a private developer.
Comment 62
Comment noted; a revision has been placed on page 6-25.
Comment 63
Comment noted; a revision has been placed on page 6-26.
Comment 64
Comment noted; a revision has been placed on page 6-27.
Comment 65
Comment noted; a revision has been placed on page 6-28.
Comment 66
Comment noted; a revision has been placed on page 7-8.
Comment 67
Comment: The EIS should provide a clear accounting of the sources and
flows which constitute the 1.8 MGD associated with the plan.
Commentor/s: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Response:
The 1.8 MGD flow associated with the recommended plan was developed using the
Sewer System Evalution results generated by Frank A. Thomas & Associates, Inc.
8-44
-------
The flows represent maximum flows from a 5-year, 1-hour storm event. The 1.8
MGD was compiled as follows:
Source Monitor Flov 5 yr/1 hr
Richmond Park Package Plant RPA1 0.356 mgd
Scottish Highlands Package Plant SHI 0.639 mgd
Scottish Highlands Package Plant SH5 0.205 mgd
Richmond-White Pump Station ESI 0.553 mgd
TOTAL 1.753 mgd
This value was rounded to 1.8 mgd to account for flow from the airport
which was not measured in the survey.
Comment 68
Comment noted; a revision has been placed on page 7-21.
Comment 69
Comment: The EIS should mention mineral resources in the project area.
Commentor/s: U.S. Department of the Interior
Response:
While mineral resources were not documented in detail, because the impacts on
these resources are not expected to be significant, no additional data has
been prepared for this Final EIS.
Comment 70
Comment: Numerous recreational sites in Cuyahoga and Lake Counties have
been identified on computer bases. If any of these occur in
the project area, they should be noted and any potential
impacts identified.
Commentor/s: U.S. Department of the Interior
Response:
Two park sites not identified in the resource inventory of the Draft EIS were
identified by the commentor. These have been added to the text; no impacts to
these resoures are expected due to the project.
8-45
-------
Comment 71
Comment noted: revisions have been placed on page 6-41 and on Figure 4-6.
Comment 72
Comment: Provide additional information to justify why loss of
terrestrial habitat due to the project is not considered
significant.
Commentor/s: U.S. Department of the Interior
Response:
It should first be noted that this comment applies to Alternative EIS-1, which
was not the chosen alternative. Two references were used in preparing this
EIS that contain specific information on types of terrestrial habitat within
the construction easement of the cross country interceptor in EIS-1. "Hilltop
Interceptor Review, Construction Effects" (Havens and Emerson 1986) and Ohio
EPA's "Environmental Assessment" (OEPA 1985a). Based on similarities in
language and organization of applicable sections of these reports, they appear
to have been derived from a common source. Neither reference contains
information on acreage of habitat types to be impacted or acreage of similar
habitat outside the construction easement. Both references state that the
loss of grassland, old field, brushland and brush forest habitats will either
be replaced after construction (grassland), exist in significant quantity
nearby (old field and brushland) or are not unique terrestrial resources
(brush forest). This conclusion is supported by the fact that these habitat
types result from ecological succession of abandoned fields used for farming,
lumbering and grazing (Havens and Emerson 1986, OEPA 1985a) and thus were
previously disturbed.
The discussion of wetlands in the Draft EIS (Section 6.1.7) states that if
EIS-1 were the chosen alternative, 1.6 acres or 2.4% of the total area of
palustrine forested wetland in the FPA (estimated at 68 acres) could be
expected to be lost due to construction of interceptors. The stand of
palustrine forested wetlands potentially affected by interceptor construction
(see Figure 4-6) is part of the area's brush forest habitat. The brush forest
habitat contains a "monoculture of red maple, no more than four inches in
diameter at breast height" (OEPA 1985a). Red maples in the area are
relatively young and abundant (Havens and Emerson 1986, OEPA 1985a). The
8-46
-------
conclusion that the loss of 1.6 acres of palustrine forested wetland in the
construction easement is not significant is based on the assumption that the
area in question is dominated by a relatively recent monoculture of red maple
saplings and is, therefore, not unique.
Comment 73
Comment noted; a revision has been placed on page 4-47.
8-47
-------
INDEX
Access (plus Traffic), 6-22
Advanced Facilities Plan, 3-1, 3-27
Aeration, 2-8
Aesthetics - see Recreation
Air Quality, 4-2, 6-1
Alternative, Cost-Effective System, 7-3
Alternative, Recommended Plan to Solve Existing Need, 7-8
Alternatives, Facility Plan, 3-3
Alternatives, Environmental Assessment, 3-28
Alternatives, Other 3-46
Alternatives, EIS, 5-5
Aquatic Biota, 4-35, 6-17
Aquifer - see Groundwater
Archaeological Resources, 4-75, 6-33, 7-18
Basement Flooding, 2-24
Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills (BBW) Complex, 2-1, 2-26, 3-36
Beech Hill/Bonnieview/Wilson Mills (BBW) Upgrade Alternative, 3-10
Beech Hill Pumping Basin, 2-26, 3-30, 5-15
Bonnieview Storage Facility, 2-26, 2-28
Chagrin River, 1-1, 4-20, 6-3, 7-14
Clean Air Act, 4-2
Clean Water Act of 1977, 1-11
Cleveland Regional Sewer District, 1-1
Community Facilities, 6-41
Costs, User (see User Costs)
Cost, 5-22, 5-24, 5-27, 5-29, 5-31, 5-33, 7-9
Cultural Resources, 4-73, 6-33, 7-18
Cuyahoga County Health Department, 2-40
Cuyahoga County San:Ltary Engineering Department, 2-40
Demographics, 4-49, 6-22, 6-34
Disinfection, 2-8
Easterly Separate Sewer Area (ESSA), 1-4, 2-20
Easterly Separate Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan (ESSSWFP), 3-1
Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2-1, 2-3, 2-9
-------
Economic Impacts, 6-22
Economy, 4-56
Effluent Characteristics, 2-9, 2-12, 2-15, 2-39
Effluent Discharge, 2-8, 2-15
Effluent Limits (Standards), 2-14
Employment, 4-56
Energy, 4-72, 5-23, 5-26, 5-29, 5-31, 5-32, 6-31, 6-43
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives, 6-1, 7-13
Environmental Evaluation, 3-19, 3-39, 6-1, 7-13
Environmental Impact Statement Requirements, 1-13, 1-10
Environmental Resources, 1-14, 6-39
Euclid Creek, 1-1, 1-14, 3-36, 4-44, 5-15, 6-12, 7-14
Euclid Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2-1, 2-9
Facilities Plan Criteria, 3-13
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 1-11
Finding of No Significant Impact, 1-7
Fiscal Impacts, 1-14, 6-23, 7-20
Fisheries, 4-35
Floodplains, 4-18, 6-16, 6-40
Future Development (Secondary Growth Impacts), 6-42, 7-18
Geology, 4-9, 6-2
Groundwater, 4-25, 6-3
Heights FPA, 1-4, 1-7
Hilltop FPA, 1-1
Historical Resources, 4-73, 6-33, 7-18
Hickory Hills Treatment Plant, 2-1, 2-15, 3-39, 5-13
In-Basin Treatment Alternative (H-l and H-1A), 3-3
Infiltration and Inflow, 2-21
Lake County, 2-1
Lake County Health Department, 2-40
Lake Erie, 4-46
Land Use, 4-64, 6-22, 6-38
Metropolitan Cleveland Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), 4-2
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program, 1-11
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1-10
No Action Alternative, 5-3
-------
Noise, 4-8, 6-1, 7-13
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD), 1-1
Notice of Intent, 1-7
Odors, 4-8, 6-2
Other Treatment Plants, 2-17
Overflows, 2-22
Package Plants, 2-9, 2-17
Planning Area - see Hilltop or Heights or ESSA Facility Planning Areas
Pleasant Hill Treatment Plant, 2-1, 2-17
Population, 4-49, 4-51
Precipitation, 4-1
Public Health, 6-33
Pumping to Euclid WWTP Alternative, 3-10
Recreation and Aesthetics, 4-68, 6-27
Richmond Park Terrace Treatment Plant, 2-1, 2-12
Scottish Highlands Treatment Plant, 2-1, 2-15, 3-46, 5-13
Screening of Alternatives, 3-13, 3-38
Secondary Impacts, 1-14, 6-42, 7-18
Sediment Loadings, 6-17, 7-14
Sensitive Environmental Resources, 6-39
Septic Systems, 2-34
Sewers, 2-20, 2-32
Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES), 2-22, 3-3
Sleepy Hollow Treatment Plant, 2-1, 2-16
Soils, 4-11, 6-2, 7-13
Surface Water, 4-15, 6-3, 7-14
Suspended Solids, 4-18
Supplemental Facilities Plan, 3-48
Terrestrial Biota, 4-27, 6-18, 7-17
Threatened and Endangered Species, 4-47, 6-18, 6-21, 7-16, 7-17
Topography, 4-8
Traffic - see Transportation
Transport to Easterly WWTP Alternative, 3-7
Transportation, 4-71, 6-28, 6-47, 7-18
Treatment Plants - see individual names
User Charges (see User Costs)
-------
User Costs, 6-24, 7-21
Vegetation, 4-27, 6-18, 7-17
Wetlands, 4-30, 6-21, 6-40, 7-17
Wildlife Habitats, 4-31, 6-18, 7-17
Wilson Mills Pumping Station, 2-27, 2-29, 3-31, 3-33
-------
REFERENCES
Bell. 1986. Personal Communication between Debbie Ryan - Meteorologist,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Ron Bell - Office of
Public Wastewater, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Cleveland, Ohio.
December 29, 1986.
Bell. 1987. Personal Communication between Meg Kerr - Environmental
Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation, and Ron Bell -
Office of Public Wastewater, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
Cleveland, Ohio. February 25, 1987.
Bencin. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Edward Bencin - Fire
Chief, Highland Heights Fire Department. Re: Fire Service. Highland
Heights, Ohio. February 18, 1987.
Eiffel. 1987. Personal Communication between Candy Bartoldus - Environmental
Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation, and Jim
Eiffel - Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Re: Flora of Hilltop
Area. Cleveland, Ohio. January 6, 1987.
Blank. 1980. Cultural Resource Survey for Euclid Creek, Ohio. Associate
Professor and Principal Investigator - Department of Anthropology,
Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio. March 1980. Contract No.
DACE 49-79-C-0092.
Bonk. 1987. Personal Communication between Debbie Ryan - Meteorologist,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Jim Bonk - State
Coordinator, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Re: Noise Standards.
Columbus, Ohio. Januray 2, 1987.
Bowdourif. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Dr. George
Bowdourif - Superintendent of Schools, Richmond Heights School District.
Re: Schools. Richmond Heights, Ohio. January 8 and February 5, 1987.
Boyle. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Robert Boyle - Mayor,
Richmond Heights. Re: Development. Richmond Heights, Ohio. January 8
and February 5, 1987.
Boyle and Otis. n.d. "Intermittent Sand Filtration of Household Wastewater
Under Field Conditions" (Filter Bed Preceded by a Septic Tank) - Small
Scale Waste Management Project, University of Wisconsin.
Bramscher. 1987. Personal Communication between Theresa Dowd - Environmental
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Thomas
Bramscher - State Program Manager, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago, Illinois. March 18, 1987.
-------
Brose et al. 1985. Heights/Hilltop Interceptor: Cultural Resources
Inventory. Prepared for Havens and Emerson, Inc. The Cleveland Museum
of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio.
Bush. 1978. An Assessment of the Cultural Resources for the Proposed
Easterly Separated Sewer Area Project - Cuyahoga and Lake Counties, Ohio.
Prepared under contract to CH2M Hill and contained in NEORSD 1978a
(Easterly Separate Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan, Volume I -
Environmental Inventory and Assessment). The Cleveland Museum of Natural
History, Cleveland, Ohio.
Caprara. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Dominic
Caprara - Police Chief, Mayfield Heights Police Department. Re: Police
Service. Mayfield Heights, Ohio. February 17, 1987.
Celebrezze. 1980. Ohio Population Report. Secretary of State. Columbus,
Ohio. pp. 216.
City of Cleveland. 1975. Water Quality Baseline Assessment for Cleveland
Area - Lake Erie. Volume II - Fishes. Cleveland, Ohio. February 1975.
City of Highland Heights, Ohio. 1985. Codified Ordinances of Highland
Heights - Part 11 - Planning and Zoning Code. Highland Heights, Ohio.
1963 to Present.
City of Mayfield Heights, Ohio. 1986. Planning and Zoning Code of the City
of Mayfield Heights, Ohio. The Justinian Publishing Company. Mayfield
Heights, Ohio. 1970 to Present.
City of Richmond Heights, Ohio. 1986. Codified Ordinances of Richmond
Heights - Part 11 - Planning and Zoning Code. Richmond Heights, Ohio.
1973 to Present.
City of Willoughby Hills, Ohio. 1986. Codified Ordinances of Willoughby
Hills - Part 11 - Planning and Zoning Code. Willoughby Hills, Ohio.
1977 to Present.
Cleveland Metroparks System. 1986. Cleveland Metroparks System Pamphlet.
Cleveland, Ohio.
CRSD. 1979a. Cleveland Regional Sewer District. Map: Easterly Separate
Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan. Major Streams and Wastewater
Treatment Plants - Figure V3-3-1. Prepared by: CH2M Hill. August 1979.
CRSD. 1979b. Cleveland Regional Sewer District. Map: Easterly Separate
Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan. Land Use Map - Figure Vl-3-2.
Prepared by: CH2M Hill. August 1979.
CRSD. 1979c. Cleveland Regional Sewer District. Map: Easterly Separate
Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan. Cultural Resources - Figure
Vl-3-1. Prepared by: CH2M Hill. August 1979.
-------
Coles. 1986. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Steven Coles - Chief
of Planning Department, Cleveland Metroparks System, Cleveland, Ohio.
November 12, 1986.
Colliers Encyclopedia.
Jersey.
1984. MacMillan Education Company, Vol. 6. New
CCRPC. 1977. Cuyahoga County Regional Planning Commission. 1977 Generalized
Land Use Map for Cuyahoga County. Cleveland, Ohio. August 1977.
CCSED. 1982. Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineering Department. An Evaluation
of Mayfair Lake - Richmond Heights, Ohio. Submitted to: The Board of
County Commissioners, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Prepared by: Cuyahoga
County Sanitary Engineering Department, Cleveland, Ohio. November 1982.
pp. 46 ( + appendices).
DeChant. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Rick DeChant
- Public Information Representative, Cleveland Illuminating Company,
Cleveland, Ohio. February 5, 1987.
DeJohn. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Ross DeJohn - Mayor
and Acting Fire Chief, Mayfield Heights. Re: Fire Service. Mayfield,
Ohio. February 18, 1987.
Dietz. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Robert Dietz -
Lieutenant, Richmond Heights Police Department. Re: Police Service.
Richmond Heights, Ohio. February 17, 1987.
Eckner. 1987. Personal Communication between Dorothy LaRusso - Science
Applications International Corporation, and Ron Eckner - Northeast Ohio
Areawide Coordinating Agency. Roads and number of lanes in Hilltop Study
Area. Prepared by: Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency,
Cleveland, Ohio. January 13, 1987.
ERAI. 1984. Environmental Resource Associates, Inc. A Benthic Survey of the
Heights/Hilltop Area Streams, with an Evaluation of Stream Quality and
Recoverability. July 1984.
FEMA. 1978a. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance
Program, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map - Village of Gates Mills, Ohio.
Cuyahoga County. Community - Panel Number 3905930001-0004. Effective
Date: April 3, 1978. Federal Insurance Administration. April 3, 1978.
FEMA. 1978b. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance
Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) - City of Cleveland, Ohio.
Cuyahoga County. Community - Panel Number 3901040005B. Effective Date:
August 1, 1978. Federal Insurance Administration. August 1, 1978.
-------
FEMA. 1979. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance
Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) - City of Highland Heights,
Ohio. Cuyahoga County. Community - Panel Number 3901100001B. Effective
Date: June 1, 1979. Federal Insurance Administration. June 1, 1979.
FEMA. 1981. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance
Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) - City of Euclid, Ohio.
Cuyahoga County. Community - Panel Number 3901070001-0005. Effective
Date: August 17, 1981. Federal Insurance Administration. August 17,
1981.
FEMA. 1985. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance
Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) - City of Richmond Heights,
Ohio. Cuyahoga County. Community - Panel Number 3901260005B. Effective
Date: January 4, 1985. Federal Insurance Administration. January 4,
1985.
Ferguson. 1985. Cash Basis: Combined Annual Financial Report for Fiscal
Year Ending Dec. 31, 1984, for all Cities and Villages in Ohio. Auditor
for the State of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio. March 22, 1985. Microfiche.
Report No. Aud 400B.
Gottschang. 1981. A Guide to the Mammals of Ohio. Ohio State University
Press, pp. 176.
Gould. 1987. Personal Communication between Theresa Dowd - Environmental
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and William A.
Gould - Architect, Gould and Associates. Secondary Impacts, Cleveland,
Ohio. February 16, 1987.
GCGA. n.d. Greater Cleveland Growth Association. Largest Employers:
Cuyahoga County. Cleveland, Ohio.
Havens and Emerson, Inc. 1984. Hilltop Update Review: Hilltop Interceptor
Review - Environmental Considerations. Prepared for: Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, Cleveland, Ohio.
Havens and Emerson, Inc. 1986. Hilltop EIS Assistance Project: Summary
of Route Description and Construction Effects for the Hilltop Interceptor
Alternative. Prepared in cooperation with the Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District, for review by the Hilltop Area Public Advisory Committee
(HAPAC).
Heckler. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Bill Heckler
- Fire Chief, Willoughby Hills Fire Department. Re: Fire Service.
Willoughby Hills, Ohio. February 12, 1987.
Hillman. 1986. Personal Communication between Candy Bartoldus -
Environmental Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation,
and Phil Hillman - Fish Management Supervisor, District 3, Division of
Wildlife, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. November 3, 1986.
-------
Hilsenhoff. 1977. Use of Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality of Streams.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Technical Bulletin No. 100.
Madison, Wisconsin.
Hinkle. 1987. Personal Communication between Marlene Stern - Environmental
Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation, and Dr. Robert
D. Hinkle - Chief Naturalist, Cleveland Metroparks System, Cleveland,
Ohio. February 13, 1987.
Hovancek. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Steven
Hovancek - Engineer, City of Highland Heights, Ohio. February 5, 1987.
Hudson. 1985a. Interoffice Memorandum. Letter to: Dave Klunzinger -
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Sent by: Daniel Hudson - Havens
and Emerson, Inc. Re: Septic Tank Areas in the Hilltop Service Area.
File No. 11466-03. February 22, 1985.
Hudson. 1985b. Letter to: John Fazio - Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District. Sen!: by: Daniel Hudson - Havens and Emerson, Inc. Re:
Cross-Country Segment of the Hilltop Interceptor. Cleveland, Ohio. June
25, 1985. pp. 2.
Hughes. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and George Hughes -
Police Chief, Gates Mills Police Department. Re: Police. Gates Mills,
Ohio. February 17, 1987.
Humphrey et al. n.d. Summer Habitat and Ecology of the Endangered Indiana
Bat - Myotis sodalis. Florida State Museum, University of Florida,
Gainesville, and the Joseph Moore Museum, Earlham College, Richmond,
Indiana. Paper accepted: January 26, 1977.
Jones. 1986. Letter to: Candy Bartoldus - Environmental Scientist, Science
Applications International Corporation. Sent by: Patricia Jones - Data
Management Supervisor, Ohio Natural Heritage Program, Division of Natural
Areas and Preserves, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Re:
Information on Rare and Endangered Species. November 7, 1986.
Jones. 1987. Personal Communication between Teresa Dowd - Planner, Science
Applications International Corporation, and Steven Jones, Senior Resource
Analyst, Northeastern Ohio Area Coordinating Agency. Re: Park and
Recreation, October 9, 1987.
Kennedy. 1987a. Personal Communication between Meg Kerr - Environmental
Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation, and Jonathan
Kennedy - Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Re: Wet Weather
Overflows: Bonnieview Holding Tanks. Cleveland, Ohio. February 25,
1987.
Kennedy. 1987b. Personal Communication between Marlene Stern - Environmental
Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation, and Jonathan
Kennedy - Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Re: Vegetation Survey
of Cross Country Interceptor Segment Conducted by Havens and Emerson.
Cleveland, Ohio. February 25, 1987.
-------
Kennedy. 1987c. Personal Communication between Rick Goetz - Triad
Engineering Incorporated, and Jonathan Kennedy - Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District. Re: Basement Flooding. February 19, 1987.
Kovatch. 1986. Personal Communication between Debbie Ryan - Meteorologist,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Stephen J. Kovatch -
Supervisor of Air Monitoring, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
November 26, 1986.
Kroonemeyer. 1986. Personal Communication between Candy Bartoldus -
Environmental Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation,
and Kent Kroonemeyer - Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Division,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior. October 20,
1986.
Logeman. 1987. Personal Communication between Theresa Dowd - Environmental
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Mary Lou
Logeman - Analyst, United States Environmental Protection Agency - Region
5. Chicago, Illinois. Re: Fiscal Impacts. February 16, 1987.
Malek. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and George Malek - Police
Chief, Willoughby Hills Police Department. Re: Police Service.
Willoughby Hills, Ohio. February 12, 1987.
Mohr. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Dave Mohr - Acting
Fire Chief, Mayfield Village Fire Department. Re: Fire Service.
Mayfield Village, Ohio. February 17, 1987.
Monserrat. 1986. Personal Communication between Hunter Loftin - Civil
Engineer, Science Applications International Corporation, and Bob
Monserrat - Construction Grants and Environmental Planning Division, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency. December 4, 1986.
Moody's Investors Service, Inc. 1986a. Moody's Bond Record: Corporates,
Convertibles, Governments, Municipals, and Commercial Paper Ratings,
Preferred Stock Ratings. New York, NY.
Moody's Investors Service, Inc. 1986b. Moody's Municipal and Government
Manual. Volume I. Annual. New York, NY.
Moore. 1987a. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and John Moore -
Assistant Superintendent, Mayfield City School District. Re: Schools.
Mayfield, Ohio. January 2 and February 5, 1987.
Moore. 1987b. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Mr. Moore - Assistant
Director, Environmental Health and Sanitation, Cuyahoga County. Re:
Landfills. Cleveland, Ohio. February 8, 1987.
Multerer. 1986a. Personal Communication between Candy Bartoldus -
Environmental Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation,
and Ken Multerer - Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological
Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbus, Ohio.
Re: Endangered Species in Hilltop Area. December 2, 1986.
-------
Multerer. 1986b. Letter to: Candy Bartoldus - Environmental Scientist,
Science Applications International Corporation. Sent by: Ken Multerer -
Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Re: Indiana Bat and Ohio Federally Endangered and
Threatened Species (Dated 3/20/86). Columbus, Ohio. December 2, 1986.
pp. 3.
Neff. 1985. Highway Map: Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Prepared by: Thomas Neff,
County Engineer. The National Survey, Chester, Vermont.
NEORSD. 1978a. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Easterly Separate
Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan. Volume 1 - Environmental
Inventory and Assessment. Prepared by: CH2M Hill. Project No. L10950.
NEORSD. 1978b. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Easterly Separate
Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan. Volume 2 - Infiltration and
Inflow Analysis. Prepared by: CH2M Hill. Project No. L10950.
NEORSD. 1978c. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Easterly Separate
Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan. Volume 3 - Sewerage Study.
Prepared by: CH2M Hill. Project No. L10950.
NEORSD. 1981. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Easterly Separate
Sewer Segment Wastewater Facilities Plan. Executive Summary. Prepared
by: CH2M Hill. May 1981. Project No. L10950.
NEORSD. 1983a. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Advanced Facility
Planning Report. Easterly Separate Sewer Area, Supplemental Facilities
Planning, Sewer System Evaluation Survey, Advanced Facility Planning.
Prepared by: Havens and Emerson, Inc. and Dalton, Dalton, and Newport.
Prepared for: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. June 1983.
NEORSD. 1983b. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Advanced Facility
Planning Report. Volume 1: Appendices A, B, C. Easterly Separate Sewer
Area, Sewer System Evaluation Survey, Advanced Facility Planning.
Prepared by: Havens and Emerson, Inc. and Dalton, Dalton, and Newport.
June 1983.
NEORSD. 1983c. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Advanced Facility
Planning Report. Volume 2: Appendices Dl, D2. Easterly Separate Sewer
Area, Sewer System Evaluation Survey, Advanced Facility Planning.
Prepared by: Havens and Emerson, Inc. and Dalton, Dalton, and Newport.
June 1983.
NEORSD. 1983d. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Supplemental
Facilities Planning Report. Easterly Separate Sewer Area, Supplemental
Facilities Planning, Sewer System Evaluation Survey, Advanced Facility
Planning. Prepared by: Havens and Emerson, Inc. and Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport. September 1983.
NEORSD. 1983e. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Public Participation
Program Report, Easterly Separate Sewer Area, Supplemental Facilities
Planning, Sewer System Evaluation Survey, Advanced Facility Planning.
Prepared by: Havens and Emerson, Inc. and Dalton, Dalton, and Newport.
October 1983.
-------
NEORSD. 1984a. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Responses to OEPA
Comments: 4/84-6/84. Cleveland, Ohio.
NEORSD. 1984b. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Responses to OEPA
Comments: 6/84-11/84. Cleveland, Ohio.
NEORSD. 1984c. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Water Quality
Sampling Report. Easterly Separate Sewer Area, Sewer System Evaluation
Survey, Advanced Facility Planning. Prepared by: Dalton, Dalton, and
Newport. June 1984.
NEORSD. 1984d. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. 1984 Annual Report.
Cleveland, Ohio. pp. 32.
NEORSD. 1985a. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Sewer System
Evaluation Survey Summary Report. Easterly Separate Sewer Area,
Supplemental Facilities Planning, Sewer System Evaluation Survey,
Advanced Facility Planning. Prepared by: Havens and Emerson, Inc. and
Dalton, Dalton, and Newport. May 1985.
NEORSD. 1985b. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District.
Cleveland, Ohio. pp. 24.
1985 Annual Report.
NEORSD. 1986. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Responses to OEPA
Comments (Hilltop): 11/84-12/85. Cleveland, Ohio.
NEORSD. 1987. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Information Package,
Including Private Home Sewage System Overview for Heights/Hilltop
Interceptor Project Area. Sent to: Rick Goetz - Project Engineer, Triad
Engineering, Incorporated. Sent by: Lester A. Stumpe - Planning
Engineer, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Cleveland, Ohio.
January 22, 1987.
Neroda. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Dick Neroda -
Director of Solid Waste, Lake County Department of Utilities. Re:
Landfill. Painesville, Ohio. February 13, 1987.
NOAA. 1976. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Local
Climatological Data: Annual Summary With Comparative Data - Cleveland,
Ohio (1975 data). National Climatic Center, Boulder, Colorado.
NOACA. 1980. Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. Current Water
Quality in the NOACA 208 Planning Area. Technical Appendix A25.
Cleveland, Ohio.
NOACA. 1984. Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. Letter to: Mr.
Harlan D. Hirt - Chief, Environmental Impact Section, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency - Region 5. Sent by: Fred Pizzedaz - Executive
Director, Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. Re: Population
Projections. Cleveland, Ohio. September 27, 1984.
NOACA. 1985. Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. NOACA Long-Range
Transportation Plan Recommendations: 1985 Status (Map). Prepared by:
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, Cleveland, Ohio. October
1985.
-------
NOACA. 1986. Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. Draft: Combined
Sewer Overflow Impact Study. March 1986.
Nuveen. 1984. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Prospectus
($63,429,351.20 bond issue), Cleveland, Ohio. May 24, 1984.
pp. 42 ( + appendix).
O'Brien. 1987a. Personal Communication between Dorothy LaRusso - Science
Applications International Corporation, and Robert O'Brien - City Traffic
Engineer. Re: Traffic counts at major intersections, Cleveland, Ohio.
January 13, 1987.
O'Brien. 1987b. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Margaret
O'Brien - Public Relations Manager, Cleveland Department of Public
Utilities. Cleveland, Ohio. February 5, 1987.
ODNR. 1985a. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Ohio's Scenic Rivers.
Division of Natural Areas and Preserves. April 1985.
ODNR. 1985b. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Lake County Land Use/
Land Cover Map. Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Columbus,
Ohio.
ODNR. 1987. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Rare Species of Native
Ohio Wild Plants, 1986-87 Status List. Division of Natural Areas and
Preserves. Columbus, Ohio. pp. 22.
OEPA. 1984. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Ohio Air Quality Report -
1983. Division of Air Pollution Control, Columbus, Ohio.
OEPA. 1985a. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Assessment
(Draft): Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Hilltop Interceptor -
Eastern Section. Grant No. C391126040. August 1985.
OEPA. 1985b. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Ohio Air Quality Report
- 1984. Division of Air Pollution Control, Columbus, Ohio.
OEPA. 1986a. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Computer Printout of
Sewage Data. Compiled by: Rick Goetz, Triad Engineering Incorporated.
OEPA. 1986b. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Ohio Air Quality Report
- 1985. Division of Air Pollution Control, Columbus, Ohio.
OEPA. 1986c. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Ohio Water Quality
Standards - Cha.pter 3745-1 of the Administrative Code. Revision:
Effective July 28, 1986. Division of Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment, Columbus, Ohio.
OEPA. 1986d. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Inventory
305(b) Report, Volume II. Ed. by Theresa Gordon Heitzman. Division of
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Columbus, Ohio. pp. 500.
-------
Orange. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Tom Orange - Director
of Operations, Waste Management, Inc. Re: Landfill - Lake County.
Painesville, Ohio. February 8, 1987.
Otis and Boyle. 1976. "Performance of Single Household Treatment Units."
In: Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE Vol. EEA.
February 1976. pp. 175.
Owens. 1987. Personal Communication between Dorothy LaRusso - Science
Applications International Corporation, and Dave Owens - Ohio Department
of Transportation. Re: Design Studies. February 11, 1987.
Paris. 1987. Personal Communication between Theresa Dowd - Environmental
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Julius Paris
- President, Paris Development Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio. February
16, 1987.
Parlef. 1986. 1985 Sewer Rate Survey. Water Quality Management Section,
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio. Report No. 0496M.
pp. 24.
Pizzi. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Nick Pizzi -
Superintendent of Aquarius Water Plant, Lake County Department of
Utilities. Re: H20. Painesville, Ohio. February 12, 1987.
Pohler. 1987. Interoffice Memorandum. Sent to: Dave Klunzinger - Northeast
Ohio Regional Sewer District. Sent by: Harold Pohler - Havens and
Emerson, Inc. Re: Incidence of Basement Flooding in Mayfield Village,
Mayfield Heights, Lyndhurst, South Euclid, Highland Heights, and Richmond
Heights. January 9, 1987.
Popowksi. 1978. Letter to: Colonel Daniel D. Ludwig - U.S. Army Engineer
District, Buffalo, New York. Sent by: John Popowski - Area Manager,
East Lansing Area Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department
of the Interior, East Lansing, Michigan. October 30, 1978. pp. 11.
Popowski. 1979. Letter to: Colonel George P. Johnson - District Engineer,
U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo, New York. Sent by: John Popowski
- Area Manager, East Lansing Area Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, East Lansing, Michigan. October 5,
1979. pp. 7.
Rathke. 1984. Lake Erie Intensive Study 1978-1979. Final Report.
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois. Report No. EPA-905/4-84-001.
pp. 183 (+ figures/tables).
Ricko. 1987. Personal Communication between Theresa Dowd - Environmental
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Dennis Ricko
- Business Manager, Department of Community Services, Cuyahoga County,
Valley View, Ohio. March 18, 1987.
10
-------
SAIC. 1986. Science Applications International Corporation. Draft:
Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan. Prepared for: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. Contract No.
68-04-5035, McLean, VA.
Somrak. 1987a. Personal Communication between Hunter Loftin - Civil
Engineer, Science Applications International Corporation, and Robert
Somrak - Cuyahoga County Department of Health. March 4, 1987.
Somrak. 1987b. Personal Communication between Theresa Dowd - Environmental
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Robert
Somrak - Department of Public Health, Cuyahoga County. Re: Onsite
Treatment Systems. February 16, 1987.
Somrak. 1987c. Compiled list of package treatment plants by community.
Compiled by: Robet Somrak, Cuyahoga County Board of Health. Sent to:
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. January 29, 1987.
State of Ohio. 1985. Ohio Data Users Center. Population Projections, Ohio
and Counties. Department of Development, Columbus, Ohio. September
1985.
State of Ohio. 1986. Computer Printout: Regional Economic Information
System. Bureau of Economic Analysis, State of Ohio. April 1986.
Stesancik. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Robert
Stesancik - Fire Chief, Richmond Heights Fire Department. Re: Fire
Service. Richmond Heights, Ohio. February 17, 1987.
Stevens. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Donald
Stevens - Police Chief, Mayfield Village Police Department. Re: Police
Service. Mayfield Village, Ohio. February 18, 1987.
Stojetz. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community
Planner, Science Applications International Corporation, and Bob Stojetz
- Director of Pupil Personnel, Willoughby/East Lake School. Re:
Schools. Willoughby, Ohio. February 13, 1987.
Straub. 1986. Personal Communication between Ann Witzig - Environmental
Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation, and David
Straub - Environmental Scientist, Division of Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment, Northeast District Office, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Twinsburg, Ohio. November 1986.
Stumpe. 1986a. Letter to: Hilltop Area Public Advisory Committee (HAPAC)
members, including HAPAC Summary Minutes for meeting on September 17,
1986, and Design and Planning Contract Designations Figure from June
1984. Developed by Havens and Emerson, Inc. Sent by: Lester A. Stumpe
- Planning Manager, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Cleveland,
Ohio. October 3, 1986.
11
-------
Stumpe. 1986b. Letter to: Bill Spaulding - Hilltop Project Monitor, United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Sent by: Lester Stumpe -
Planning Manager, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Cleveland,
Ohio. Re: Description of Highland Road Route. December 3, 1986.
Stumpe. 1987. Questionnaire Results for the Hilltop Area Development Survey.
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Cleveland, Ohio.
Surcow. 1986. Personal Communication between Dorothy LaRusso - Science
Applications International Corporation, and Frank Surcow - Northeast Ohio
Areawide Coordinating Agency, Cleveland, Ohio. Re: Airport Information.
December 5, 1986.
Thomson. 1983. Birding in Ohio.
Indiana, pp. 256.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington,
USDA. 1979. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Lake
County, Ohio. Soil Conservation Service. January 1979.
USDA. 1980. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Soil Conservation Service. Prepared in
cooperation with Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Ohio
Agricultural Research and Development Center. December 1980.
USDOC. 1970a. United States Department of Commerce. U.S. Census of
Population: 1970. Volume 1, Characteristics of Housing, pt. 6, Ohio.
Bureau of the Census.
USDOC. 1970b. United States Department of Commerce. U.S. Census of
Population: 1970. Volume 1, Characteristics of the Population, pt. 6,
Ohio. Bureau of the Census.
USDOC. 1980a. United States Department of Commerce. U.S. Census of
Population: 1980. Volume 1, Characteristics of Housing, pt. 6, Ohio.
Bureau of the Census.
USDOC. 1980b. United States Department of Commerce. U.S. Census of
Population: 1980. Volume 1, Characteristics of the Population, pt. 6,
Ohio. Bureau of the Census.
USDOI. 1977a. United States Department of the Interior. National Wetland
Inventory, Mayfield Heights, Ohio. Prepared by: Office of Biological
Services for the National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
USDOI. 1977b. United States Department of the Interior. National Wetland
Inventory, East Cleveland, Ohio. Prepared by: Office of Biological
Services for the National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
USDOI. 1979a. United States Department of the Interior. Map: East
Cleveland Quadrangle, Ohio - Cuyahoga County, 7.5 Minute Series
(Topographic). United States Geological Survey. Map No. N4130-W8130/7.5,
12
-------
USDOI. 1979b. United States Department of the Interior. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Biological
Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
December 1979. Report No. FWS/OBS-79/31. pp. 103.
USDOI. 1984. United States Department of the Interior. Map: Mayfield
Heights Quadra.ngle, Ohio, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). United States
Geological Survey. Map No. 41081-E4-TF-024.
USDOI. 1985. United States Department of the Interior. National Register of
Historic Places. Annual Listing of Historic Properties. National Park
Service. March 1985.
USDOL. 1986. United States Department of Labor. Computer Printout of
Employment Information. Bureau for Labor Statistics. Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1976. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental
Impact Statement (Final). Sewage Treatment Facility for South
Bloomington and Lake Monroe Service Areas, Bloomington, Indiana. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois. August
1976.
USEPA. 1984a. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental
Impact Statement (Final). Cleveland Southwest Suburban Facilities
Planning Area, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
Chicago, Illinois. July 1984.
USEPA. 1984b. United States Environmental Protection Agency. An
Experimental Study of Lake Erie Loading to Aerosol Transport and Dry
Deposition in the Lake Erie Basin. Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, Illinois.
USEPA. 1984c. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental
Impact Statement (Final). Middle East Fork Area, Clermont County, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois.
August 1984.
USEPA. 1984d. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Finding of No
Significant Impact - To All Interested Citizens, Organizations, and
Government Agencies: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Heights/
Hilltop Interceptor, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois. August 29, 1984.
Project No. C391126-1-04-0.
USEPA. 1984e. United States Environmental Protection Agency. User Charge
Guidance Manual for Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Office of Water
Program Operations, Washington, D.C. Report No. WH-546. pp. 25.
USEPA. 1984f. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Financial
Capability Guidebook. Office of Water Program Operations, Washington,
D.C. Report No. WH-547. pp. 68 (+ appendix).
13
-------
USEPA. 1985. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Finding of No
Significant Impact - To All Interested Citizens, Organizations, and
Government Agencies: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Easterly
Solids Handling, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois. Project No. C391126-1-03-0. April
17, 1985.
USEPA. 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Memorandum:
EIS Decision for the Northeast Ohio Regional Sever District Hilltop
Interceptor. From: Harlan D. Hirt - Chief, Environmental Planning
Section. To: Charles H. Sutfin - Director, Water Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois. March 10,
1986.
USEPA. 1986b. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Notice of
Intent - To All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups, and
Citizens. Re: Preparation of Hilltop EIS. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois. Project No.
C391126-1-04-1. April 2, 1986.
USGS. 1986. United States Geological Survey. Water Resources Data, Ohio,
Water Year 1985. Volume 2. St. Lawrence River Basin Statewide Project
Data. Prepared by: Schindel, H.L., Klingler, J.H., Mangus, J.P., and
L.E. Trimble. Columbus, Ohio. USGS Water Data Report No. OH-85-2. pp.
281.
Village of Mayfield, Ohio. 1979. Codified Ordinances of Mayfield Village,
Ohio. The Walter H. Drane Company. Mayfield Village, Ohio. Complete to
January 1, 1979.
White. 1980. Glacial Geology of Lake County, Ohio. Department of Natural
Resources, State of Ohio. Report No. 117, pp. 20.
White. 1982. Glacial Geology of Northeastern Ohio. Department of Natural
Resources, State of Ohio. Bulletin No. 68, pp. 75.
WHPC. 1979. Willoughby Hills Planning Commission. Willoughby Hills Master
Plan - 1979. Painesville, Ohio. Prepared by the Lake County Planning
Commission. March 1979.
Winslow et al. 1953. The Water Resources of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Water
Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey. Bulletin No. 26, pp. 123.
Wolfe. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Jack Wolfe - Business
Development Manager, Greater Cleveland Growth Association. Re: Develop-
ment, Cleveland, Ohio. February 5, 1987.
Wood. 1986. Personal Communication between Dorothy LaRusso - Science
Applications International Corporation, and Don Wood - Greater Cleveland
Regional Transit Authority. Re: Primary bus routes into city. The
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Cleveland, Ohio. December
12, 1986.
14
-------
Woodie. 1987. Personal Communication between Doug Woods - Community Planner,
Science Applications International Corporation, and Keith Woodie - Police
Chief, Highland Heights Police Department. Re: Police Service.
Highland Heights, Ohio. February 17, 1987.
Wysenski. 1987. Personal Communication between Marlene Stern - Environmental
Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation, and Bob
Wysenski - Environmental Scientist, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
February 13, 1987.
15
-------
APPENDIX A
HILLTOP AREA PUBLIC
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A-l
-------
HILLTOP AREA PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ECONOMIC INTERESTS
Joseph J. Singer
747 Alpha Drive
Highland Heights, Ohio 44143
Engineer-Allen Bradley Co,
Paul Porges, General Manager Forest City (east side
Shoregate Mall - Suite 216 management)
Willowick, Ohio 44094
Jack Wolfe
Greater Cleveland Growth Assn.
690 Huntington Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Manager, Business Development
Julius Paris
President
Paris Development Corp.
781 Beta Drive
Mayfield Heights, Ohio
Area developer
44143
Randy Kertes
President
Kertes Enterprises, Inc.
3439 W. Brainard Road
Pepper Pike, Ohio 44122
Area developer
Jack Craig
Cleveland Electric
Illuminating Co.
6200 Oak Tree Blvd.
Independence, Ohio 44131
Area Development Dept,
(Person to be designated)
National Association of
Women in Construction
Gussie McCoy
12606 Mt. Overlook
Cleveland, Ohio 44120
F.W. Dodge Co.
A-2
-------
HILLTOP AREA PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PRIVATE CITIZENS
Mrs. Frank Hable
419 Gary Jay Blvd.
Richmond Heights, Ohio
44143
Member S.O.L.E.; concerned
citizen
Dennis Rash
823 Beech Hill
Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143
School guidance counselor;
lives within view of pump
station
William S. Peirce
7000 Upper Forty Drive
Box 154
Gates Mills, Ohio 44040
Professor of Economics,
CWRU; taught cost-benefit
analyis for 20 years. Lives
in Mayfield with a Gates Mills
P.O. Box)
Maurice Gulich
5650 Highland Road '
Highland Heights, Ohio
44143
Concerned citizen with a
knowledge of architecture
and civil engineering
Dianne Brescia
4584 Catlin Road
Richmond Heights, Ohio
44143
Teacher; member of Richmond
Heights Environmental Board
Phone: " *
John Croft
1895 Sunset Drive
Richmond Heights, Ohio
44143
Retired plumber; concerned
citizen
Richard T. Hyland, Sr.
1255 Argonne Road
South Euclid, Ohio 44121
Retired CYO Athletic
Director; member
South Euclid Sewer Study
Committee
A-3
-------
Page 2
Sam Babic Civil Engineer
643 Trebisky Road
South Euclid, Ohio 44143
Norman R. Prusa Attorney At Law
826 Rose Blvd. Involved, peripherally, in
Highland Heights, Ohio 44143 the litigation which led to
the formation of the District
A-4
-------
HILLTOP AREA PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC INTERESTS
Gabi W. Hays
1223 Julius Weil Drive
Mayfield Village, Ohio
Executive Director Schnurmann
House (senior housing);
44124 Greater Cleveland Housing
Council; National Council on
Aging
Robert Parry
415 The Arcade
Cleveland, Ohio
44114
Deputy Director, Regional Planning
Commission
Joyce M. Laird
5252 Case Avenue
Lyndhurst, Ohio 44124
President, Hillcrest Area League
of Women Voters (studied environ-
mental issues for LWV)
Karen Hiatt
1276 West 3rd Street
Room 425
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
President, League of Women Voters,
Cleveland Area
(will alternate with Joyce Laird
Arnold Gleisser
5005 South Barton Road
Lyndhurst, Ohio 44124
Hilltop Committee for Clean
Creeks, Sierra Club, SOS (Save
Our Streams); retired school
teacher
Don Cummings
6602 Wilson Mills Road
Mayfield Village, Ohio
44143
Senior Minister, Mayfield United
Methodist Church
Mayfield Village
Alfred Lee
Museum of Natural History
Wade Oval
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Associate Curator of Archeology
Natural History Museum
A-5
-------
Page 2
Thury 0"Conner
Keel-Haulers Canoe Club
34300 Sherwood Drive
Solon, Ohio 44139
Member of Keel-Haulers
(canoe club)
Stephen D. Coles
Cleveland Metroparks
System
4101 Fulton Parkway
Cleveland, Ohio 44144
Chief of Planning Dept,
Metroparks
Robert Somrak
Cuyahoga County Board
of Health
112 Hamilton Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Supervisor of Environ-
mental Health
A-6
-------
HILLTOP AREA PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Robert J. McHugh
6620 Suffield Road
Mayfield Heights/ Ohio 44124
Zoning & Planning Chairman of
Mayfield Heights
Mayor Melvin Schaefer
35405 Chardon Road
Willoughby Hills, Ohio 44094
Mayor of Willoughby Hills
Dorothy Robertson
5268 Edenhurst
Lyndhurst, Ohio 44124
Lyndhurst Council; Designated
by Mayor Creary of Lyndhurst
to be city representative
Mayor Fred N. Carmen
6621 Wilson Mills Road
Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143
Mayor of Mayfield Village
Stephen J. Hovancsek
6621 Wilson Mills Road
Mayfield Village, Ohio 44143
Engineer of Mayfield Village
Lawrence M. Baker
4096 Colony Road
South Euclid, Ohio 44121
Attorney At Law; former
councilman of South Euclid;
co-chairman South Euclid
Sewer Study Commission;
Designated representative by
South Euclid Mayor D'Amico
Mayor Thomas A. Hughes
5827 Highland Road
Highland Heights, Ohio 44143
Mayor of Highland Heights
A-7
-------
Page 2
Mayor Robert J. Boyle Mayor of Richmond Heights
457 Richmond Road
Richmond Heights, Ohio 44143 :
John J. Garner Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineer;
Dept. of Community Services Designated representative of
6100 West Canal Road Cuyahoga County Commissioners
Valley View, Ohio 44125
A-8
-------
HILLTOP AREA PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OBSERVERS
Patricia Kleri
4675F Mayfield
South Euclid, OH
44121
Attorney
710 Citizen's Federal Bldg.
2000 East Ninth St.
Cleveland, OH 44115
Virginia Swanson
935 Colony Drive
Highland Hts., OH 44143
Josephine Cordray
421 Gary Jay Blvd.
Richmond Hts., OH 44143
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST TO
PUBLIC GROUPS AND OFFICES
B-l
-------
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Defense,
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Geological Survey
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
Federal Highway Administration
Ohio Congressional Delegation,
U.S. Senators
U.S. Representatives
State of Ohio
Office of the Governor
Ohio Office of Management and Budget
State Clearinghouse
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Department of Public Health
Ohio Department of Transportation
Ohio Department of Justice
Ohio Department of Economic and Commercial Development
Ohio Department of Energy
Ohio Water Development Authority
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Ohio Federation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Ohio Historic Preservation Office
Ohio Attorney General
Ohio Department of Parks and Recreation
Local
City of Beachwood
City of Bedford Heights
City of Brecksville
City of Brook Park
City of Chagrin Falls
City of Cleveland
City of Cleveland Heights
City of East Cleveland
B-2
-------
City of Euclid
City of Garfield Heights
City of Glenwillow
City of Highland Heights
City of Independence
City of Kirtland
City of Lyndhurst
City of Maple Heights
City of Mayfield Heights
City of Middleburg Heights
City of North Olmsted
City of North Royalton
City of Olmsted Falls
City of Parma
City of Richmond Heights
City of Shaker Heights
City of Solon
City of South Euclid
City of University Heights
City of Warrensville Heights
Cleveland Metroparks
Cuyahoga County
Cuyahoga County E>oard of Health
Cuyahoga County Public Library
Cuyahoga County Regional Planning Commission
Gates Mills
Geauga County
Great Lakes Commission
Northeast Ohio Area Coordination Agency
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Olmsted Township
Suburban Council of Mayors
Town of Mayfield Village
Town of North Randall
Town of Valley View
Village of Cuyahoga Heights
Village of Glenwillow
Village of Oakwood
Village of Walton Hills
Public Interest Groups
American Association of University Women Great Lakes Basin
Task Force
Archaeological Society of Ohio
Audubon Society of Ohio
Better Environment for Everyone
Citizens for a Better Environment
Citizens for Clean Air and Water
Citizens for Land, Air, and Water Use
Cleveland Audubon Society
Environmental Clearinghouse, Inc.
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Studies Center
B-3
-------
Greater Cleveland Growth Association
Hilltop Area Public Advisory Committee
Izaak Walton League
League of Ohio Sportsmen
League of Women Voters of Ohio
Natural Wildlife Federation
Nature Conservancy of Ohio
Ohio Academy of Sciences
Ohio Air Quality Development Authority
Ohio Biological Survey
Ohio Chamber of Commerce
Ohio Conservation Foundation
Ohio Conservation Fund
Ohio Electric Utility Institute
Ohio Environmental Council
Ohio Environmental Health Association
Ohio League of Conservation Voters
Ohio Lung Association
Ohio Municipal League
Ohio Natural Areas Council
Ohio State University, College of Biological Sciences
Ohio Natural Heritage Program
Ohio Sierra Club
Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission
Ohio Water Pollution Control Conference
Ohio Water Resources Center
Shaker Lakes Regional Nature Center
Students for Environmental Action
Trust for Public Lands
United Area Citizens Agency
Water Pollution Control Federation
Water Resources Council
Wildlife Legislative Fund
Interested Citizens
Complete list available upon request.
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
PACKAGE PLANT DATA
Monthly Summary Data
Richmond Park C-2
Scottish Highlands C-3
Hickory Hills C-4
Sleepy Hollow C-5
Pleasant Hill C-6
C-l
-------
RICHMOND PARK PACKAGE PLANT
MONTHLY SUMMARY DATA
Fecal
Flow D.O. BODS SS Coliform
(mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (ft/100 ml)
1985 November
December
1986 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Augus t
September
October
AVERAGE
NPDES LIMIT
0.134
0.140
0.140
0.145
0.133
0.131
0.130
0.127
0.139
0.119
0.130
0.127
0.133
5.7
6.5
6.0
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.6
6.2
5.8
6.0
6.5
5.2
5.8
5.0
4.8
6.0
5.8
20.8
1.8
3.0
7.5
9.0
5.3
7.6
8.5
7.4
7.3
10
8.3
15.7
13.0
20.8
6.3
10.5
14.8
7.5
7.0
5.4
10.5
10.1
10.8
12
..
—
—
—
—
—
2.0
17.3
424.7
62.3
4205.1
— —
942.3
200
(30 day average)
SOURCE: OEPA 1986a
C-2
-------
SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS PACKAGE PLANT
MONTHLY SUMMARY DATA
Fecal
Flow D.O. BODS SS Coliform
(mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1) ((mg/1) (tt/100 ml)
1985 November
December
1986 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
AVERAGE
NPDES LIMIT
0.138
0.105
—
—
0.098
0.096
0.130
0.129
—
0.107
0.128
0.131
0.118
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.0
5.2
5.1
—
5.1
5.4
5.0
1.5
2.7
11.3
18.5
7.0
5.3
6.3
10.0
8.3
6.6
29.3
5.9
9.4
10
2.8
5.7
12.8
19.3
9.3
5.0
7.0
5.0
6.3
7.6
88.1
11.4
15.0
12
—
—
—
—
—
7.1
388.3
199.0
23.6
957.2
249.0
304.0
200
(30 day average)
SOURCE: OEPA 1986a
C-3
-------
HICKORY HILLS PACKAGE PLANT
MONTHLY SUMMARY DATA
Fecal
Flow D.O. " BODS SS Coliform
(mgd) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (t/100 ml)
1985 November
December
1986 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
AVERAGE
NPDES LIMIT
0.048
0.034
0.036
0.036
0.033
0.028
0.029
0.027
0.028
0.022
0.027
0.029
0.031
5.6
5.7
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.5
5.5
5.0
6.3
7.1
6.9
5.8
5.8
5.0
8.0
7.0
21.0
8.7
8.8
9.5
14.8
8.8
8.0
14.3
34.0
19.6
13.5
10
10.0
14.3
22.5
15.7
10.0
5.5
5.5
6.5
6.2
7.5
145.5
16.6
22.2
12
—
—
—
—
—
0
23.7
87.9
11.0
6102.9
— _
1245.1
200
(30 day average)
SOURCE: OEPA 1986a
C-4
-------
SLEEPY HOLLOW PACKAGE PLANT
MONTHLY SUMMARY DATA
Fecal
Flow D.O. BOD5 SS Coliform
(gpd) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (ft/100 ml)
1985 November
December
1986 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
AVERAGE
NPDES LIMIT
12,907
9,093
10,727
12,158
12,000
10,016
11,083
11,613
10,159
8,514
13,102
11,862
11,103
22.0
11.0
24.0
33.0
25.0
12.0
12.5
11.0
8.0
4.5
10.0
21.0
16.2
10
31.0
6.0
24.5
33.5
17.5
5.0
13.0
5.0
13.5
11.5
13.5
16.5
15.9
12
__
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,000
(30 day average)
SOURCE: OEPA 1986a
C-5
-------
PLEASANT HILL PACKAGE PLANT
MONTHLY SUMMARY DATA
1985 November
December
1986 January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Augus t
September
October
AVERAGE
NPDES LIMIT
Flow
(mgd)
—
—
0.050
0.046
0.052
0.049
0.042
0.040
—
0.045
0.043
0.043
0.046
__
D.O. BODS
(mg/1) (mg/1)
—
—
28
21
108
27
68
16
6
—
—
6
35.0
__
Fecal
SS Coliform
(mg/1) (t/ 100 ml)
—
—
27
23
60
20
39
8
6
8
11
9
21.1
SOURCE: OEPA 1986a
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
COST ANALYSIS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ALTERNATIVES
Environmental Assessment Alternatives
Alternative 1 D-2
Alternative 2 D-4
Alternative 3 D-6
Alternative 4 D-8
D-l
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)
SEGMENT/ITEM
Contract 4
Contract 5
Contract G
Contract F
Swetland Blvd. to
Highland Rd. along
Richmond Rd.
METHOD
tunnel
tunnel
open cut
tunnel
tunnel
open cut
open cut
open cut
SIZE
102 in.
66 in.
48 in.
60 in.
66 in.
60 in.
54 in.
42 in.
LENGTH
5,800 ft.
5,500 ft.
1,600 ft.
12,100 ft.
1,600 ft.
8,000 ft.
3,800 ft.
3,000 ft,
Richmond Rd. to open cut 30 in. 2,200 ft,
Meadowlane Dr.
along Highland Rd.
Highland Rd. to open cut 30 in. 6,700 ft.
Wilson Mills Pump
Station along
Meadowlane Dr.
Meadowland Dr. to open cut 21 in. 2,900 ft.
Williamsburg Pump open cut 18 in. 1,130 ft.
Station along open cut 15 in. 1,100 ft.
Highland Rd.
Richmond Rd. to open cut 48 in. 5,800 ft.
Bishop Rd. through
County Airport
Bishop Rd. to SOM open cut 48 in. 11,400 ft.
Center Rd. along tunnel 48 in. 400 ft.
County Line and
White Rd.
White Rd. to open cut 48 in. 6,400 ft.
Highland Rd. along
SOM Center Rd.
CAPITAL COST
(MILLIONS $)
10.69
7.51
16.16
7.38
2.44
1.69
0.70
2.15
0.78
0.28
0.23
2.70
5.29
0.61
2.98
D-2
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1 (CONT.)
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)
Contract F
Highland Rd. to
Beech Hill Pump
Station along SOM
Center Rd.,
Thornapple Dr.,
and Oakwood Dr.
Richmond Park
Package Plant
elimination
Scottish Highlands
Package Plant
elimination
Hickory Hill
Package Plant
elimination
Contract H
Airport Storage
Basin
Local sewers
Small pump station
improvements
TOTAL
ANNUAL O&M
Sewer maintenance
Basin maintenance
Power
TOTAL
PRESENT WORTH
PW Capital
PW O&M
PW Salvage
NET PW
open cut
open cut
48 in.
6,700 ft,
open cut
Pump station
and 4,500 ft.
of 12 in.
Force Main
Pump station
and 2,500 ft.
of 8 in.
Force Main
open cut
12 in.
2,000 ft,
42
in.
6,300 ft,
0.75
million
gallons
4.06
COST
$ 60,000
8,800
45,000
$113,800
$84,213,200
1,257,290
9,305,680
$76,164,810
0.22
1.48
0.79
3.54
2.54
10.90
0.42
$85.54
Source: OEPA 1985a
D-3
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2 PRESENT WORTH
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)
CAPITAL COST
SEGMENT/ITEM
Contract 4
Contract G
Green Rd to
Richmond Rd along
Monticello Blvd.
Euclid Creek
Wilson Mills Pump
Station
Wilson Mills Force
Main
Beech Hill Pump
Station
Beech Hill Force
Main
Bonnieview
improvements
Richmond Rd./White
Rd. Pump Station
Richmond Rd./White
Rd. Force Main
Wilson Mills Rd.
to Anderson Rd.
along Richmond Rd.
Green Rd. Storage
Basin size increase
Basin
Pump station
Force main
Local Sewers
Small pump station
improvements
TOTAL
METHOD
tunnel
tunnel
open cut
open cut
aerial
—
open cut
—
open cut
—
—
open cut
open cut
—
open cut
open cut
—
SIZE LENGTH (MILLIONS $)
102 in. 5,800 ft.
78 in. 1,600 ft.
66 in. 8,000 ft.
24 in. 9,616 ft.
to
60 in.
twin 400 ft.
54 in.
24.2 mgd
twin 2,000 ft.
24 in.
11.6 mgd
twin 8,900 ft.
18 in.
—
12.9 mgd
twin 13,400 ft.
18 in.
42 in. 1,300 ft.
0.18
million gal.
0.4 mgd
12 in. 1,000 ft.
—
—
10.64
3.52
6.00
3.49
1.05
4.48
0.95
3.19
3.43
0.39
3.16
5.17
0.73
0.69
0.61
0.20
17.90
0.37
$66.02
D-4
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2 PRESENT WORTH (CONT.)
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)
ANNUAL O&M COST
Sewer & Force Main Maintenance $ 35,000
Pump Station Costs
Power 175,000
Labor 420,000
Miscellaneous 30,000
TOTAL $634,840
PRESENT WORTH
PW Capital $65,046,855
PW O&M 6,941,565
PW Salvage 5,961,900
NET PW $66,026,520
Source: OEPA 1985a
D-5
-------
ALTERNATIVE 3 PRESENT WORTH
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)
SEGMENT/ITEM
METHOD
SIZE
LENGTH
to Anderson Rd.
along Richmond Rd.
Green Rd. Storage
Basin size increase
0.2
million
gallons
CAPITAL COST
(MILLIONS $)
Contract 4 tunnel
Contract G tunnel
open cut
Green Rd. to open cut
Wilson Mills Tunnel
along Monticello
Blvd.
Euclid Creek aerial
Crossing
West of Richmond tunnel
Rd. to Wilson Mills
Pump Station along
Wilson Mills Rd.
Beech Hill Pump
Station
Beech Hill Force open cut
Main
Bonnieview
improvements
Richmond Rd. /White
Rd. Pump Station
Richmond Rd. /White open cut
Rd. Force Main
Wilson Mills Rd. open cut
102 in. 5,800 ft.
78 in. 1,600 ft.
66 in. 8,000 ft.
42 in. 5,844 ft.
to
60 in.
twin 400 ft.
54 in.
60 in. 6,130 ft.
11.6 mgd
twin 8,900 ft.
18 in.
__
12.9 mgd
twin 13,400 ft.
18 in.
42 in. 1,300 ft.
10.69
3.52
6,00
2.30
1.05
9.47
3.19
3.43
0,39
3.16
5.17
0.73
Pump station
0.4 mgd
0.61
D-6
-------
ALTERNATIVE 3 (CONT.)
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)
SEGMENT/ITEM METHOD
Force Main open cut
Local Sewers open cut
Small pump station
TOTAL
SIZE
12 in.
LENGTH
1,000 ft,
CAPITAL COST
(MILLIONS $)
0.20
17.90
0.37
$68.94
ANNUAL O&M COST
Sewer & force main maintenance $ 45,000
Pump station costs
Power 160,000
Labor 300,000
Miscellaneous 15,000
TOTAL $520,000
PRESENT WORTH
PW Capital
PW O&M
PW Salvage
NET PW
$68,350,450
5,884,400
6,764,880
$67,469,975
Source: OEPA 1985a
D-7
-------
ALTERNATIVE 4 PRESENT WORTH
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)
SEGMENT/ITEM
METHOD
SIZE
LENGTH
Contract F
Swetland Rd. to
Highland Rd. along
Richmond Rd.
Richmond Rd. to
Meadowlane Dr.
along Highland Rd.
Highland Rd. to
Wilson Mills Pump
Station along
Meadowlane Dr.
Meadovlane Dr. to
Williamsburg Pump
Station along
Highland Rd.
Contract H
Airport Storage
Basin
Local sewers
Small pump station
improvements
TOTAL
open cut
open cut
open cut
open cut
open cut
30 in.
21 in.
18 in.
15 in.
0.30
million
gallons
6,700 ft,
2,400
1,130
1,000
CAPITAL COST
(MILLIONS $)
Contract
Contract
Contract
4
5
G
tunnel
tunnel
open cut
tunnel
tunnel
open cut
102
66
48
60
66
60
in.
in.
in.
in.
in.
in.
5
5
1
12
1
8
,800
,500
,600
,100
,600
,000
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
10.
7.
1.
14.
2.
5.
69
51
27
89
03
35
open cut
open cut
open cut
54 in.
42 in.
30 in.
3,800 ft.
3,000 ft.
2,200 ft.
2.44
1.69
0.70
2.15
0.78
0.28
0.23
1.15
16.15
0.37
$77.84
D-8
-------
ALTERNATIVE 4 (CONT.)
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)
Annual O&M Cost
Sewer and force main maintenance 77,440
Pump station costs
Power 83,500
Labor 93,800
Miscellaneous 5,000
TOTAL $259,740
PRESENT WORTH
Capital PW $76,424,345
O&M PW 2,638,700
Salvage PW 7,995,595
NET PW $70,427,565
Source: OEPA 1985a
D-9
-------
APPENDIX E
OHIO WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
AND ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY
E-l
-------
3745-1-04 CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO ALL WATERS.
The following general water quality criteria shall apply to
all surface waters of the State including mixing zones. To
every extent practical and possible as determined by the
Director, these waters shall be:
(A) Free from suspended solids or other substances that enter
the waters as a result of human activity and that will
settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge
deposits, or that will adversely affect aquatic life.
(B) Free from floating debris, oil, scum and other floating
materials entering the waters as a result of human activity
in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or cause degradation;
(C) Free from materials entering the waters as a result of human
activity producing color, odor or other conditions in such
a degree as to create a nuisance;
(D) Free from substances entering the waters as a result of
human activity in concentrations that are toxic or harmful
to human, animal or aquatic life and/or are rapidly lethal
in the mixing zone;
(E) Free from nutrients entering the waters as a result of
- ~human activity in concentrations that create nuisance
growths of aquatic weeds and algae.
Effective: April 4, 1985
Promulgated under: RC Chapter 119
Rule amplifies: RC Section 6111.041
Prior effective date: 2/14/78
1/85 E-2
-------
3745-1-05 ANT I DEGRADATION POLICY.
(A) Existing instream water uses as defined in Rule 3745-1-07 of
the Administrative Code and designated in Rules 3745-1-08 to
3745-1-32 of the Administrative Code, shall be maintained and
protected. No further water quality degradation which would
interfere with or become injurious to existing designated uses
is allowable.
(B) Waters in which existing water quality is better than the
criteria prescribed in these rules and exceeds those levels
necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish and wild-
life and recreation in and on the water shall be maintained
and protected. However, the Director of Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency may, after compliance with public notice and
intergovernmental coordination requirements listed at 40 CFR
Part 25 and Part 29, and after due consideration of such tech-
nical, economic, social ahd other criteria as provided by
Sections 301 and 302 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. Sections 1311 and
1312, choose to allow lower water quality. Degradation of
water quality shall not interfere with or become injurious to
existing or planned uses, and the Director shall require that
the most stringent statutory and regulatory controls for waste
treatment be employed by all new and existing point sources,
and that feasible management or regulatory programs pursuant
to Sections 208 and 303 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. Sections 12C8
and 1313, be applied to nonpoint sources.
(C) "State Resource Uaters" are surface waters of the State that
lie within National, State and Metropolitan park systems, wet-
lands, and wildlife refuges, areas, and preserves, and also
include wild, scenic and recreational rivers, publicly owned
lakes and reservoirs and waters of exceptional recreational
or ecological significance (e.g., waters which provide a
habitat for identified threatened or endangered species) as
determined by the Director of Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. Present ambient water quality in State Resource
Uaters will not be degraded for all substances determined to
be toxic or to interfere with any designated use as determined
by the Director of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. All
other substances shall be limited to the criteria associated
with each designated use, as outlined in Rules 3745-1-07 to
3745-1-32 of the Administrative Code. Areas that do not meet
general water quality standards as defined in Rules 3745-1-07
to 3745-1-32 of the Administrative Code shall not be degraded
as stated above for all such classified areas.
Effective: April 4, 1985
Promulgated under: RC Chapter 119
Rule amplifies: RC Section 6111.041
Prior effective date: 2/14/78
1/85 E-3
-------
3745-1-07 WATER USE DESIGNATIONS AND CRITERIA.
Water QualHy Standards consist of two parts: designated uses and
numerical or narrative criteria designed to protect the uses.
Each water body 1n the State 1s assigned one or more aquatic life
habitat use designations or the Nuisance Prevention use
designation. Each water body may be assigned one or more water
supply use designations and/or one recreational use designation.
In addition, a water body may be designated as a State Resource
Water as described 1n the antldegradatlon policy (Rule 3745-1-05
of the Administrative Code). Criteria for the support of use
designations are presented 1n Tables 2 through 11 to this Rule.
Streams are assigned use designations 1n Rules 3745-1-08 to
3745-1-30 of the Administrative Code. The most stringent criteria
associated with any one of the use designations assigned to a
water body will apply to that water body. These criteria will be
met outside the mixing zone. Use designations are defined as
follows:
(A) Aquatic Life Habitat
(1) "Warmwater" - these are waters capable of supporting balanced
reproducing populations of warmwater fish and associated
vertebrate and Invertebrate organisms and plants on an annual
basis.
_ _ (2) "Limited Warmwater" - these are waters Incapable of meeting
specific Warmwater Habitat criteria necessary for the support
of populations of fish and associated vertebrate and
Invertebrate organisms and plants either on a seasonal or
year-round basis due to natural conditions. Irretrievable,
man-Induced conditions or the demonstration that meeting the
criteria would cause substantial and widespread economic and
social Impact. Criteria for the support of this use
designation will be the same as the criteria for the support
of the use designation Warmwater Habitat. However.
Individual criteria will be varied on a case-by-case basis
and will supersede the criteria for Warmwater Habitat where
applicable. Any exceptions from Warmwater Habitat criteria
will apply only to specific criteria during specified time
periods and/or flow conditions. Mine drainage streams. I.e.,
those streams currently degraded by mine drainage primarily
resulting from Inactive surface and underground mining
operations and associated refuse piles, may be exempt from
one or more of the following criteria: pH, total dissolved
solids, Iron, zinc. Allowable stream concentrations for
these exempted parameters will vary depending upon the
condition of the Inactive mines In that area. The Limited
Warmwater Habitat use designation must be recommended In a
written report approved by the Director. All stream segments
designated Limited Warmwater Habitat will be reviewed on a
triennial basis (or sooner) to determine whether the use
designation should be changed.
8/85
E-4
-------
(3) "Exceptional Warmwater" - these are waters capable of
supporting exceptional or unusual populations of warmwater
fish and associated vertebrate and Invertebrate organisms and
plants on an annual basis. These will Include waters of
exceptional chemical quality that support sensitive species
of warmwater fish, exceptionally diverse aquatic communities,
and/or outstanding recreational or commercial fisheries. In
addition to those stream segments designated 1n Rules
3745-1-08 to 3745-1-30 of the Administrative Code, all
publicly owned lakes and reservoirs, except upground storage
reservoirs, are designated Exceptional Warmwater Habitats.
(4) "Seasonal Salmonld" - these are waters capable of supporting
the passage of salmonlds from October through May and are
water bodies large enough to support recreational fishing.
This use will be 1n effect the months of October through
May. Another aquatic life habitat use designation will be
enforced the remainder of the year (June through September).
(5) "Coldwater" - these are waters capable of supporting
populations of coldwater fish and associated vertebrate and
Invertebrate organisms and plants on an annual basis. These
waters are not necessarily capable of supporting successful
reproduction of salmonlds and may be periodically stocked
with these species.
(B) Nuisance Prevention
These waters Include add mine drainage streams where the fauna 1s
substantially degraded and other heavily polluted stream segments
where the fauna Is degraded and the potential aquatic life use 1s
not being attained due to Irretrievable, man-Induced conditions or
the demonstration that meeting criteria for the support of a
balanced aquatic community would cause substantial and widespread
economic and social Impact. This designation must be recommended
1n a written report approved by the Director. All stream segments
designated Nuisance Prevention will be reviewed on a triennial
basis (or sooner) to determine whether the use designation should
be changed. The Nuisance Prevention criteria represent the
minimum water quality to be met In all surface waters of the State
outside the mixing zone.
(C) Water Supply
(1) "Public" - these are waters that, with conventional
treatment, will be suitable for human Intake and meet Federal
regulations for drinking water. Although not Included 1n
Rules 3745-1-08 to 3745-1-30 of the Administrative Code, the
bodies of water with the following characteristics are
designated Public Water Supply:
(a) All publicly owned lakes and reservoirs, with the
exception of Piedmont reservoir;
E-5
-------
= Ǥ:
1:
« •* ~
S-S
V k.
e « **
o M e •
— «.*».
*« « w »—
C k. C -
« a o e
> M U «
• • b.
k. «
a. « • «.
S - J ~
k. • « w «
t:st£
i^Sog
8.
in A
«« ?« S
o i
Ml
i * i
, ,
r? ??
.
??
.
9' ' » O»>
t' 13 3.
3 33
?**
e
•* O
» X «
. _
5«
'i "a
* "
_
e »
~ "e,
f "
8k.
|j |]j jj
!s rj s •§ i
.
- 2S" -I
E-6
-------
0
1 I
o o
*> 3
S i S i
i * i
il i O i i
II I II
II J «— II
o e > o
«r *i i *%
.
??
r r : r r ; r f
e >. a *i
S.5J 2
5»™ ^«> ^^e "o~^
SJS 5«S S""" 55°
ili
. M i
;,?s
- S - S
51? 5|J
ao
cm
II II
M i M
;* V:
E-7
-------
I
S-Si
51-i
«l TS •• —
> e « >-
S*- « w --
e i. c «
• a o e
9 » • w «i
e « • >-
er
2* 8
K
81
•*
«•** t • I
It II
* . . .
§•? ?§•
.;
I.-
e i
Si
0 '
0,
o i
0 '
• 01
a a
. .
5?
If!
5" e
n ^
I
£ m
e M
§«. -a
• *
a. .u . >*
? I ?
^ *• U«WI * •- ^ «, «
E-8
-------
X
I
s-*-
?-% 3 to
"a * o
§
( O (I
I i
I t
i i
ss r:
I? r!; £!;
^^ **«-« h.«»«
>• » « > «l * ,
50 —JO »
« — C n
E-9
-------
Table 2 continued
a This aquatic life habitat use designation 1s 1n effect only during the
months of October through May.
b This criterion 1s determined by the Aquatic Life Habitat or the Nuisance
Prevention use designation assigned to the stream segment.
c No chlorine 1s to be discharged.
d This criterion 1s.the same as that for the use designation 1n effect June
through September.
e Equivalent 25°C specific conductance value 1s 2400 m1cromhos/cm.
f Equivalent 2S°C specific conductance values are 1200 m1cromhos/cm as a
maximum and 800 m1cromhos/cm as a 30-day average.
9 Concentrations of the water soluble components of oil and grease shall not
violate the tox1>c substances criterion. Surface waters shall be free from
floating oils arid shall at no time produce a visible sheen or color film.
Levels of oils or petrochemicals 1n the sediment or on the banks of a
watercourse which cause deleterious effects to the biota will not be
permitted. Jd no time will chlorofluorocarbon extractable materials 1n
water exceed 10 mg/1.
h pH 1s to be 6.5-9.0, with no change within that range attributable to
man-Induced conditions.
^ Add mine drainage streams over sandstone geotype are exempt from the pH
criterion.
J A criterion for the specific phenolic compound being discharged will be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
k Total phosphorus as P shall be limited to the extent necessary to prevent
nuisance growths of algae, weeds, and slimes that result 1n a violation of
the water quality criteria set forth 1n Chapter 3745-1-04 (E) of the Ohio
Administrative Code or, for public water supplies, that result 1n taste or
odor problems. In areas where such nuisance growths exist, phosphorus
discharges from point sources determined significant by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency shall not exceed a dally average of one
milligram per liter as total P, or such stricter requirements as may be
Imposed by the Ohio environmental protection agency 1n accordance with the
International Joint Commission (United States-Canada agreement).
m Any whole sample of any representative aquatic organisms shall not exceed
0.64 mg/kg (we1: weight).
n At no time shall the water temperature exceed the temperature which would
occur 1f there were no temperature change attributable to man's activities.
E-10
-------
Table 2 continued
(1) AM pollutants or combinations of pollutants, not specifically
mentioned In Rule 3745-1-07 of the Ohio Administrative Code, shall not
exceed water quality criteria derived according to the procedures set
forth 1n "Draft Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life and Its Uses,"
United States Environmental Protection Agency, July 5, 1983 or, 1f
Insufficient data prevent the use of this procedure, shall not exceed,
at any time, 1/10 or, for pollutants or combinations of pollutants
which are known to be persistent toxicants 1n the aquatic environment,
1/100 of the 96-hour median tolerance limit (TLm) or LCso for any
representative aquatic species. However, more stringent application
factors shall be Imposed where Justified by: "Ambient Water Quality
Criteria" documents, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
1980; "Quality Criteria for Water," United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 1976; "Water Quality Criteria 1972," National
Academy of Sciences and 'National Academy of Engineering, 1973; or
other scientifically based publications.
(2) The median tolerance limit (TLm) or LCso shall be determined by
static or dynamic bloassays performed 1n accordance with methods
outlined 1n "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater," 15th edition, American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association and the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 1981; or performed 1n accordance with procedures outlined
_ 1n_"Methods of Acute Toxldty Tests with F1sh, Macrolnvertebrates and
Amphibians," United States Environmental Protection Agency
660/3-75-009; or performed 1n accordance with procedures outlined 1n
the "Manual of Ohio EPA Surveillance Methods and Quality Assurance
Practices," revised June, 1983. Tests will be conducted using actual
effluent, receiving water and representative aquatic species whenever
possible.
E-ll
-------
Table 2 continued
(1) A11 pollutants or combinations of pollutants, not specifically
mentioned 1n Rule 3745-1-07 of the Ohio Administrative Code, shall not
exceed water quality maximum criteria derived according to the
procedures set forth In "Draft Guidelines for Deriving Numerical
National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life and
Its Uses," United States Environmental Protection Agency, July 5, 1983
or, 1f Insufficient data prevent the use of this procedure, shall not
exceed, at any time, the 96-hour median tolerance limit (Tim) or
LCso for any representative aquatic species. However, more
stringent application factors shall be Imposed where justified by:
"Ambient Mater Quality Criteria" documents, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 1980; "Quality Criteria for Water,"
United State;; Environmental Protection Agency, 1976; "Water Quality
Criteria 1972," National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of
Engineering, 1973; or other scientifically based publications.
(2) The median tolerance limit (TLm) or LCso sna11 D® determined by
static or dynamic bloassays performed 1n accordance with methods
outlined 1n "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater," 15th edition, American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association and the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 1981; or performed 1n accordance with procedures outlined
1n -"Methods of Acute Toxldty Tests with F1sh, Macrolnvertebrates and
Amphibians," United States Environmental Protection Agency
660/3-75-009; or performed 1n accordance with procedures outlined 1n
the "Manual of Ohio EPA Surveillance Methods and Quality Assurance
Practices," revised June, 1983. Tests will be conducted using actual
effluent, receiving water and representative aquatic species whenever
possible.
E-12
-------
Table 3
Numerical and narrative criteria for Recreational Use Designations
BATHING WATERS
Fecal conform - geometric mean fecal conform content (either MPN or MF),
based on not less than 5 samples within a 30-day period shall not
exceed 200 per 100 ml and shall not exceed 400 per 100 ml 1n more
than 10 per cent of the samples taken during any 30-day period.
PRIMARY CONTACT
Fecal conform - geometric mean fecal conform content (either MPN or MF),
based on not less than 5 samples within a 30-day period shall not
exceed 1000 per 100 ml and shall not exceed 2000 per 100 ml 1n
more than 10 per cent of the samples taken during any 30-day
period.
SECONDARY CONTACT
Fecal conform - shall not exceed 5000 per 100 ml (either MPN or MF) 1n more
than 10 per cent of the samples taken during any 30-day p'erlod.
E-13
-------
APPENDIX F
COST ANALYSIS OF
EIS ALTERNATIVES
EIS Alternatives
EIS-1 F-2
EIS-2 F-7
EIS-3 F-12
EIS-A F-17
Assumptions F-23
F-l
-------
TH
1
CO
M
W
cu
. bO
• J>
CM rH
n)
CO
rH
• (0
& 4~J
• -H
CM O,
rt
O
rt 4J
•M (0
o o
H U
•H CO
a o
E3 O
a.
CU
a
t^"»
j_*
o
c
o
•H
4->
a.
•H
l-l
O
co
(U
a
e
cu
M
CM CO
CO •*
r-» TH
•» •*
O CO
00 O^
t-H
•CrO"
v>
in m
r-. in
O vo
tH CO
CM in
m i-»
tH
co co to m m co co *H m co co co co "^ in in co CM m ^o co co
co co co r*- r^ co cy* m in co co CT* co *^ TH vo TH «^- in co co co
co in in in co vO co vo m oo co o^ CM *^ in in vo co vo co co vo
•^•voootH ocMcovoco^i-r--oovocMf>f)inco VOCM-*
tHinr^-incM CM ror^coco-^ooco cocsim cornea
cocovocoin TH oo ~3" vo co cr> r~^ CM-^CTV
».•*». •* •* »*«»•» ».
-^ in VO tHO CM tH ~3" tH
tH rH tH
•co- k/> -co- ko- k/> -co-
*->*-• 4-,(rJ>>>,4-,4J >,M-, OJ (0 (TJ ^ ^ 4-"
4-114-1 4-ia>cJu>4-i4-iiot/}(i;a>a> 4-14-14-)
^^ ^^ 0s? ^^ ^^ ^^ *^ ^^ ^^ ^v ^^ >^. ^H ^^ ff^S ^^ *^ "\
oo co i/o i/*i tn o^ CT^ oo co i/o co r*1*" i/o in i/o oo co co
>^ CO rH P^ «^ rH rH CS) CO ^^ • CO rH VO rH *^" CO CM
tHco + O'-THcO'tHomm + rncoiH
•» ^5 vO CO »* ^ *^
rH TH VO CO CO CM CO
•CO-
ii IVOCOCMII moo 110
II 1 tH|| CMCMCO IICO
CN
CM
^^ «.CJCJ^^MCO ^^^
§CM CO O^ CO CO CN) CO CM tH tH ^^ CO vO
CJvCOOOCMOrH OOO
COCO vor^-vOTHTH^st vOvOO
inm tHOOincMCMrHvO THTHOO
tH TH
CO
cu
1
o
c
rH rt)
w rH co boas co
0) -H 0) C 01
rH 4-1 rH -H bO rH
O ^ O l-i C O
J3 O .C C O -H J2
C 0)CCOX!4-< C
o. as
Ji >, nJjai-iCM >, J3
4->CJ C>4->O(dCO O 4J
•H C O (0 -H 4-> .H C -H
CU> CD (UCO'HCJCUISCObOQCOCO D CU^(U
a. wi a, ai -t-1 x ex a; c o) 01 bo ex a.
•rt rH C -H rH 0) Cd -H rH BS -H >,rH rH C -H rH -H
CMCU -H OiO> CM 01 4->bOOO -H O-i 1) CM
C *J .C fO ^ CO)ClJl-iJ3^5 4-> C
= C C =COO=C4-'. >, t^u-i
in ON ON in co in
m TH TH r^ • TH
ro • • • rH -f-
-O vo OO
CO tH vO oO
CO OO O 1 -
CM CM 1 00
v-x CM
O O CO W
CO CO CO CO CO
CM CO CO O O
00 oo O O
tH CO CO 00
CM m -*
rH
rH
•H
4-1 bO
-* C
0 C -H
n) C O >-i
03 o -H O
•H 4J jC
<^J 4-1 rd co
rt u >.
C > O 4J -H
.c aj _*; c
as « 05 oo co o
F-2
-------
T
c
o
cj
rH
1
CO
M
W
o>
. bO
t» rt
CM rH
rt
CO
rH
• rt
C* *-•
• -H
CM 0.
rt
O
rH
rt 4->
4-> CO
o o
H 0
4—* 4— '
•H OT
C O
J3
a
a>
a
£**»
4_j
o
c
o
•H
4_)
a.
•H
l_l
a
co
01
a
B
01
4_>
M
^^ in CO Sf rH rH NO Sj" CM
cMinocor-uocMOrH
voooooNomoocoincM
P^ OO rH CM P^" in rH ON ON
OO CM rH CO CM -* 00
CM -O-
•co- ko-
^j fft [ i *ri ^,^ ^,^ ^^ L[J
UHCUWHOICJCJCOCO
ONinrHinoNONinoo
ON m r~- m «H «H r^ •
OO 00 • • • rH
„ " O ^43 OO
OO OO rH v£> OO
'-*
O 00 O 00 00 O 1 CO
OO CM OO CM CM 1 CM
1 1 ^
CM CM
CM CM
>, >> >.4H
CJ CJ CO CO
O rH O >J rH vO O
00 O CM rH <}• O
oo oo r~- oo NO o
rH -* 00
00
rH
rH
•H
4H bO
>yj J-«
0 C -H
rt C o 1-1
pa o -H o
•H 4-1 f*
L« 4-> rt co
rt )-i
C > 0 ^>
o rt 4--
OIWOICO-HCJCObO
CX CU O* Q) 4— ' ^ O) C
•H rH -H rH rt M OH -H
CM O 0. O > 4J
X J5 rt ^i O> O>
z C » ClOO^tU
*sj" td csj (d X o *H jC
LO ?*^ "*^ ^r^ PT^ p*| ^^ ^Q
^O TI3 *O
dec
rt rt o
rH rH bO E
•u XJ d J3
01 bO O CJ
> O -H rH -H
CO 4J £33 rt OS
^.
CM
r-^
•.
v^
vD
V>
00
^3"
^,
O
m
o
•*
m
KO-
4-1 rt >v >> >,4H
4H 0) O O CO CO
in < — i in ON ON in o
rH SJ- rH rH rH r- OO
+ in • • • •
•- O NO OO rH
CM rH NO OO
'-•
O O CO CM 1 O
CM CM rH CM
I ^^
NO
rH
?% r**t ?"> ^4
CJ CJ CO CO
O NO OO Sj" rH O
O NO -* rH O
CM m oo r^ o
CM s}- v£> rH OO
CO
rH
rH
•H
14-1 bO
*^j C3
CJ C -H
rt c o ti
CQ O -H O
•H 4-< J3
1^5 4-» rt co
>> rt i-i
CJ C > O •*
a o rt 4-1
0) ot co -in 0 to bo
bo Q. 0) 4-« x (U C
C -H rH rt W O3 -H
H CM O > 4J
•M JG rt ^ 0) Oi
C = C CJ O 4J 0>
o o rt x o -H js
O oo 35 pq OH co t/1
OJ
c
T3 (tJ 13
C rH C
o > rt
B 0 bOrH
J3 T3 C 43
o rt o bo
•H O 0» rH -H
O3 4-> 3E rt SB
ON
00
ON
»*
r^
rH
rH
v>
CM
CO
„
OO
ON
CO
v>
rHcM omosj-mo
sf oo o in o NO r*^ o
uo ^d* ^* ^^ NO NO co >^
vom ~3-cMrHONinco
rH ON r^ *^ -*Cf ^* ^^ -^
rH CO CM rH 00 rH 00
rH
C/>
-rt X>,^
MH CD O CJ CO CO
m rH m ON ON m o
rH sj rH rH rH P^ OO
+ in • • • •
•• O NO OO rH
CM rH NO 00
C^
O O CO CM 1 O
CM CM rH | CM
1 ****
vo
rH
>N X >>L4H
•^ cj o co co
CO P*- NO "N}" rH CO
O rH ON -3- rH O
r~ co oo CM o
vo oo o m co
tH CM VO
CM
rH
rH
•H
>4H bO
Sfj fj
0 C -H
rt c o ij
PQ O -H O
•H 4-1 J-
C^J 4-J rt CO
>> rt u
0 C > O ^S
c o rt 4-1
0> O> co -H CJ co ho
bO Ou 0> 4-. x Oi C
C -H rH rt W OS -H
•H Cu O > 4J
4-- J3 rt ^ CU QJ
c = c o o *->
c c
T) O CO rt
C CO CM rH
rt rH >
rH -iH CO bO O
Si t* rH C TD
bo rH o rt
•H O -H rH 0)
aa 4-. an rt z
CM
o
r^
**
co
m
oo
•co-
rn
^
~
r--
rH
f^
•-
CM
•to-
-^ ON rn
ON >3- sj-
O^ N^ "^
^«j «
bo
C
•H
4-1
c
o
o
F-3
-------
X~N
4-J
G
0
CJ
SMI*
rH
\
CO
W
(U
' hO
C* rfl
. j>
CU r-l
rd
CO
i
r^
« «0
& 4-.
. -rl
CM CX
rd
U
rH
mi—l
•4-*
0 O
H U
•rt CO
G O
0 0
J3
) t
Q.
Q)
Q
t*.
O
G
0
•H
4J
O.
•rl
M
O
CO
CU
Q
e
CU
4-*
M
^ o m ^ o m m co o o r^
*VOCTNr--rH
rHOr^r^xa-r^rHCOVOVOCO
vOCMrH rH VO O r~- VD CO
VO CM rH
rH
\u>
^rt^rt-rd*^^
l»HCU1+HCU'4HCUCJUtOCO
voinoinoincr>a\ino
CO rH in rH CT^ rH rH rH f*~ CO
• in »m «m • • • «
rH "in "CM «-O VO CO rH
CMCMrHCMrHCMrHvDCO
•CO-
s~*
OOOOOOCOCM IO
CMCMCMCMCMCM rH ICM
III N^
VO vO VD
rH rH rH
S^ ^ *x. ii i
i^> *o ri ^^
o o co co
OCOOcOOcOOOOO
O 00 O CO CM CO O
O-i rH rH O rH CM CM
CM rH rH VO CM m
O
CM
rH
i— 1
•rl
14H bO
-* C
O C -H
rt C O M
oa o -H o
•rl 4-> _C
•-O 4J nj co
rt u
C > O t^>
O rt 4->
(Ucocucocuco-Hucobo
Cu CU Qu CU Oi CU 4-* X QJ G
•rH rH -H 1— 1 -r-l rH rt U OS 'rl
CM o CM o CM o > *->
r* _r*{ r] {^ fc^ QJ CU
rH rtcb rtih rt X O-H.C
CMSrHSrHSWOSCOlO
CU bC
C 1 G
rt co o "O
rH B rH C
O -H i— 1
T3 rH bCJ3
rt rH u bo
CU O -rl 3 -H
£ 4-> & JD CO
m
fx^
fx^
^
CM
r-x.
rH
•CO-
^
0
•s
CO
o
CO
^
rH
-co-
r^* oeo
r*** o^ c^ r**^ c? ^^ r^"» ^D ^H
O 00 LO I""*- O "^ "4" rH "•3"
r^O rOro^vOrOO*-H
tH CO -xf »-H rO rO rO
rH rH CM
c/> H»
^.d^^^
>4H CU CJ CJ 00 CO
in in in CN CJN in o
rH f"*- rH rH rH P*x CO
4- m ....
^ O VD VD rH
CM rH VO
^
O O CO CM 1 O
CM CM rH 1 CM
1 ^
rH
>> >. >%M-4
CJ CJ CO CO
o m co CM in o
o rH -4H bO
.* C
0 C -H
rt c o u
03 O -H O
•rl 4J X3
*» rt ij
o c > O x cu c
G -n rH cd W OS -r(
•H CL, O > 4-"
•i-1 x; rt ^ cu cu
C = G O O 4J Q)
O CO rt X O -H _C
o -3- as u os co co
-o
C 4->
0 Q, V-i
BOO
J3 J3 3 Q.
o co i-i (H
•H O -H J3 -H
OH 4-> CQ 4J
o
rH
°7.
rH
vO
vD
»,
CM
1t/J>
r** G^ C^ C^ ^1 **^ ^^ co C^
c^j *™H ^^ ^^ co *4? r^- ^^ (^5
rHCO OCMONCOCOCOOO
r^rH mcOCMincMOOCM
xj VD co in r^ r^> co vo o^
co vo co co CM vo in
CM CM
co- -co-
~~ «*:»>,.«
tM 14H (U O O CO CO
m mcoinoNCT\ino
rH r^COrHrHrHf~~CO
+ co m ....
••O VO VO rH
CM rH VD
<~-
O 1 O CO CM 1 O
CM t CM rH 1 CM
1 ^
rH
^ ^ ^^
^ ^ cj o co co
O O cr\ co co co o
O O CM CM co CO O
CO - .c
^J^ 4-> rt C/5
>» J3 rt u
0 4-> C > 0 c«
C -H o rt 4-1
cu cu>co-HCjcobo
bO O. CU +J X 0» C
G -H rH rH rd W OS -rt
•H OH 4J
4-> G xi rd J4 ,JC
O O bo 4J £*
-C C C
co ac o •s TJ •
•rl O rH O G "O
« to rt O rt e<5
rH
VD
„
CO
r--
-------
****
^J
c
o
u
rH
CO
M
PL!
Q)
• bO
> rt
OH' rH
rt
CO
rH
• rt
E* •*"•*
• mi~i
OH O.
0
rH
4-> CO
O 0
H U
•H CO
C O
£3 O
x!
a
Q-*
a
K>»
4*J
o
c
o
•H
4-1
ex
l_l
o
CO
01
Q
e
IV
M
Os
^3*
r^
•*
O
rH
st
•CO-
^
CO
r-^
•s
rH
rH
rH
co
co-
OOcMO>*OvocOvfr
O^OscMOOini^cO
OcMincMOoooocor~-
oo^vocMCMininrH
oo ^t in o os co o o rH
-3- rH in rH CO f- ~* rH
rH CM CO
(to- [co-
^
iw a/ cj o co co
m m os os in o in
t~~ rH rH rH ( — * CO rH
m • • • • +
-O VO CO rH
CM rH VO CO
•CO
-x-s
O O CO CM 1 O
CM CM rH 1 CM
1 ^^
VO
rH
>> i^^vW
v O O CO CO
O vO rH vo Os O
O rH r— in co o
Vf rH fx- VO O
vo m CM m vo
rH CM m
CM
rH
rH
•H
u-i bo
fc^j ^
CJ C vH
rt c o IH
aq o -H o
<# 4_. nj to
rt (-i >,
C > O <-a o
o rt 4-. c
0» CO -H O CO bO 0)
Q, cy 4-< x 01 C bo
•n rH rt W OS -H C
OH O > -M -iH
r^H rt f^ VV VV 4->
= c cj o 4-- o» d
CO rt X O -H J3 O
-* S W OH CO CO U
O T3 O
4-> C CO
rt u
0) rH bO O>
4-' .C C 4J
•H bo 0 C
J3 -rl r-H 0)
c* tc rt o
o m
os r**-
Os CO
•> »s
CM rH
rH *^*
VO
to- -co-
r^ in
vO ^^
co >*
CO co
>^ rH
VO CO
>*"
•co- -co
oini^-ooinomcMr^- in
OCOCMOrHvOO C^ *^* C^ ^O VO CO
CM -* Sf
-co ko KO-
4-J rt >, ts XUH
UH 0) CJ CJ CO CO
m m os os m o in
r-- in rH rH I—- CO rH
CO • • • • +
~O VO CO rH
CO rH VO CO
/-^
O CO CO O 1 00
CO CM CM 1 CM
rH
CM
*>»>»•"
^ CJ CJ CO CO
o r«- I-H sj- vo o
o rH co o m o
r^* co r""- os CM
vo in os m m
rH CO r**-
rH
rH
•H
4H bO
^J f^
CJ C -H
rt d o LI
PQ O -H O
*fH | * r*
>-O 4-j rd co co
rt LI £>•» LI
c > o ••« o o
o rt 4J c >
(Uco-HOcobo 4-i -H rH
-d rt .* a* cu 4-> rci
= dcJO4-«ai c o
cortXO-rH_c o o
~*XWoiCOCO U >-4
c
3E d -rl
•U J5 O • T3 rt 4_p
COCOCOO CrHrt
rt CD OH 4-> O OH C
I-H cu bo tv e -H
X! « rH d J3 J»( • E
bOrHOOn CJLlbO-rH
•r-l O -H rH H -tfirtO OnCkOnCd
F-5
r^.
sf CO
VO rH
•• rH
vO *•
CO O
m
•CO-
o in
CM ^
*^ vO
•« «k
vO Os
m r~-
vO CO
-co -co-
o m
CM ^*
vj vo
vrT os^
m r^-
VO CO
-CO-
OT CO
cu cu
> >
ai a>
co to
rH rH
rt rt
CJ CJ
0 0
^ d ^ d
CO C -H d -H
,C T3 «J 4-> rt 4J
CO C rH rt >, rH rt
•H rt OH d Ll OH d
4-J rH -H O -H
O bO bO-H O rH bO-H
O -rl ^ rH "H -H ^i rH
co an (X w cacdOnW
-------
T
c
o
o
rH
1
c/3
H
W
CU
. bO
E* rd
• ^
(X( f— 1
rd
C/J
rH
• rd
C* 4-.
. -H
o. a
5
rH
«i i
•*-*
4-> CO
O 0
H O
•H CO
C 0
S3 U
_a
4-*
a.
cu
a
4— •
o
c
0
•H
4-1
Ou
•H
M
a
co
cu
Q
e
CU
4-1
M
oo m m oo
VD rH CM ON
m ON o st
CM CM O r^
r^ co rH co
m CM ^f
».
iH
^ft ^/5" t/5" ^/5°
r^ r^^ so ON
co r^ st oo
SO SO ON sf"
#. •* •. •-
P~ -^ rH CO
CO CO CO SO
CO SO SO rH
rH
CO CO P"- rH CO CO 00 ON r^ CO so ON ON SO sj"
co oo so f^* co *^* &n r^* co oo sf CM r^ co ON
CO SO rH O O SO CO r^ SO CO ON ON SO CM CO
f^COCMrHONCOrHinr^ CO rH COCM^tO
•stinmr^ooini^soco CM co f^osost
SJ- iH-O-rH • +
r. O SO CO rH
CO rH SO CO
/-^
O 00 00 O 1 00
CO CM CM I CM
1 ^^
CM
CM
^ o o co co
O SO CO CO O O
O rH CO CO O O
CO ON CO SO OO
so > co -H
c>ot«a rd oirH
O rd 4-> C CQ rH W
aico-HOcobocu o.
o 4J-H CCOlH
J3rdj>io)cu4-' m UT34-I
= eoo4->oi c r^ o o a
cMCdXO-Hj3 O • .CO-H
sl-ZJWceitOoo O O HC*<«
•K
ta a,
4-* *K 3 1
U 4-J 01 P-t C 01
rd U bo co O >
)H OrdrHlHrH-HOCO
4-> O.MrdCUrH4->l-|4^
c uocj>rdn)ac
U co >
O cu rd O
H c/j pq p.,
r~ r- ON
rH CM CM
m co ON
O VO 00
ON CM P~-
CM
ON
m
rH
ON
00
r-
rO
SO
t/>
IH
CU
a
bo
'c
rd
a.
cu
o
c
co
M
rd
cu
cu
bo
a.ac
u o c/j
a,
PH PH a, 2;
s
co
to
-------
CM
CO
H
W
0)
bO
rd
E* r-l
• rd
Cw C/)
r-i
rd
• -IH
C* 0.
• rd
PL, CJ
i— 1
rrt 4->
lu *"^
o o
H 0
•H W
G O
o u
j~
4_»
O,
0)
Q
^
4-J
0
c
o
•iH
4-1
a.
•H
v^
CJ
M
cu
Q
O>
4-J
M
OOOO^cO^tOi— I
oooo-^mooo
^•oorHincoo-stoo
oo-vj-r^iHcMOcMr--
t-HCMCOvO CO in rH
i-H rH OO CO
-co- -co-
4-j 4-1 4-> rd >, >, >>4-i
UH4H4HOICJCJOTW
•^ co oo in CT» CT> in co
ON in •J' IT) r- I ,-J, r-~ .
i— I CT» rH rO • • • r-i
-O vo CO
CO r-l VO CO
~^O"
1 1 ^, V »i X~X 1 *»
i I o oo oo - i oo
CO CM O CM
1 CM
CM ^
CM
4-1
>> >> W
a o >-,o
«-«.«. -4- CT> W O
o o o o m & o
o o o r^ CM oo -
vO vO O •* •* 00 00
•* ^ r* C 3 CO O^ ^ ^^
r-lr-ICOCMCMinOO-*
W i— 1
0) -H
i-l 4-1 bO
o j«j e
x! a c -H
C rd C O U
rd pg o -H O
z: -H 4-1 js
c > o ca
•H o rd ^
O>>OICO-HCJWbO
a a. a> 4-1 x o» c
•H i— 1 -H i— I rd W pS -H
CM O! DM O > 4r>
c _a rd ^ cu cu
= C= COCJ4->fl)
co 3vo rd X o-Hj3
r^E-ivosnwpScoco i
C3
4-1
CJ
rd
l_t
4V
G
O
O
O
o
CO
•s
rO
CO
CM
"
t"H
•CO-
i-l
C5N
vo"
CO
r.
&
co-
om vo o o m ro so cMn -*
*^, r*fc co c^ co ^t1 vo in co s^ co
I-ICT» cMinr-ir^i-i-^'voOco
J\ vO CO CM CO CO *\f Cj** vO CO, vO
™H *3° in CM CM vo in co r-i co vo
CM CO i— 1 ON CM T— 1 CO P^ in
rH CT* S3" VO
-co- -co-
*3 -u 4J rd rd ?>>;>•. ^4-1
^ rHroininCTvcyNinco
r^- CM m m I-H rH r- •
rH CO CO • • -i-l
- -O vo CO
CO CO rH vO CO
O O CO 00 00 - 1 00
CO CO CM CM O CM
1 1 csl
CM CM ^
CM CM
>> >> W
cj cj ;»>vo
*• ^ vO O*» M CTv
VO O rH CO i-l -3"
rn o o m co -
rH in •* "CO CO
- - o\ in CM -co
1— 1
1— 1
•H
4H bO
-^ G
CJ C -H
rd C 0 U
CQ O -H O
•H 4J XI
t^j 4-j rd co
>% rd l-i
O c > O <-3
C 0 rd 4-<
'D QJ Q^ CO CO *rH Cj W bO
^0 f^t Q-i Q) CV *~* ^ (U C
G -H -H rH rH rd W OS -H
r-i PU a, o o > 4j
i-< x) J3 rd Ji cu o»
G s=GGOO4->0)
O cMOrdrtXO-HJS
J -****""0"" (
4H O
O rH
-0 T3 r-l
& v a o)
WO CJ
G rd S bo-H
0) W J3 C 4-i
O> CJ O C
IH O -H rH O
o 4-j orf rd z:
co in
in co
00 CM
•t «v
vo m
& CM
O^ r^
r^ O
rH in
°1 ^
rH 00
in -*
UO O
^J-
rolr^ o
ro rH m
^p G-*^ P^*
in I-H oo
oo in -*
y^ LO o*^
r-T
w *»
M
m
rH
^.
CJ
G
at
y
H
M
c
o
T>
bO
»T««J , ^
-------
^^
t3
01
C
•H
4.)
c
O
o
CM
1
CO
rH
U
01
bO
rt
• 'rt
OH CO
rH
rt
• -H
r* ex
• rt
0-. O
rH
^i i
*-^
4-> OT
O O
H U
•H W
c o
0 O
-C
4"J
CX
Q
£**»
4-1
O
C
o
•rt
4-1
CX
•H
U
o
w
o
6
4-1
M
1 CO
I en
r--
^
to-
O OS
0 0
tO fO
O O O O O O O LO 00 00 LO O vO o*) os O O O O C
OQOOOO OcNvOr^rHOCOCNO OOOOC
O O O O LO ^O O O csl cs LO "^J -^ 00 rO O O O O LT
O O O O
to r*** ^""^ f*1^ ^o o^ C5 *sf co to ^o ^^ r*^ oo tf^ r^« »-H PO vi
l-HCM -co--co-t/>
I rt I *«? t-1 rt >> >> >>4H jvf i rt i s>
i £*"» ?*» W bO
B 0 0 W O E
O 00 -* vo O
CM o >* r~- m o vo
o rH o m -
-J- 1 - *• -CO rH |
CM<-II Csim-^tCMrH-a- rHrHI
i-H
i-H
•H G
4H O bO
^ -H C
i.4 O 4J -H U
C) rt c rt >H o
4-> C PP O >-l O 4J
rl -H -H o jfl rt
^4 rt ^ 4-^ 4-1 CO t-t
oj xac rtw >, d> >
c: o c>o c c
o c cvortes c 0) c
owoi ow-iHcjbooi o a
rH bO lHXOIG bO rH b
CXO C OrHrtWO-H G CXO C
M 3 M -H &L. O > rt <-* -H U) 3 U •!-
CL k^' 4-1 4-> J^ (Tj ^ 4-1 -H -rt O (0 (U 3 4-1
EX«£O-iCO £>9Cb£ CQ Oj CO
1 1
1 1
o o
& in
m r^
'*^ r^
os m
•sj"
t/> v>
> o o o o o o
> o o o o m m
^ m O O O r*» r~^
• -^ m o in vo T-H
) os vfr ^r m
"*
CO- -CO- KO- (CO-
? 1 1 »^?
i i i m
i i
i i
i
rH 1
e
(U
4-1
VI
co o
c
} )H W 0»
0 (U rH bO
*-> 0 C
3 M -rt
CX 4-1 4-1
e c c
o o o
I U O U
rH rH
rt o e
t-l (-1 (1)
4-J 4-1 4-*
c c M
,
u u co
F-8
-------
cu
bO
cd
f-» . J
M* ^1
• rd
O< GO
rH
rd
4-/
• -H
t* a.
• rd
0< O
rH
4J W
O O
H U
•H W
C O
ro o
•o
cu
3
C
•H
c
O X!
CJ -t-1
s-x p.
CU
CM Q
1
GO
M
Cd
^*>
4_i
o
c
o
•H
4-J
ex
• r-l
J-l
0
w
cu
Q
B
CU
4-*
(H
rH
<}•
o
»s
o
-.^
CO
CO
ON
•s
CO
CO
».
CM
•GO-
O O r**- st 00 O ON st CO sf
OOONCOrHCOCMvOON O
O rH O ON vO vO sj- co r~^ ON
CMOOOOcor^-CMvOCO NO
rHCMCOiHCOI-^-^OSt CO
r- IHVOCMCMOCOCO
CM CM
k/> [oo-
MH CU CJ CJ CO CO in
o m ON ON m o +
CO P^ rH rH P*^ CO
\42 • • • •
•- O NO CO i — 1
rH rH \O CO
| ^ ^ x-v | ^
1 CM CO ^ 1 CM
t — 1 St rH
^.s
MH
r*"> CO
CJ £*> ^*» C^
ON CJ CO O
o in o CM vo
O -* CO CM »•
ON •* CM ON CO
"CM 00 - - rH
CO rH rH ON vO CM
rH
rH
•H C
MH O bO
^ -H a
0 >-> -H
n) c nt u
C CQ o U O
•H -H O J3
TO oJJ 4J 4J 00
Z3 cd co >-, co
d > ai i-a cj u
cu o ro Pd c o
O CO -H CJ bO CU *->
UCU4--XO1C bO 3
OrHCdWCJ-H C C
CtH O > *-• B
= COcjucu C B
OcdXO3J3 O O
coacwoejGOoo u u
rH C >
rH -H ' Ol
•H Cd -H
03 S >
cu
JZ OJ -H
CJ cj c
cu u c
(U O O
CQ b CQ (
m i
ON 1
^•O
»*
ro
"V5~
^•O ^X5
CM 00
O CM
«. ^
rH in
co >n
CO CO
•s
CM
V>
v^ %^ f^^. Q\ p^. V.O \O
N^ O*^ c^3 ««^ f^^» c^ CO
in m co co «H o CM
vo o co r-. co IH m
co st r-~ oo st co tn
rH CM CO CO
CM
GO- k/>
in
+
T3
bo
B
ON
CM
rH
0)
H C rH
TO -H O >>
> J (-1 0
o *-• c
SMC 0)
CJ CJ O bO
Ol •*-* O C
TO -rt
HOC
(-1 c T3 O
LD vO O U
CO \
4J T3
C C±4
CU
cu c etj c
> o o
O B O> -H
Q. cj -H B
m
CM CM CO -
I ^
I CM
>>>>>> CO
CJ CJ to O
O CO vO CM O
O ON ON CM \O
*^ r^* co "*^J *"•
co r~- p~- co O CM
rH rH CSl rH rH CO
C
•H
rd
an
cu
o
^1
o
b
c
O
CO
CO
CU
rH
O
_c
c
cd
as
•iH
4-1
CJ
cd
CQ
t-0
c
o
•1-1
4_>
rd
>
TO
CJ
X
w
C
0
•H
4->
cd
>
rd
CJ
^
U
K^J
CJ
O
oei
o
•H
TO
U
O
4-1
CO
01
&
cu
CJ
cd
4-1
(-1
3
00
bO
• H
tj
0
GO
u3
bO
C
•H
4-J
CU
cu
JS
GO
^>
CJ
c
cu
bO
C
•H
4_J
C
o
u
C Pi X
o
B cu cu
j5 4_> cj
CJ -H >-l
•H J3 O
ft^ ^*^ PI^
F-9
-------
/•-x
TJ
0)
3
C
•H
4-t
o
o
CM
1
CO
rH
w
CU
bO
rd
• I>
t* M
• n)
PL. CO
rH
rd
4->
• -H
t^ OT
• rd
OH U
rH
4-> M
O O
H O
•H CO
C 0
3 O
•g
Q.
01
Q
l^"»
+-»
o*
C
O
•H
4-f
o.
•H
IH
O
CO
01
Q
e
0)
4-J
H
O O
O CM
CO ^t
CM CO
CT* tH
to-
4-> rd
U-l 01
rH in
r-- in
CO
*.
CO
O 00
CO CM
1
CM
CM
^
O
O
CO
01 co
a. oi
•H rH
OH O
s C
CM rd
•* as
o
4->
-o
02
c
o co
CO rH
rH rH
•H -H
£B 33
ON
CO
iH
CO
>>
O
ON
rH
•
0
rH
OO
>>
0
rH
00
0
CO
rH
rH
•H
>4H
*Jt
O
rd
CQ
-S
e
o
4->
rd
>
rd
0
W
W
-O
OS
C
0
co
V-1
01
T3
C
co m o
CM iH -*
ON CO V-O
ON ON <
O CO ON
m
^> ^% ^"*
o co co
ON in O
rH r^ CO
• • •
VO CO rH
^D CO
- 1 CO
O CM
CM
**^r
>> >> co
O CO O
••^ V^ ^^
o m oo
- -CM
60
C
C -H
c o u
O -H O
. | ij »H
•n *^ ^LH
rd IH
> O <-8
rd *J
O co bo
X Ol C
ta OH -rl
4^
•v^ n) qi
O 4J Ol
O -H ,C
03 CO CO
TJ
OS
•o
c
0
ho e
C J3
O 0
tH -H
(t) OH
oo m
C5N O
V0 rH
c^ r^*
00 tH
(-- rH
^
m
rjl
r*^
O
c
0)
bo
C
•H
4->
c
o
o
0
TH
m
#.
CO
tH
rH
^
CO
O
CO
f*.
o^
oo
CO
O
CO
r^
ON
CO
*>
^
00
ro
Vx
vO
00
tH
v>
CM
ON
00
r-
0
m
r-
tH
o
oC
m
o
•C/^
\
"O
bO
e
00
rH
•
0
c
•H
co
rd
m
Ol
* N
-O -H 01
OS 01 CO CO
bo rd
c rd e oi
Ol ti -H IH
01 O CO O
u *•> nj e
O CO « M
cooooooN-tooomoo
rH o co co ^ r^* O ON r*^ in
ONtHvOOOOOtHOOOvO
in r^ co tH r^ CM CM ON
> >, >>4H 4-, m >, >,
OIOIOOCOCOMHOIOO
CO 00 ON ON in CO l^~ in ON ON
rHOtHtHI~~ •eM~*rHrH
ON tH » • • tH CO • •
»* •» CO vO CO •* CO ^O
mr^tHvoco iHtHv£>
~^- CM
•CO-
oo r- m o o oo -
tH tH rH CM
\*,s
^
SB 0
a. a, 4H o m >,
bObO>»>s>,COO 000
ooootooo IH r»
oor-oomo - ~ON
COCOvOincMONiHCMtHCM
rH rH
rH rH
•rt -iH
'4-4 bO 4H
— ^ G ^
o a -H o
rd C O U rd C
4->CQO-HOC CQO
•H -H 4-1 J3 -H -H
CC'-a*-|rdcord <& *->
03 rd Ui 3C rd
•H c > o -a c >
•ui-iOrd*-1 oi ord
rdO-H ocoboow-H o
4->4->4->XO)ClHO)4-'X
co rd rdWoS-iH OrH rdw
U > 4J [I. O >
aoird^oiO) xird^i
BCOOi-'Olc COO
3OJXO-Hj3cMrdXO
OjCJCdOSCOCOtHSCdOS
^
T3
OS C
O
C C -rt
a» -H a. *j
0) co B rd
U rd 3 *-•
O CQ OH CO
m o
CO O
ON O
•* ^o
tH CM
^
M CO
m o
r-~ co
• •
CO rH
CO
W
O
^* C*
w o
•S^ »s
•<* 0
-* CM
e
O bo
•H C
4-> -H
rd U
^4 O
O J3
4-< CO
CO
0) <-3
OS
bo
01 C
O -H
rd *J
14H 01
U 01
3 J5
CO CO
m m
^O CO
CO CM
rH f**
CO CM
tH
-co-
SN°
m
*^j!
^^
o
c
01
bO
C
•H
4J
C
o
u
CO
ON
«*
CM
CM
•CO-
CO
tH
rH
•>
O
0
tH
0
m
00
O
CM
V>
F-10
-------
•o
CU
c
o
o
CM
I
co
M
W
01
bo
. >
£» rH
• rt
PH 00
rH
rt
4J
• -H
> cx
CU O
,— 1
4-> CO
O 0
H 0
•H CO
C 0
a o
JS
a
cu
Q
^»
4— •
O
c
o
•H
4-*
ex
•rH
I-l
o
M
01
Q
e
CU
M
CM
O
,-H
CO
rH
rH
•»
CM
•CO-
VO
N^1
co
»,
CO
o
0
VO
J_J
•GO
sj-
n
CO
o
o
vjj"
r~H
•C/3"
w
IH
CU
cu
CO
1— 1
rt
o
o
CM ^O
n m
~* CM
m r-
m CM
r^*
•.
m
t/>
vO C^
CO CM
00 rH
— *s
in cr>
^" CT»
rH rH
VD
-CO-
rH CM O P1- CM || v*
P*^ ON vO vO ON || f^-
m n rH CM n n \o
vo r^ ^o o o jj rH
rH || O
H^
**
II r^
II -^
-co- k/> n > >> ca
4_> jkj Q
G o • o; o
**H »C ^** »C t~H r~H
< H 3d H n)
^^t *-«
r-H C
•H C
W 3 <
•K *-• J3
CX C
B 0» T3
3 e cu
ex, c cu a
0 > 3
rH -H O _} CO
rH *-> M <3j CO
nJ 03 CX EM
m CM n -CM co
ON vO PO r^ O
i— i -* n -co- o
cu
o
c
n)
G
CU
a
•r-t J5
rd 4^
ac IH
o
CM &
"rH 4^
rt co 4->
so c
o cu
cu to
u c cu
I-l O IH
O -H LH U • CU
CL, 4J CD O CJ
rt > ^ co
<-a 4-< o rt -H
co cu j as
M
CU CX
cu y
co cu
CD co ^O r*"*-
CN i-» 10 r*-
r-* in CN m
W *S *v «.
o** ViO r^" co
ON -
rt *-s rt
u o co >
• • •
t* £» > H
• . • (j]
Cu cu Cu Z
F-ll
-------
CO
1
CO
M
W
0)
bo
rt
* ^
S* rH
• rt
CM CO
rH
rt
4-J
• -H
z* ex
• rt
CM U
rH
4J W
O O
H 0
• H CO
C O
£3 C_J
-C
4-J
CL
cu
o
£>J
4J
o
c
o
•H
4_>
o.
•H
J^
O
co
CU
S
(U
4_t
M
00
0 O
o o
rH CM
oo in
rH
•CO-
4-J 4-1
MH MH
-* O
ON m
rH ON
•
|
«. v
0 O
o o
vO *«O
*. •-
w
rH
o
-C
c
£
XI
•H
CU ti
a.
•H rH
CM Q)
C
= C
CO 3
U
4-J
O
rt
4-*
c
o
U
0
o
^J.
CO
r-l
,j
y-i
CO
^.j-
* — i
fc
O
CO
1
C*N!
CsJ
«.
Q
CD
CD
•>.
CO
cu
a,
•H
p f
vb
VO
o
,
0
ON
rH
•
O
rH
^
co
o
^-
O
r^
».
CO
rH
rH
•H
*4H
s^
O
rt
m
<^J
c
o
•H
4-1
rt
>
a
X
w
COSfOrH
m o o o
cO C? **^ 00
CM O CM r~-
CM O CO CM
ON CO in rH
co co
C/J"
^*. t>"« '1 J
o v) v)
ON m O
rH r^ CO
. co -
VO "• rH
vo co
^-v 1 «.
v i co
O CM
CM
S^ '
U-l
>, V)
0 >>0
ON CO ^3
in ON o
CM CO -
-CO CO
ON •* "^
bO
C
C -H
a o u
o -H o
•H 4J J3
4J rt co
rt 1-4
> 0 c3
Ctf "^
o w bo
x cu c
U Pi -H
4_)
y ni r]i
rj 4-- fJJ
O -H si
O
0
00
CO
CO
CM
-
rH
r^
ON
*,
vo
^^
CO
ON
CO-
O rH CM
r^ r^ rH
rH ON CO
ON vo CO
rH S}- rH
CM CO r-
rH ON
C/>
Sx°
in 4H
,- A -**^
1TH ^>.
+ CO
CM
rH
^
O
CO
1
O
CM
».
^>
^~
co
•4
m
!•*>
J
CO-
^1 ?N ?"» ^H
o U co co
ON ON in O
rH iH (^ CO
• • • •*
O VO CO rH
rH vO CO
«. s-\ •*
CO - CO
O CM
CM 1
XX 1
MH
X >N co
u o >> T-t
rt c rt IH
n o M o
•H O XI
rt to
c > cu ca
o rt erf
•HO bo
ii k^ fll (-4
rt w o -H
> rt >~>
rt ^ 'w cu
O O M 0)
X 0 3 X!
w as co co
o
rH
cu
C rH 0
O M 0) bO'H
CO rH C G *->
rH rH C O C
•r! -rH 3 rH O
C* £ E-" rt £
o m
-4- CO
CO CM
vo m
CM CM
VO rH
•CO- {/>
m o
co m
p"«- r*^
•\ —
CO CO
-* sj-
r^« ON
•^
-*
r-v m o
o co in
«<^ p^ r*^
ON CO CO
rH -^ v^
vo r** ON
•tf"
c/> -co-
K«
tn
_H
-i-
i
i
«.
CO
^N
o
c
d) (U
bo a.
C -H
•H a,
4_»
C =
O Si"
u m
T3
•H Jrf
rH CU
u cu
3 i-4
W U
vo
CO
CM
ON
CO
CO
VO
CO
•CO-
o o
ON ON
ON r^
O I--.
CO rH
CO CM
m
vO
ON
m
CO CO
CM CO
rH CO
I I
I I
O O
CO oo
vO
CO
QJ
rH
O
JS
c
rt
OJ >
Q,
•H rH
CL, 0)
C
b s
vo H
O
c
0)
hO
c
c
o
o
O
rt c
(V
\it C
o o
co u rt i
0) -H O
t* Pi 03
co
o
rt
O
03
rH O rH
•r-t rH -H
£ rt £
F-12
-------
X""N
*"O
O)
3
C
•H
C
o
o
•^
CO
1
co
H- 1
W
O>
bO
rt
t* rH
• rt
Qj CO
rH
rt
4-1
. -H
tS O,
• rt
0, O
rH
03 t *
4-1 CO
O O
H 0
•H CO
C 0
:=> o
4-1
Ou
01
Q
£•*•»
4-1
O
c
o
•rH
4.J
ex
•rt
Ju/
CJ
co
O>
Q
6
O>
4-1
M
1 1
1 1
O O
o in
in r--
- —
-J rH
os in
*^
*>
OOOOOO OOOOO O O r^ OS -* ^f in t— 1 CM 00 rH CO f^ >3"
i — ICM'^''^' 1 — -i — I^OCMCM O
CM
«> U U U U
irti 5^ ii s^e 4-'rt>.>>>14H
1011 m ii m u-io'oococo
o + + omososino
O CO r- rH rH 1^- CO
CO **O • • • •
•~O \O CO rH
O rH i— 1 VO CO
r~~
CM
III II | ^ ^ x-v | ^
III II 1 CM CO ~ 1 CM
^_^
"O >> co
bO CJ >> >,O
B Os CJ CO O
o m o CN ^o
^O O C « O M O
(tj 4-1 -rt -rt O JS
o* >. >» >% as rt to
C CJ CO CJ C>0)<-8
1" G C (U O rt Pi
(.SCO 41 (-ico 01 cjco-rtcj bo
rH bO OlrH bO UOl-^XOIC
O.O C ^0 C OrHrttdCJ-r-i
C03M -H 3M -rt (JHO> rt*-i
d.^4 4-1 4-1 CX.4-1 4-J ^rt^'JHCP
SCJC C EC C ECOCJUCIJ
3rtO 0 00 0 OrtX03-C
04«U CJ CJCJ CJ rOZWftJcOCO
C
O
rH -H rj
rH 4-i .H
•rt (ti (TJ
CO 4J rH r-l 3C
co rt o e
JA t-> i-> 01 J5 O>
CJCX 4J4J4J CJrHCJ
0>6 CCW Oif-Hl-i
O>3 OIO>> Ol-rtO
P3PU OUCO PQCCCr.
F-13
rH
sr
o
•s
O
_j
CO
CO
OS
r^s.
».
CO
N^"
CO
—
CM
^ CO ^3" ^3" ~^-
vO Os O ^ Os
co r^ os m tn
\O CO sO sO O
O -^ CO CO -*
CO CO rH
CM
CO- -C/>
^
in
^j!
0)
E;
•rH
rH l-l
>> co rt cu
CJ M > •*->
c o o m
o) 4-1 e c*
bO 30)
C C C£ J=!
rt -rt CJ
4-1 e *-> c
C B -rt -rt
O O >-( 1
J CJ CJ3 sD
^
0)
•rt |
>
•rt O CO
C l-l <-*
C O. C
0 B OJ
BO M B
-------
•""^
01
3
C
•rl
C
O
"^•^
CO
1
CO
U
0>
bO
rd
• *>
C* rH
• rd
0* CO
rH
rd
J~J
• -H
t» 0.
CU O
rd 4-*
•M M
0 O
H O
•H M
C 0
s> o
_rj
4»>
O.
Ql
Q
^"»
4-J
C'
c
o
•H
4-1
a,
•H
1-1
O
M
OJ
Q
s
0>
4-1
M
m i
ON 1
^o
»s
CO
«
r*** ^^ ("**• ViO ^O ^^ LO *™~1 ^>O CO C? LO
c^ ""sf" i*^" o*j oo ^^ r^ *~t r^^ *^" co co
CO 00 'H O CM O - -co- (
•S^S 4-i rfl >, >> >>4H
m UH 01 o o to M
+ CM in ON CT> m O
LO r^- rH rH f^^ OO
VO • « • •
•- O ^O OO ' — '
iH rH v£5 OO
^
CM CM CO -* 1 CM
rH rH rH
*4H
'O >, >, X CO
bO - O O M O
S O CO v£> CM O
O ON CTi CM •£>
ON -^" r~- oo ^3" fc
• »- », ^ •, r~j
CM co r~- r~- co O CM
rH rH rH CM rH r-t OO
rH
rH
•rl C
MH O bO
^ -H G
CJ 4-J .H
rd C rd l-i
C (Q O ^ O
•H -H O J3
i — i rd ^-3 4-1 4-» c,o
O >, 35 rd M
1-1 o e > O CO -H O bO
obo uoi4->xo>e
oc orHrdtao-H
•H fe o > rd Ui
l-i 4-* _c« rd ^ 4H cv
OC rCCJOV-iO)
T3O OrdXO=)j3
oo roacwojcoco
co \ q \
4-> T3 O "rj
> C OS -H oS d
O> 0) 4J -H
•HB -OT3rd TJTJrd
>O>,-v COS*-' C0335
O> > • O CO O
•HO4-J BOI EOiO)
C(-iC J34-JCX .C 4-> cJ
CO.O CJ-HB CJ-Hl-l
OBO -HJSD -HJ3O
CQtH'^ OSt»Ok oS>Ci<
m
CM
in
«v
^D
*-O
^>
•CO*
CO
1 — *
CM
•s
sj
CO
m
oo"
ooco oomcoino
O\ r^ O CM ON CM rH >cf
ONCM CO^COONOvO
O~* CMOOrHONCTv-tf'
VD ro ON rH OO O OO ON
•^ m m
CO
c/> v>
X *- rd >, >, XUH
n 4H 01 cj o v> in
+ TH m ON ON m o
1^ in rH rH l~-~ CO
CO ....
•* O ^>O oO i — 1
CO rH *JD ro
^
O CO CO O 1 CO
OO CM CM CM
1
CM
CM
<4H
>. >, >. V)
CJ CJ W O
O rH ^ V£> O
o co o m co
00 O r- rH -
rH ~* OO 1 — rH l~-
rH
rH
•H C
UH O bO
4 co
>> rO M
cj c > oi i-a
C O rd OS
01 0) M -rl CJ bO
bo ex o) 4-1 x 01 c
C -H rH rd W CJ -H
H O-i O > rd 4-1
*-• JS rd ^! 4H oi
C = C cJ CJ U Ol
O CM rd X 0 3 j£
U -3- 35 U OS CO CO
c -o
O OS
CO
OS 01 C
C T3 O
O co C. bo B
CO rH
-------
•^^
'O
0)
s
c
•H
c
o
'*•'
CO
1
to
o>
bo
0)
C* rH
• 03
CM CO
r-H
03
4-1
• *r~t
EX £X
• 03
PM U
rH
«i j
4-*
4-> W
O 0
H 0
| I j i
•H CO
C O
S 0
-C
0,
Q
£*•»
4— >
0
c
o
•rH
4-J
a,
•H
1-1
CJ
OT
01
Q
S
Oi
4->
M
I-. CO CM
oo - -CO-
CO VO
CM rH ST
ON rH CO
CO "
O 00
r-~ O O
O rH O
in *•
f-^
•CO- -CO- -CO-
^•* CO 00 fO ON "s^- CO c _] i~ j QQ i/"^ f^ i/™) in c~ j vo
rH rH CO CO CO Vf P^ t, ) ON l/"^ 00 CO ^f^ ^5 p-^ ^^
c_ ] ON rH VO CO CO rH t~] c~^ VO ON CO CO CM Ifl CO
ON inr- co rHr^-cMONvfvOrHr^-co co
in >*CM CMrHrHCMCOCMOO
O rH CM O
•» *^
rH NO
rH
v> -co- ko- k/> > >, X4-I ^ 03 >> >»iw K°
cuo|ouwwi4-io>cJWM m
cococrloNincor^inolino +
rHO» — 1 rH 1— -. "CM^i — lr— CO
ONrH«-«rH O'*»
•^ *• O NO CO •* O CO rH
mr~-«HN£>CO rHrHCO
^f CM
co ^ in o o co
r^* i™H *™H T™^
>. M
bo E B CJ O
E a. a. 4-1 o m >,o
OO bO bO t^"» ^* »^% W CD CO W ^^
rH OOOOWOO rH^J-^
• o o r^-coino " ^^sto
rH rH
rH r-t
•H -H C
MH bO 4H O bO
^i C -!*! -H C
O C -H O 4-1 -H
03 G O (-1 n) nt u
4--PQO-HOC BQUO
• H -H t-> J3 T-l O -C
C C« *-3 •*-* 03 to o3 ^Q 4-* to
o & 03 >-i z: co >>
4JUO034-1 CD OOS C
4-'4-'4-'XO'C
T3 -H 01 T3 01
Oi Ol CO M O3 C CO
bo oj o
C03CO)CG-H rH
(U Ul -H IH (U -H Oi •*-> 0}
OlOCOCJOIWEoS O
ti4->o3ci-io):34-> o
OCOOQMOOOftiOO J
CM (--
CO CM
•^ NO
•* *>
CO NO
CO rH
CM
•*
NO
to -co-
vO >0
co r--
CO ON
»^ •*
in rH
-* rH
tH *$•
•v
5
•^O1 ^fo
**^ Q\ P**1* ^^ ^^ II r"^
rH CM o r^ CM no
p»x, fy\ ^^ ^Q ^\ || \Q
in CO rH CM CO || ON
NO r— vO CO CO II CM
rH CO II CM
II -
II O
n m
ko n -co
*
a.
s
a., c ai
o >
H -H O to J
— < 4-< u 4-< <;
03 03 O, C H
s *j s
-------
T?
0)
3
C
C
o
o
CO
10
O
0
O 0 0
o o o
0
o
vO O v£>
r- co T—i
r-l CO
in r--
oo
m
CO-
to
o
O
VO
00 \O
00 «-l
r- CN
cr> m
co
co
oo
3 XI W
to o rt -H
P^4 ^.1 JFJ
ex
C
o>
M
(U
PM
cd
(U
bo
4-> (0
•H >
0,2: .-H >
CTj *-3 (tj OM
O O t^
H
t» & > W
CU DM Cu 2
01
x;
o
4-J
C
nj
OJ
3
XI
-o
Ol
€
10
to
F-16
-------
1
co
M
ta
Q)
bo
rd
E* rH
• rd
CL, in
r-t
rd
• -H
ts o.
• ft
Oi O
rH
«4 i i
IU +-^
*-> M
O O
H 0
•H M
C 0
E3 0
r-i
4.1
0,
0)
Q
£**>
4-J
O
c
o
•H
4-J
o.
•rH
M
o
OT
OJ
Q
e
01
4J
M
CM OO
CO -»
P-» rH
•s —
o co
v^ *-^°
CO cTs
<_J-
in in
r- m
o *o
». —
rH CO
CM in
in r--
— —
V£> - fco- ko- *a ^td^^^^^'wianJrt Svo *
"*^ "N.. i | X^ -^ «s^ -s-^ -s^ Xt 'X. X^ "X^ ^S^ ^^ -^ J >s
^s ^S r~1 ^S, ^v ^ ^X ^X ^V ^s ^S ™V ^«fc ^* T^
QQ fV^ -^. \f\ y^^ ^^ ^\ fV^ fT") \J~\ f*~} p^^, ^/"^ l^ ^- ^
"•^ co r^ ~^f *~^ f~~i CNJ oo r**1* • oo ^™H \& ^
rHCO O'-rHCO-rHOmin r-
- O vD oo - - -
rHrH*> CO OO CM OO
II 1 - - •*•" II «• - -•
ii i *£> co - i i m o o
CM CM CM CO
rH
^s
K*^ ^» V ^ K^» ^*H
-^ vCJGOOMM
oo OOOONOOCMO c
OO OONCOrHrHCMO C
co co \o r^^ ^o •* *• **?* ""^ ^i
-^ - --CMCM--CM
inm t— ICMPOinrHi— IrHVOrHrHrH r-
V)
o.
<-O *-* (d *O *rH
J3>> nJj3UCM >>
4-10 G > •>-> O ni V) O
•H G O flj -H 4J -H C
Q) Jj Ol (U W **H O Ot ^i C/3 bO Q W CO QJ C
O. bO Q> r-H rH C -r
cuai -H a,o> aiO> 4-< bo o o -H a
C *-' X3(d-i^ GO'O'M^X! •*-•
cG G £COG£G-*-J0'O>GG C £
v^ 3 O " CO Cd X O CO 3 "M j~2 G (d trj O v£
vj^ EH c_) ^^ at* w ocj **o EH co co fTi ac ac o ^
^f in c_
4J 4J 4.
o o c.
(d td n
MM >-
^^ ^J 4-
C G c
O O C
O U C_
3OOOOOrHOO-> >, >,UH
^it-iiwoi oo to w
DooooinoNONinoo
fCOCMinrHrHr~~ •
H CO rH OO • • • rH
- O V45 OO
CO rH VO 00
1 1 - - ^ ^ 1 ~
1 O CO CO O 1 00
oo CM CM CM
1
CM
CM
>4H
^\ ^> w
o o >,o
•- «. 00 oo M O
2 O O co co O O
3 O O 00 00 O -
3 VO o - -O CO
~ - -OrHOO -St
^r^cocMcMlnco• O <^J
•H O 03 *J
i. a, a) +J x a> c
Hi — 1 -H rH fd W 0^ «H
4 oi a, o > *-•
C -G fd ,^f Ol 01
G c C O O 4-* QJ
3 3 CO 03 X O *H _G
5 EH vo an r*i p^i co co
5
J
J
J
4
5
)
F-17
-------
cy
bO
rt
* ^
t* rH
• rt
OH CO
rH
nJ
4->
• -H
D* O.
• rt
OH O
rH
(4 •*"•*
•M CO
0 0
H U
•H M
C O
x-V ^ °
12
3
G
•rt
4-J
EJ
0 -
O 4_j
s-' a.
<"
t Q
to
M
W
t>^
^j
O
C
o
•H
4_)
ex.
•H
U
CJ
to
cy
Q
B
cy
M
O
CO
CM
CO
O
rH
-
to-
00
co
VO
UO
ON
CO
».
CO
•co-
OOOO^rHOsr
COCO OmO-*rHrHvO>JCM
in in vQoooovoinoooomcN
O*» C7N r*^ CO rH CM f*"* UO rH 0N CTS
OCO CO CM rHOOCM^-CO
rH CO CM Sf
U > >, >,4H
uo "j-icyuncyootoM
*+ ONuorHuoaNcrxuoro
C"\ in r*~ in rH T-H i • .
CO CO ... rH
- - O vO OO
CO CO rH VO CO
to-
O CO O 00 00 * 1 00
00 CM CO CM O CM
1 1 CM
CM CM -"^
CM CM
4H
>» >> W
o a >>o
•& rH W O
O O -* rH C-. O
O O CM rH VO -
OO O - - -J- O
-O - r-. oo -oo
rH
rH
•H
UH bO
*«j G
CJ C -H
« C O U
PQ o -H o
"H -M f^
<^J 4-* (tj CO
^-» (fl M
CJ G > O t-3
G O rt *-•
U ^ W ^ W *fH O OT bO
bfl Qi ^ Qt (JJ 4—* ^ QJ (^
C -iH rH -H rH rt M Dd -H
•H PM O OH O > <-•
4-< .f* j3 rt Jii cy cy
G ECsGOCJ*-1!*
o *^ fd CM rt x o *H jc
u inx-^racwoicoto
u -o'
O 'iH rH -H
o ^-' oo *j m rt oi
CM
».
vO
vO
vO
v>
oo
""^
o*\
Vs
o
to
o
•V
uo
v>
O*x CO c_ ^ t~3 f**- *^ c_~] c'o rH
rH ^^ [~i Q^\ cj\ c^] i^^ £^ ^^
OO O^ CNj i t t^ e~3 p^ *^ cj^
00 cj c^j in vO cO r^ *^f ^£*
(f) I/O ON rH "^ l/"^ I/O rH 1^*
VO O ** rH P~
m"
CO-
>^ *-• rt >> >> >>>+-(
uo MH cy o o to to
4- rH UO CjN C7\ UO O
•Jt rH rH rH fv- CO
UO . . • .
-O VO 00 rH
CM rH VO OO
O O CO - 1 Q
CS >>>>. w
a o to o
O CO . fd i-i
a c > o <^J
G O rt <-•
cy cu co -IH cj M bo
bo a, cy *-• x o> G
G -H rH rt W OS -H
• H CH O > J->
+-J .fi (Tj .A QJ O
G s G o o 4J cy
0 O rt X O -H J3
O CO X Cd pS tO 10
cy
c
"O rt *T3
C rH G
o > rt
e o born
J3 T3 C -C
0 rt O bo
•rt O cy rH -H
ai ^ z; «) tn
ON
CO
•s
r--
rH
•CO-
CM
00
r.
CO
Q\
00
v>
rHCM
*^* co co in c? vo r^* vO o^
uo-* r^r^vOvooo-> >,>,^
m >4H cy o o to w
+ rH UO CT> CT> UO O
-> >> CO
a o >>o
^ vO ^T W O
O C^ ^ rH O
O 00 00 rH -
-4- - -CM CO
-r-~ co O - vo
VO rH rH CM UO CM
rH
rH
•iH
<4H bO
s^ C3
O C -H
rt G o (H
PQ O -H O
•H •(-> JG
ca -*-1 rt to
>. rt u
a c > o i-a
c o rt <->
cy cy &7 -rt o M bo
bo ex cy 4-> x cy c
C -H t— t rt W PS -H
•H OH O > <-*
*-> jc rt J^ cy cy
G = G O O 4J 0)
o o rt X o -IH JG
o co ac w od to to
cy
G
•o to rt
C OH rH
fd C >
rH O to bO O
J3 to rH G T>
bO rH rH O rt
•H O "rt -rl rH CU
03 w C» X rt X
F-18
-------
01
bO
rd
• ^
E* rH
• rd
Oi 00
t-H
rd
4-1
• T-l
C* ex
• rd
0-, O
rH
fjt i .
TO *-»
4-> CO
O O
E-H 0
[ t ^j
•rH CO
C O
^ E3 O
'^
'O
CD
3
•H
C
° x:
CJ 4_,
^^ ex
* v
1 °
oo
H
w
^»
4— '
o
c
o
•rH
4«J
a.
•iH
u
o
CO
OJ
Q
B
CU
4-*
M
CM
O
f-x.
•s
00
CO
CO
"•tf
<
oor- st t-isti-Hstr^
CM CM OO
k/> [co
s^e 4-1 rd >> :>, >i»4H
in >4H cy u o co co
+ i-H in as os in o\
r-- in T-I T-I r^- T-I
oo • • • •
— CO vo oo cO
OO T-H VO OO T— 1
•CO
~ X ^ ^N 1 ^
O oo oo ~ i oo
CO CM O CM
1 CM
CM ^
CM
14-1
CJ CJ >,0
x oo OO CO O
O CO OO O 00
O Os OO O -
ro •- •- vO CM
— vo st r^ — in
vD T— 1 t— 1 oO in oo
rH
rH
•H
4-1 bO
^ rj
CJ C -H
rd C O U
aa o -H o
•rl 4-1 r^
i^J 4-1 rd CO
>> rd u
o G > 0 ^3
G o rd 4--
cy J-1
•M J3 rd X 01 a*
C s G O CJ 4-1 cy
O CM rd X O -H _C
U -* 3C W OS CO CO
CO
O rH ^
*-• i— 1 -O CO
•H cy
T3 3E 3 4J
c G a
rd C -H rd
rH O *-• (-1
J3 CO G J-1
bOrH O C
•H -in CJ O
m E* ^- cj
CO 1
in
•v.
Cxi
p^
m
*""
r~- C
00 C
vo IT
•s
r-~ sj
oO (T
OO SJ
*-
st
•co v
osr>- oooooc
r^-co OOOOOC
r^. vo to co CD CO in i/"
mrx OOOOstsj
vO oo in f^ t-H oO vo CT
in oo T-I CM st st
sf
co (co \v
*-? 1 rd 1 9s;
in i cu i m
+ o +
0
o
•s
o
CM
1 1 1
1 1 1
bo
e
^O
•
rH 1
rH tH (
»M
o
4-1
rd
u
>> cy >>
0 CO
G cy c
PQ CX 00
1
1
o
in
r^s.
IS -
T-l
m
(• -CO
;OOOOO OOr-^st
ooomin ooo^oo
OOOrs-r-- OT-HOOS
in o m vo T— i CMOOOO
st st in T-H CM 00 T-H
r^ t— i vo
h -CO K/> K/> -CO
1 1 3s? *-* rd £*» K*>
ii m MH cy o o
-f- o m os os
CO fx* rH T— 1
vo • •
— >
-• Os O
o mo
O st oO
ON -CM
1 -CO CO -
T-H | OO CM T-l OS
rH
rH
•H
<4H
Ni^
O
e a) c
cy G eo o
4-> -H T-l
co rd >-a t-j
^*» ^% ac rd
CO O C >
C cy O rd
l-l CO 0) O 10 TH CJ
cy I-H bo L> X
•MO C O rH rd W
3 >H -H b O >
o, *•> 4-> 43 rd ^
EG C E C cj cj
O O O O rd X O
o o a co s: w os
rH G
rH TH
•H rd
rH rH CO 32
rd 0 B
u M cy _c a;
4J 4-1 4-1 CJ O
c c to cy ti
, cy o
U O CO CO Ui
F-19
-------
*~*
"O
d)
3
C
•H
4-J
c
o
0
s"^
1
to
l_{
(U
bO
rrj
Cs i— l
• nJ
&j tO
r-l
rd
• -H
a a.
• rrj
&4 U
«i *
•*-*
4-1 CO
O O
E-i O
•H W
C 0
3 U
j_«
4-1
a,
0)
Q
k*N
4-)
O
C
0
•H
4-1
a,
•H
Jj
U
M
(U
a
e
4-1
M
t-i tn m
**^° ON ""I*
CO vO ON
•s •* —
O CO CO
t-l -* ON
CO r-
».
t-l
CO vD CO
ON CM ON
P^ CO "*3"
•- — *.
00 t-l O
-3" CO ON
co co m
•* #s
CM CO
i— \
00 CO ON *^" OO *^ HCMOr^
vo vo ^ co r^- ON in in oo oo t— * o ^ r^ ON vo vo
cor~-cMvooo vovoocor~-cor-( o inoo«-HCNj
oo r^ *^" O ••iJ" CO co K/> ko- ko-
(n vi in in
"•••- -x. — ^ , |
^•s ^. r^ *^
m o -f +
r~- 0-1
• >
CO t-l
CO
1 «»
1 CM
r-t
M-l
i/3
W CO
CM vD
CM ~
ON CO
VO CM
C
O bo
•H C Q)
t-> 'H C
rd >j -H
MO >-J
O J3
*-> OO r—l U I— 1
W >, W (TJ 0) O >.
0><-8O U > 4J U CJ (DC
Di C O O flj <-< C r- IOW
bO(U *-iB>Ca) Q.CT3
(DC bO 3 -H -HO -H u C t> C»
U-l(U-t-> g4->CI-l-t-' 4-JU
HQJ c B-H-HO C CO-Q)
3J3 O O>-i|-a O -HjC-i-JjC
toco o ocjvoo o -iJE-iacE-'
M
M •)<
r-l C > 01 £X
r-l -H B
•H rd -HI 0» 3 1
acae >«) too4C O >
J3OI -rlOW i— Ir-l-rtOW
OO GU*J a}rH4-JUi4-i
oj U c a c ordmcxB
(P O OBCU OS-t-iBQj
PQpLc PQME Jt/Jf/JMS
CM CM r--
CO CO vo
^^ r—t -^
*. «s ^
ro VD tH
CO ON t-l
t-l O
•s.
00
to-
vo CM m
CO ^J" O
co o V> II
d
•H
V}
rd
ca
O
z:
CO
•
o
*
4-1 (U
u bo
o rt J
a. u <3
U 0 H
•H *-• O
-------
0»
3
C
C
o
o
I
CO
W
OT
O
O
O
o
oo
0
o
0
CN|
O
o
st
rO
0
r-l
O
O
m
m
o
o
CO
CO
CSl
w
o
0
m ro
O sf
CSl ^-1
r-l 00
O csl
VO
§
r-t
0
co
r-l
00
o
CSJ
m
0
m
m
T)
O
•H
U
01
O.
bO
C
•rt
C
(t)
aintenance
a:
-a
o
i— i
nj
3
C
C
<3*
c
•H
cd
O>
o
u
0
pL(
c£J
U
(P
^
o-a: I-H 4J
(rJ t>£ rd Q^
o o in 2
o
c
•H
M
crj
(U
•H
T3
(U
E
W
w
F-21
-------
ASSUMPTIONS FOR CHAPTER 5
COST ANALYSIS
1) Trench Width
4 ft. trench for pipe sizes <27"
4 ft. + pipe diameter for sizes >27"
10 ft. trench for dual force mains
2) Trench Depth
12' deep trench for force mains
2 ft. + average pipe depth for gravity
3) Rock Excavation
Assumed rock at 8' below surface based on drilling logs HT-21 and
HT-14 (only 2 within the Hilltop area)
4) Small Pump Stations
- Assume excavation 15' x 15' x 15'
- Assume prefabricated underground station
5) Tunnel Costs
updated costs from Facilities Plan
(original CCI=2257, present CCI=4333)(September 1986)
6) Pipe Costs
Class 3 concrete with gaskets for all gravity pipe (Means)
Water Piping-Ductile Iron for force mains (Means)
- When specific pipe size not given, used a straight
line estimate for cost
7) Site Restoration
- $33.75/sy for paved (Means)
- $6.75/sy for unpaved (Means)
8) Manholes
- One every 400 ft. for gravity (round up)
- One every 800 ft. for force main cleanouts (round up)
- Cost: Manhole (6ft) = $ 585
Frame and cover = 460
$1045
+ $105/ft over 6'
9) Excavation and Backfill Costs
- 8' of excavation (routine) for all sites
- excavation = $ 3.40/cy (Means)
- backfill = 1.14/cy (Means)
tamping 5.65/cy (Means)
$10.19/cy
F-22
-------
10) Rock Excavation Costs
- excavation = $ 3.40/cy (Means)
break up rock = 56.00/cy (Means)
- backfill = 1.14/cy (Means)
tamping = 5.65/cy (Means)
$66.19/cy
11) Sheeting and Shoring
assumed that all trenches required sheeting and shoring
- $1.30/sq. ft. of wall surface area (Means)
12) Bonnieview Upgrade (Improvements) from NEORSD Responses to Comments
- upgraded to present CCI (xl.0333)
also includes $100,000 for odor control
13) Local Sewers
assumed concrete, non-reinforced, extra strength, B&S or T&G joints
(Means)
14) Storage Basins
based on standard unit costs developed for the City of Boonville,
Indiana Facility Plan (Prepared for: State of Indiana State Board of
Health by Triad Engineering, Inc., July 1986)
15) Operating and Maintenance costs from Environmental Assessment.
Updated to Present (Original CCI = 3931, Present CCI = 4333)
16) Present Worth based on 7-5/8% discount rate.
17) Salvage Value based on a 50-year life for structures, sewers and force
mains; 20-year life for mechanical equipment; straight line depreciation.
Value available for salvage assumed to only include 10% construction
contingency.
18) Contingency factor of 15%.
F-23
-------
APPENDIX G
COST ANALYSIS OF
EIS RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
G-l
-------
(U
• «
3 to
• >
(X r-l
10
o
i~-
m
m
CN
00
•s
vO
CM
vO
in
CO
CM
in
CM
• to
a, a.
to
o
00
00
CM
ON
oo
i^
oo
r--
•u en
O O
f- U
00
00
CM
in
ON
CM in r-i CM in
r—I CM O ^O CO
oo ro oo r- CM
oo O oo oo
i—i in m P--
CM
•vi-
ta r*~
r- O
CM
vO
in
oo
oo
O
0
m
O O
ON r-
CO CM
m r—i
r-- <)•
in
-6%
O I--
00 •-<
m
0\
•1-1 tn
C O
w
H
4-) CO >-, >
u-i a) o o cn cn
co in ON ON in o
CM in i-i r-i i~~ co
r-l CO • • • *•
•• O O CO r—I
CO r—I vJD CO
in
i—i
+
co ro in
CM 00 r-t
r-l 00 +
Q
CiJ
O
z
O
U
CiJ
Oi
4J
o-
O 00 00 O I 00
CO CM CM I CM
O
CM
y o
m
Q
u c/i
4-1 O
O 4-1
to
Vj cn
4-1 4J
C
01
f-i CO
0)
a.
o
tn
o o -1-1
cj 32
tl)
o.
•r-l
P-
~
O
cn
o>
r— 1
O
JC
c
to
s
& Backfi
c
o
•r-l
4-1
CO
>
CO
0
X
w
o
•r-l
i-J
CO
>
cfl
O
X
w
^
0
0
BJ
toration
cn
0)
Be!
0)
O
CO
H-i
U
3
cn
Shoring
1-8
00
C
•r-l
4-1
,
O
c
o>
00
c
• l-l
4J
c
0
o
0
4-1
c
01 *O
O) CO
U 0
0 Pi
c
O cn
VJ r— 1
r— 1 r— 1
•-! • r-"
Tunnel
along
Monticello
0)
D.
• i-l
tn
01
r—I
O
x:
•c
CO
s
£
4-1
•M
0) 3
a.
•-J i—4
Pu 0)
= c
O 3
vO H
CO C
G-2
U 0) U
3 t-i OJ
[tJ C_J <
3
4-1
U-I
O
>•>
O
C
ai
oo
c
• r-l
u
C
O
O
T3
C O
O 4-f
B
j= -a
u co
•r-l O
c/l
o-
c
O tn
cn r—|
C
O
tn -o
r-l CO
• ^ O
S oi
00 cn
C r-4
O r-t
-------
60
>
CO
o
o
I—I
CO
r-4
• CO
& 4-1
£LI O«
cfl
O
r-l
CO 4— t
4-> 0)
O 0
H 0
-^
4J
C
o
(J
4-J 4-1
W -r4 03
> CO
M 3 O
H
<
"Z.
&
w
H
iJ X
a
Q 0)
Cd Q
O
z
K
£
0
O
Cd >,
Oi 4-i
o-
o o m
o m ON
m r^ f***
Vt «s •*
^^Ocr>vOisO' u~* oo oo •— i
CD CD CD CD "vf vf lO CD lO vO ^^ f^I CD 00 CD 0^ ^** ^*l ^D 00 ^O ViO CD CO r*^ CO
i^ r*^- r~4 co vO o^ "^d* *sf LO '*~' tr*j oo i~^ co r^^- *^ CD •••^ co co ^j* r*^ oo ^j1
•-4 CN > >-, >, U-l
o) y-ituucjcno) sv?
~^^ gsg 5^5 **^, ~^. *^-^. °^ ^^ **•*. s^s m
o m in oinoNONinoin i — '
loli-i |li-i oo r~- i— i i— i r~» en r-i -f
101 + II + vo . . . . +
•> •> o vo en i— i
O i— 4 i — i ^o en
P-.
CM
-69- s~*
II! II 1 CN 00 , y-i
60 O U 01 0)
E O CN ON O CM O
O i— i in en CM o
VO i— 1 1 i— I I ONO
CN OO
o CN
r» «N
r-4 in
m m
en oo
•\
CN
•&* -6«-
CN 00
O CN
r-l in
en m
en 00
CN
-w-
Tf
60
E
OO
OO
OO
vD
CN
Description
mps
ckup Generator
ntrols
ntingency
3
PJ
i — i
i— i
E
0)
4-1
M
•r-4
X
r-»
U
o
O>
CQ
CO O O
M CJ CJ
C
O
•rl
4-J
CO
4-1
CO
o.
E
3
PH
mputer System
ntrols
o
CJ
i— i
CO
I-i
4-1
C
0)
CJ
0
CJ
r-4
o
^j
4-1
c
o
CJ
ntingency
0
CJ
E
0)
4J
05
>s,
to
Force Main
^
o
en
r1
U
a)
01
P3
holes
c
efl
£
i— i
i — i
• r-|
X
avation & Backfi
k Excavation
face Restoration
eting & Shoring
tingency
O CJ I-I 01 C
x o 3 x: o
w ai co co cj
c
• rl
CO
£
0)
O
^J
o
fc G-3
minutors
E
O
CJ
3
0)
^
u
•rl
C
O
PC
t Removal
, ^
^J
CJ
1
0)
o
^
a
E
nch Water Line
r Control
tingency
•rl O C
1 TS O
sO O O
0)
c
OJ
E
-^ c
*o o
Di • r"4
4-1
-o -a «
a ei 4-1
o co
E cu
J^ 4-> Oi
CJ -r4 E
•H -C 3
oi 5 (x
-------
01
60
tfl
CO
en
ON
CN
ON
CN
CN
en
O
CM
ON
CN
o
CO
ON
O
CN
o-
•r-l
0-
CO
O
vfl
O
CN
CO 4-1
4-1 CO
O O
H U
o m CN CN m CD
o P- ON o en co
oo -3- CN o CN o
r-l 00 CN (^ l-l
\o CN o in in
en CN \o CN
co
oo en
oo oo
CO
C^ i oo
C
o
u
M
H
U 4-1
•H tfl
C O
& o
4-1 tO r>N >> >, '-W
14-1 o> o o tn tn
r*» in ON ON in o
CN r-- i—i r-i r~ en
•> O
en
4J CO >, >,
u-i 01 o o co tn
in o m ON ON m o
i—i i—i oo •—i i—i r-~ en
-(- • OO • • • •
px. *• co vo en i—i
i—i i—4 r-i ^o en
m
r-i
+
U-( CD O O
o m ON ON m
O SO rH I— I |-~
r~ •> o NO en
CN r-4 r- 1 vo en
o
en
in
i—i
+
Q
2
P-
V
O
CN CN CO <)• I CN
I
r* cfl
c: o
C
o
•r-(
4-1
cfl
>
ca
u
X
fx3
•S
O
e
o
• r^
4J
ec
\-
O
±.t
tfi
01
pzf
Cl)
t_)
Cl)
14-4
r4
60
e
• r4
r4
O
rC
CO
10
60
C
• i-l
4J
0)
0)
CN eo x o :3 ^:
co co
Pi C
•r-l
is -a co
CC.S
E ai 01
jn 4J o
U -rJ Ul
•^ j: o
a; 3 fc
u
C
Ol
60
C
C
O
U
0)
Q.
• i-l
0-
*
r— 1
CN
tfl
cy
r-l
O
rC
C
j;
• i-i
U-l
j«;
u
to
M
<-3
C
O
• l-l
4J
to
^
to
a
X
c
o
• r-l
4-1
«
>
CO
O
X
w
^2
O
O
Oi
c
o
•H
4-1
CO
l-l
o
4-1
tn
ey
Q*J
01
4J
• i-l
CO
60
e
•H
l-l
o
£
CO
<£
60
C
•r4
U
<1)
V
^C
en
60
C
•o
ed
c t^
O 4J
e •* L,
j: > D
O CO *
• f-l U 0)
fit! U CO
G-4
e
*H
ea
^r|
01
O
r-l
O
fTf
"
CN
r-l
f
tn
. -i
4-J
4-1
O
O
co
to
CJ
l-l
o
rC
C
tfl
s:
to
T>
C
CO
r-l
jr
60
•i-4
3S
O
CO
CO
*3
C
O
• l-l
4-1
CO
^
CO
O
X
c
o
• l-l
4-1
CO
c
•r-4
e
•r-i
1—4
W
C
o
•r4
4-1
cfl
^
CO
o
X
J3i
o
o
CtJ
c
o
•H
4-1
m c
U 0
O -H
AJ -l 4J
0) 0!
C CU
O) JC
O CO
-------
01
. M
3 «a
Ol
r-
co
OS
CO
00
-€/>
O
i—l
in
oo
I—I
I—I
-60-
P-i P.
Cfl
O
oo
co
r—I
ro
ro
o
oo
r-.
a\
oo
I— <
CO jj
4-1 Ul
O O
H 0
o m o vo o o
o cs m oo o o
m v? •— i >£> o oo
oc o> >t r^ o CM
•— i CM r-i co r»
f— i
-w-
— * d-
•&*-&•» -W-
OO OO
00 OO
m CM
OO VD
O vD
i— 1 r— 1
i — 1
so o o m oo m o
r~ o CM os CM i— i -^
oo co . r-t
•V*
m
0
00
r-
ON
00
•eo-
c
o
u
w
§
•r-l OT
e o
D U
•u to >> >,
u-i aj u o cn cn
m m os os m o
CM 00 r—I •—* f^ CO
i 00 • • • •
Os »• O vC CO i—I
in
o o cn
in m ON as in
- O
U-l
en
o
CO
0) o u co en
U-l in ON
-«» in i—i
r-l CO •
r~ - o
CO r-l
os in o
r—I I— CO
CO
CO
m
Q
W
.c
u
a
o
OO
o o oo CM
o oo oo o l oo
CO CM CM | CM
I
CM
CM
O
O
ClJ
CO
M
W
4-1
o-
O
o
o
O O tn en
O 03 os O
r~ r~- oo o
co r~ oo o
CM
VO
m
o
o
oo
oo
Os
CO
OS
O CM CO
o
o
o
CM
m
CO
O
o
co
u u w
, U-I
en
o
oo o m o
o r-» i— i oo
co r-« i— i CM
0)
D cn
a o)
•rJ r— 1
fS • Q
I-1
: c
CM CO
i-J X
•o
C
0
e
O I-i
• H to
a! a.
U-l
v
u
CO
PS
*&
c
o
•r-l
^J
CO
p>
CO
U
X
w
d
o
4J
Cfl
d
. r-l
e
• r^
r-l
W
C
O
• r-l
t 1
CO
^
CO
U
X
td
V
U
o
oi
C
0
• •-1
i i
CO
p
o
cn
0)
fV*
0)
jj
• r-l
CO
60
d
•r-l
J_|
O
f-f
CO
^
60
d
• r-l
4_)
01
0)
("•
CO
CO
OJ
O
rJ
O
fr ,
•;
00
^
^1
O
u
X
cn
0)
i— i
O
f.
d
CO
S
cn
i— i
i— i
• i-i
X
U-l
^
u
(0
«
d
o
• H
4J
CO
^>
CO
U
X
w
d
o
•H
4-J
CO
d
•r-i
e
•H
r— 1
vation
CO
O
X
s/
U
o
oi
d
0
•r-l
O
JJ
cn
Q)
0!
0)
iJ
• r^
CO
d
o
jj
CO
JJ
CO
CU
e
3
0-
d
V-i
O
4-J
CO
^_j
01
c
o>
o
& Shoring
60
d
•1-1
4-1
0)
rf
CO
w G-5
Ol
a
• r-l
PL.
~
CM
^
C
o
cn
i— i
•H
3
cn
0)
r— 1
0
f.
c
n3
^
-o
Oi
cn
r— '
r-l
• H
X
• r-l
U-l
,*
O
CO
«
i-S
C
O
• 1-1
4J
CO
^
CO
a
X
w
c
o
cn
^
a)
rQ
C
0
vation
cO
O
X
Ed
V*
O
O
c*
60
C
O
i— I
tfl
estorat ion
oi
0)
o
CO
U-l
^
3
CO
T3
ft*
•0
d
o
E
rC
U
•r-l
fti
C
•r-t
O
CO
60
C
• r-l
XJ
O
01
j:
CO
o
C
0>
60
C
• rJ
JJ
d
o
-------
CM
CO
CO
co
CN
r-
ON
oo
oo
o
r-
O
CO
r~
o-
•^ CTN r^»
.— i CM o
P-X Q"\ \&
m OO r-4
vO r^» ^o
ON
1^
vO
CN
O
i— 1
ON
CM
ON
CO
O
CO
CO
r— t
r-1
"
C-N
i — (
•>
f-1
c
o
o
w
Oi
w
H
D
u
Q
O
O
O
o
ON
O O O
o o o
vO O vO
r^ co i—i
i—i co
O m -<
i~~ -^ m
o co
c.
c
c
C3
. — i
O.
01
a.
3
CH C
O >
•~< O V
f—I 4J t-l J-l
CO CO D, C
6 w 6
-------
APPENDIX H
ANNUAL USER COST COMPUTATIONS
H-l
-------
tt
I
6
S
O-i
$
(53
X^v
B
"8
^
:ja
s
e
.5
csl
8
cs
Cxi
a s
PO
3
s s
S
a.
in"
•<}• rH
§
CN r-
CN?
g
10
oo
m
in
2
3 31 ^
fl M
(2 E
S
§
9
CX3
8
VD
CN?
in
g
1 1
H-2
-------
-
ti
I
0.
^
•H
&
"
•H
_>> C
rH rH "H
•H PH ^-^
fD
D
£ 3
*-( CU S O M
3 8 O J5 „, N nj
x-v CU ~ CU
cu •a-t-igr-j-S'SS r-1
4-1 C re +-1 cu a r-(
re reo>cuT-(M4->-B o
H 'Q n 4-i CU C ^W
•H i-H S _. S O -i
4-. 3 g 'i a) "8 '[
•H y H >-> ffl • >-
S I 8 IU ? r -
^ " g rt
C -r-l 4-1
g
ni
Q
'58,
OJ u"i J5 ^c M
-3 Q 33 ffl
CL
4->
"B5S
C E5
(o -H »
^
3 ffl CJ W -
CL Q r— T3 _
cu fir-lg
4-J •« •rj TO
(u
re *T3 ^
o
re w
Tjj -H 3 T5 re 0 K^ w
CD f~H Cii >H M (ti *— ' Cy H
•HOW Q 3
H-l4JQ1CUT3r— | C W 0
•<-! x: u H re 'i-1
^
a
o
C •tJ
HO®
d r-j 4-1
8 '*-•
•a ffl.
•rj W
O O O
VO
H-3
-------
rt
cu
^t
bo
c
•rt
C
G
rt
rH
O-,
^»
1 i
•rt
rH
• rt
CJ
rt
fcr
Q.
O
r— |
rH x->
•rt CO
S3 M
rt
CU rH
J3 rH
4-- O
U
0 J3
4-1 4-J
1-1
C O
O >
•rt
4—* t '
O G
•rt CU
CO CU
1-1 O.
3
•-> c
•rt
o
CO
• rt
CO
rH
rt
c
CO
0
CJ
f
CM
en
(U
rH
ftf
pH
s~\
o
+-*
CJ
rt
j-i
+— '
c
o
o
•M
£3
o
fj
•rt
[5
^
B
CU
4->
CO
^N
co
u
CU
CU
CO
rH
rt
CJ
O
^
rH
rH
3
Ut
f{
4-1
•rt
rs
CO
1
to
H
W
Q
CO
OS
0
2
£>j
f">
fj
bo
^
O
rH
rH
•rt
£x
"O
C
o
E
CJ
•rt
o<
-o
rH
CU
• rt
4-1
>.
rt
•o
C
Cfl
r-l
x:
to
•rt
til
I'M
Q
to
to
rH
rH
•rt
rrj
to
4-1
f-j
bO
•rt
CU
03
CU
bO
rt
rH
rH
•rt
>
co
4->
r^
bO
•rt
CU
w
10
4-1
CO
o
o
rH
rt
o
H
•^J-
c^
1
1 p**'
o
o
u-^
CM
1 1
I 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
co r —
ON -^
CM ON
#. **
VD r^
rH O
0 0
vl- CM
VI
l-l
CU
CU
CO
rH
rt
c
o
•rt
bO
4->
•rt CO
ex c
rt o
O 0
VO
^^
CO
««
03
O
O
V4-7
rH
CM
ON
s^
«s
ON
CO
CO
CO
u
r-
rH
v^-
*«
CO
CM
in
•*
CM
JQ
0
CM
j — 1
»>
CM
CM
*•*_
CO
(Q
f*%.
rH
CO
r.
CO
f^-
•-^
vcT
*^o
*^-
CO
*s
CO
o
o
VO
CO
u
0) 4H
> 0
CU
CO C.
o
rH -rt
rt 4->
cj rt
o c
>J -rt
E
O rH
c
O bO
•rt C
4-J -rt
CJ T3
3 3
U rH
4-J CJ
CO C
C -rt
o ^-^
CJ
s~\
to
CU
•rt
4-t
•rt
rH
•rt
o
rt
pn
bo
c
•rt
4-J
CO
•rt
^
pj
m
-*
CO
*,
CO
CO
in
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
in
••*
CO
•*
CO
co
*s
in
0)
o
G
(d
c
CU
c
•rt
rt
x:
T3
C
rt
C!
O
• rt
4-J
rt
ru
ex
O
ON
CO
•»
co
o
rH
in"
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
P-X
ON
CO
•*
CO
o
rH
*.
m
cu
3
rH
rt
^>
cu
bO
rt
^
rH
rt
to
CO
CO
cu
m
ON
CO
p^».
CO
>-O
m
CM
CM
ON
-3-
ON
CO
CO
CO
u
r-.
rH
s^1
*.
CO
CM
in
•*
CM
_Q
O
CM
rH
«>
CM
CM
vl-
CO
to
r*^.
rH
CO
•*
CO
r~~
rH
vrT
rH
^I
CM
•x
VO
ON
^O
f.
rH
CO
4_J
co
o
CJ
4-)
CU
ON
00
0
ON
•s^-
CN
•co-
co
4-J
CO
o
CJ
c
o
•rt
4-t
rt
to
0.
e
3
O,
bo
3
JD
CO
B
rt
•rH
rH
rH
S
CU
A
4-J
•
13 ^0
G r-
(y ?~^
- • CM
in o ^o
CO CM <•
in rH O
CJ
CO CO
4-J 4-1 4-»
to to c
o o rt
O O rH
ex
G C co
rt rt -o
rH rH £3
cx ex rt
rH
M V) J2
M rH bO
rt rH -rt
Cu -rt 03
a
•o xi
C >, CO
O l-l -rt
E 0 4--
CJ 0 O
•rt -rt CJ
0^ rr) CO
4-1 4-1 MH
O O O
c c c
o o o
•rt -rt -rt
4-1 4-J 4-J
rt rt rt
c c c
•rt -rt -rt
e e e
•rt -rt -rt
rH rH i-t
WWW
a ja u
H-A
-------
cd
a>
bO
C
rd
rH
CU
O
rd
a.
o
•iH CO
tn ^
rd
at rH
JS rH
i-l
O J5
<4-l 4-<
l-l
C O
O >
0 C
•H 0)
•a M
co 01
CO
•H
co
rH
rd
M
O
O
i
«
O"
rd
H
co
o>
2
bo
C
4-1
CO
•H
X
w
erf
p
co
Crf CM
0 P
*
bo co
3 rH
O rH
rH -H
rH D3
r*
•o
c co
O 4-"
G js
SZ bO
a -H
•H a>
erf m
rH 01
O> bo
•H rd
4-1 rH
flj *r^
ac >
T3
C CO
rd 4->
rH J3
J3 bo
bO-H
•H Ol
03 03
CO
4-J
CO
o
CJ
rH
rd
4-J
O
H
O
r*-*
o
•%
CO
r^
ON
m
CM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
r*^
o
*>.
en
r"*-
o^
»s
eg
w
4_*
CO
0
o
rH
rd
4-i
•H
a.
rd
O
o
r^x.
o
•s
m
r^
ON
m
CM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
p-.*
o
•*
m
r*^
ON
».
m
CM
CO
u
0>
0*
CO
rH
rd
C
O
•H
bO
(U
erf
>4H
O
G
O
•H
4-t
0
3
4— »
CO
G
O
CJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CO
i-i
Ol
^
a/
CO
rH
rd
u
o
•J
M-l
o
c
o
•H
4-J
0
3
1-1
4_J
co
c
o
CJ
0
m
sf
ro
».
CX5
00
r*-
m
i
j
I
I
i
I
i
in
«^-
m
•*
co
00
r^
•«
m
0)
o
c
G
01
4-J
C
•H
rd
as
TD
C
G
O
•H
rd
t-i
Ol
a.
o
rH
m
•*
CM
f^
ON
CM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
rH
m
•s
CN|
r^"*
o^
•s
CM
cu
3
rH
rd
Ol
bO
rd
rH
rd
co
co
co
a>
^
^O
O\
*%
CO
00
r^
CO
CM
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
^3-
^o
ON
CO
00
»,
00
CM
CO
•1—*
co
o
u
+-»
-------
£
'&
J3
§
3
4U
a
) Cfl
ia
ON
fn
9
9
r* rH
r-l CO
r3
H-6
-------
APPENDIX I
ARTICLES FROM THE NEORSD
NEWSLETTER: PIPELINE
1-1
-------
(ne
Pi/o/ projects are planned
Special conditions attached to EPA
grants for the Heights/Hilltop In-
terceptors include construction of ap-
proximately $18.7 million worth of
sewer rehabilitation work. (See
glossary). The Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, noting that
current rehabilitation techniques
have not been sufficiently monitored
to render them field-proven and tiime-
tested (see glossary), negotiated with
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to do a pilot study in lieu of
plunging right into the recommended
projects. Six communities from the
District's service area will be invited
to participate.
The pilot study will allow the
District to implement and possibly im-
prove on the latest, state-of-the-art
rehabilitation techniques. Com-
munities electing to participate in the
program will pay for construction
work, but the District will provide
field work, engineering, flow monitor-
ing and data evaluation services.
Results will be shared with all area
communities.
Participants will reap several
benefits from the pilot program. First,
the District will pay for initial studies
and detailed engineering design. Se-
cond, communities will gain first-hand
knowledge of how sewer rehabilita-
tion helps solve their wastewater col-
lection problems. Third, the projects
will bring about a portion of EPA-
mandated improvements which will
reduce the community coat of the re-
maining improvements at future in.
flated dollars.
Toe results of the pilot rehabilita-
tion study will be used to ensure that
the recommended relief sewer* wiB
be sized to convey the amount of in-
filtration and inflow which cannot
economically be removed.
The District is soliciting member
communities who wish to volunteer in
this important pilot project, and hopes
to have a preliminary selection of
study areas soon.
1-2
10/85 Pipeline
District Prepares
For Pilot Projects
The District could not have gotten
its $22 million federal grants to begin
construction of the Southwest and
Heights/Hilltop Interceptors without
agreeing to develop a program to
assure rehabilitation of existing
wastewater collection systems. To
test the cost-effectiveness of current
rehabilitation techniques, the District
will conduct six pilot projects before
plunging into the mandated program.
The six communities participating in
this pilot project are yet to be
determined.
In 1982 the District conducted the
Sewer System Evaluation Survey in
the Southwest and Heights/Hilltop In-
terceptor service areas, which disclos-
ed 81 mini-systems (see glossary)
where rehabilitation would be more
cost-effective than continuing to
transport and treat clearwater. These
included 18 out of 229 mini-systems
monitored in the Southwest Intercep-
tor area and 63 out of 640 minisystems
monitored in the Heightsl-Hilltop In-
terceptor area. The District is now
field monitoring to verify the results
of the surveys.
The District will select areas con-
taining a cross-section of sanitary
sewer systems and problems to par-
ticipate in the pilot projects. The
selection will be made from sanitary
systems in both common trench and
separate trench areas (see glossary).
Common trench systems make up
the majority of systems found in the
older east side suburbs. The practice
of putting the storm and sanitary
sewer pipes in the same trench in a
common trench system makes it
easier for clearwater to seep from
storm sewers into sanitary sewers
Today, most systems are built using
the separate trench system. This is a
better method, but problems stil
develop over the years.
In the pilot project the District wil
select three systems from the
separate and common areas each. Th<
rehabilitation methods will vary, an<
careful monitoring before and afte
the work will help the Distric
evaluate the cost of each techniqu
and its long-term effectiveness.
-------
10/85 Pipeline
Local Basement Flooding Is Tragic But Correctable
Heavy rainstorms can leave scores
of Greater Clevelanders with the
distasteful task of cleaning up
wastewater that has backed up
through their basement floor drains
or storm water that has seeped
through footer drains. Flooding often
2/86 Pipeljng.
Pilot Rehabilitation
Projects Coming Up
Several munkipaiitiea have tentative-
ly offered to participate in pilot projects
wWA wffl bdp the Dirtrict determine the
moat cost-efficient techniques to use in
the EPA-mandated community re-
habflftation program. The District is now
doing flow monitoring, dyed water
flooding and TV inspection bee glossary)
in these communities to determine SB ap-
propriate sites for the pilot projects.
The pflot projects in the selected eom-
niunitiM win give the District an oppor-
tunity to test a crasMection of rehabilita-
tion techniques under varying field con-
dftkns. They include:
1. Grouting: TV inspection equipment
is used to pun a grout packing unit
through a sewer and align it with the
sewer joint that is leaking. The grout is
then pumped from a truck through hoses
connected to the unit to seal the sewer
joint.
2. Sliplining: A section of sewer is lin-
ed with pdyvinyl chloride (PVCX a rigid
plastic material which acts as the sewer,
similar to having a pipe inside of a pipe.
3. Daitutorm: A flexible pipelining
material impregnated with an adhering
resin that hardens when heated to
become part of the pipe.
4 Obvious measures such as grouting
manhole walls and disconnecting catch
basins and downspouts from sanitary
sewers and hooking them up to storm
sewers.
Work in each community wffl be com-
pleted in phases to give the District a
chflnrp to evaluate the success and cost-
effectiveness of the rehabilitation
techniques.
damages basement floors, walls and
anything else in the way. The solution
may be complicated and expensive.
The culprits of stormwater flooding
are usually storm sewers too small to
accommodate runoff from parking lots
and other non-absorbant surfaces
built over the porous earth. Under-
ground storage tanks or the installa-
tion of larger sewers can effectively
keep offending storm water in its
place. Also, if not cleaned regularly,
storm sewers can become filled with
debris and flooding can result.
Basement flooding caused by sani-
tary sewer backups has also been
driving thousands of area residents to
desperation. Construction of the
Southwest and Heights/Hilltop Inter-
ceptors will somewhat alleviate the
problem, but in some communities
special relief sewer and sewer
rehabilitation projects are also
necessary to control flooding caused
by sanitary sewers.
Sanitary sewer backups often
result from flooded conditions caused
by improperly connected downspouts
and footer drains, cracked pipe, open-
jointed pipe, and other deficiencies.
The District's pilot rehabilitation pro-
ject is aimed at testing ways to
upgrade sanitary sewers and attack-
ing the problems at their source. The
pilot project will involve communities
that can most benefit from it (See
rehabilitation story).
Sanitary sewer flooding can also be
caused by clogged or blocked sewer
lines. Depending on the type and loca-
tion of blockages (tree roots, collapsed
pipe, debris, etc.), the local community
or homeowner is responsible for fix-
ing the problem. Conscientious
scheduled maintenance is the best
insurance against such backups.
Through its pilot rehabilitation pro-
ject, the District will test methods
that can eliminate the source of many
basement flooding problems caused
by deficient sanitary sewers. The
District wishes to work with com-
munity leaders toward the day whe*
basement flooding is an occurrence
far more rare than our inevitable
heavy rainstorms.
1-3
-------
2/86 Pipeline
Shaker Heights Takes Initiative
In Sewer System Improvements
This is the first in a series of ar-
ticles that present the types of
local sewer maintenance and
rehabilitation practices of member
communities served by the
District.
The City of Shaker Heights has
long recognized the necessity for im-
plementing a preventitive mainten-
ance program for its sanitary iiewer
system.
For the past 30 years, Shaker has
generated its own funds to upgrade
its aging sewer system, which was
developed between 1910 and 1930. At
Shaker Heights' request, the Cleve-
land Water Department collects a sur-
charge on its sewer bills and then
remits the revenue to the City to pay
the cost of operating, maintaining,
repairing, and replacing storm and
sanitary sewer lines. Between 1976
and 1984, Shaker Heights spent $5.7
million on upgrading the sewer
system. The improvements were
aimed primarily at eliminating base-
ment flooding and restoring water
quality to nearby lakes and streams.
Sewer rehabilitation techniques in
Shaker Heights have varied in many
ways, from grouting and manhole
rehabilitation (including separation of
storm and sanitary manholes) to the
installation of a retention basin and
the total replacement of sanitary and
storm sewers. The original sanitary
sewers, built of vitrified clay pipe bet-
ween 1910 and 1930, are a challenge
to wastewater collection specialists
who are becoming increasingly adept
at rejuvenating the City's aging
sewers.
The figure above illustrates the
type of sewer construction that was
common when sewers were first be-
ing built in Shaker Heights and many
other communities. This type of con-
struction, typically referred to as com-
mon trench sewers, consisted of plac-
ing both storm and sanitary sewers
within the same excavated trench.
COMMON TRENCH SEWERS
The proximity of the two sewer
results in subjecting the sanitar
sewer to dearwater inflow from th
adjacent storm sewer in those area
where either sewer is deteriorated
Sewer separation to correct th:
problem takes the form of exea vatic
a new trench parallel to but as fi
away aa possible from the existii
commaa trench. Then, a new storm <
sanitary sewer is placed in the ne
trench. Typically, the new trench co
tains the type of sewer that hi
become the moat deteriorated in tl
existing common trench.
Shaker Heights has found sepai
tion of sewers to be one of several si
cescful rehabilitation methods for a
trolling infiltration and inflow of ele
water to the sanitary sewer. Oth
communities facing similar problei
in their wastewater collecti
systems may wish to investigate t!
approach.
1-4
-------
} pe I
Communities Face Rehab Costs
Sixteen communities in the
Heights/Hilltop and Southwest In-
terceptor service face local expen-
ditures ranging from $100,000 to $12.5
million for sewer improvements or
rehabilitation work to meet the re-
quirements of their individual Com-
munity Discharge Permits.
No U.S. EPA construction grants
are available for local sewer im-
provements in the Heights/Hilltop or
Southwest areas. Therefore, the
burden of costs for local work falls on
the communities. This burden makes
local evaluation of sewer improve-
ment alernatives crucial to
communities.
Some communities may already
have financing vehicles for the re-
quired sewer improvements, but
others will have to seek new fi-
nancing. These financing sources
could include revenue bonds, general
obligation bonds, short-term notes.
special property assessments and
Ohio Water Development Authority
loans.
Revenue sources that would pay for
such financing could come from in-
cremental local sewer use or sewer
rental charges, or property, corporate
or income taxes.
The Community Discharge Permit
requires each of the sixteen com-
munities to perform a financial plan-
ning strategy by September 30,1986,
which should include proposed timing
and estimated costs for all projects.
This permit requirment ensures that
local financing of needed improve-
ments is available for major capital
expenditures that are, in some in-
stances, several years off. Prudent
financial planning in the early stages
of such programs may lessen future
burdens on local taxpayers.
12/86
Mayfield Heights Devises
Workable Rehabilitation Plan
The City of Mayfield Heights has
come up with a creative solution to its
sewerage problems.
Mayfield Heights, located in the
District's Easterly Separate Sewer
Service Area, has more than 40 miles
of sanitary sewers between 8 and 18
inches in diameter. Three-quarters of
the city's sewers drain to the Beech
Hill and Wilson Mills pumping sta-
tions; the remaining 25% drain to the
Belvoir Area trunk sewer.
The Mayfield Heights sewer system
is newer than that of many other
District communities. Some of the
city's sewers, however, were built as
early as the 1920's. Generally, the
sewers built before the 1960's in the
city were constructed in a common
trench style, with separate manholes,
and those constructed since the 1960's
were built in the separate trench
style.
The closeness of storm and sanitary
sewers in the older portions of the
city, the settlement of sewer lines and
the use of mortar joints in pre-1960's
construction has led to substantial
infiltration and inflow (I&I) of storm-
water into sanitary sewers.
In 1982, the District recommended
more than $2 million in repairs to
existing sewers and the installation of
relief sewers to curb sewage bypass-
ing during wet weather.
Mayfield Heights has offered a
workable alternative approach. In its
Community Compliance Plan, submit-
ted to the District as a requirement
of the Community Discharge Permit,
the city outlines a program of
reconstruction and rehabilitation of
selected sewers, expansion of reten-
tion basins and manhole grouting.
The city will start the program in
1987, and should complete it in the
1990's, when the District's Intercom-
munity Relief Sewers will be avail-
able.
Many of the improvements, such as
the replacement of the Ridgebury
Road and Mallard Avenue sewers, can
be completed early in the program.
Other work, such as installation of
new, larger sewers under Mayfield
Road, cannot be done until the
District has provided an outlet for
1-5
increased flows via an Intercommun-
ity Relief Sewer (see figure on P.3).
To fund the program, City Council
passed an ordinance in March, 1986,
which provides for the collection of an
incremental rate of $4.50 per 1000
cubic feet of water consumed as
shown on each sewer bill These funds
are collected by the city of Cleveland
which acts as the District's billing
agent, remanded directly to the city,
and are deposited in a sewer improve-
ment fund. Mayfield Heights is now
accumulating funds through this or-
dinance to pay for the program, and
anticipates collection of $500,000
annually.
By combining several customized
sewer improvement techniques, May-
field Heights will be able to alleviate
basement flooding as well as meet the
requirements of its Community Dis-
charge Permit.
-------
••*" 12/86 Pipeline "—'•
Tests Continue
For Pilot Kebab Sites
In Load Area*
The District's Pilot R«habili-
tation Project; is progressing
slowly but steadily. Engineers
are atOl conducting testa to iden-
tify sewer problems that may
respond to rehabilitation techni-
ques available for the Pilot
Project
The Pilot Rehabilitation Proj-
ect will help t he District deter-
mine the most cost-effective
techniques to use in the EPA-
mandated rehabilitation pro-
gram. Participating com-
munities will receive sewer
system evaluation, design
recommendations and pre-and-
poat-constru<:tion monitoring.
but they must finance actual
construction costs.
Preliminary testing is being j
done in a wide range of com-
munities on both sides of the
Cuyahoga. So far, dyed water
flooding, a method of sewer
inspection in which dyed water
helps identify leakage points,
has been performed in main line
sewers in sections of Parma,
Parma Heights, Lyndhurst,
Mayfield Heights, Garfield
Heights, Shaker Heights,
Cleveland and South Euclid.
Testers have also done TV
inspection, in which a small,
water-tight, closed-circuit TV
camera is pulled through sewers
by cable, in Cleveland, Parma,
Mayfield Heights, South Euclid
and Lyndhurst.
In Mayfield Heights, dye
testing is being performed on
private property house laterals.
The construction phase of the
pilot program will begin in 1987.
The program presents an excit-
ing opportunity for the District
and member communities to
work with the most advanced
methods and materials now
available for sewer system
rehabilitation.
1-6
-------
3/87 Pipeline
South Euclid Rehab
Plan Accepted
When a 1983 evaluation of South
Euclid's sewer system showed $6
million in capital needs, the city
struggled to come up with a less
costly alternative. The result is a
resourceful, $2.1 million plan to deter
basement flooding and wastewater
overflows into Euclid Creek, which
will enable the city to meet the
requirements of its Community
Discharge Permit.
South Euclid's sewer system con-
tains more than 55 miles of separate
sanitary sewer, from eight to 39
inches in diameter. Most of the city's
sewers were built in the common
trench style more than 60 years ago,
and deterioration has aggravated
infiltration and inflow (I/I) of rain-
water into sanitary sewers. Although
the District's intercommunity relief
sewer program will provide an outlet
for sewers in the Belvoir Blvd., Green
Road and Warrensville Center areas,
local repairs also are needed to
satisfactorily upgrade South Euclid's
sewer system.
The city proposes a program that
combines installation of vortex throt-
tle regulators, repairs to leaking
manholes, spot replacement of failed
pipe and construction of underground
retention basins that can store excess
I/I until downstream sewers can han-
dle the load.
Vortex throttle regulators, modern
devices that prevent deposition by
controlling sewer flow velocities, have
been used in various capacities
throughout Northeast Ohio. In the
figure, overloading of a storm sewer
is prevented by vortex regulators in-
stalled in catchbasins. By reducing the
overloading on the storm sewer,
engineers expect to reduce pressure-
induced inflow into the lower eleva-
tion sanitary sewer.
South Euclid will begin its rej>abil-
itation program in 1987 by systemat-
ically determining where vortex
regulators should be installed. A site
------- |