United States
Environmental Pr
Agency ,
Proto
Based
Evalua
Actual!
Const
I ! ,
e Inpacts
-------
*'•$"'$
'•tva
-------
905R85001
.J
PROTOTYPE EVALUATION OF SELECTED NEPA
PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROJECTS
Contract No. 68-04-5017
Delivery Order No. 41-27
Prepared For:
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Prepared By:
ESEI, inc.
508 West Washington Street
South Bend, Indiana 46601
James C. Williamson, Project Manager
March, 1985
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (Pt. 12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, It 60604-3590
-------
A Resources Management Company
March 30, 1985
CORPORATE OFFICES
508 West Washington Street
South Bend, IN 46601 • 219/287-i823
Mr. Larry Adams-Walden (5WFI-12)
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Re: D.O. 27 Manual Evaluation-Final Deliverable
Dear Larry:
This letter is to confirm hand-delivery of three (3) copies of
the Final Prototype Evaluation Report and the camera-ready
originals to your office on April 1, 1985. All EPA comments and
revisions have been incorporated.
In addition, I have attached three copies of a separate document
which describes ESEI's conclusions and recommendations regarding
use of the Manual.
These deliverables complete the requirements of D.O. 27. On
behalf of ESEI, I wish to thank you for your cooperation in
bringing this Delivery Order to a successful conclusion.
Very truly yours,
ESEI, inc.
y&>*j*? ^- •
/JAMES C. WILLIAMSON
Project Manager
Michael S. Friedman
Project Administrator
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Gene Wojcik
Ms. Elissa Speizman
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING USE OF
THE MANUAL FOR EVALUATING PREDICTED AND ACTUAL IMPACTS
OF CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROJECTS
Introduction
Substantial experience was gained by the original study team and
the edit/review study team during the preparation of the Proto-
type Reports*. As such, a number of conclusions and recommenda-
tions were formulated regarding use of the Manual. These are
presented in the following sections relative to each Prototype
Reports. The last section is reserved for some general recommen-
dations .
Conclusions Based on Wetlands/Floodplains Prototype
The following recommendations. were made regarding the overall
approach (method), data base documentation (field investiga-
tions), and EPA program management.
Strict Manual interpretation of "no impact" to always
mean a measurable impact of zero is a necessary assumption in
order to standarize impact analysis, but the limited syntax of
that term probably affected the reviewers' selection of candidate
projects. "No impact" was actually found to mean either (a) zero
impact to wetlands/floodplains, or (b) no wetlands/floodplains
affected. The former would be a candidate project while the
later signifies a project to be eliminated from consideration.
Unless standard terminology can be developed and implemented to
distinguish between these two meanings, it will be necessary for
reviewers to investigate each "no impact" project in sufficient
depth to make this determination.
0 Field investigations are necessary to observe actual
impacts. Prior to a field visit, all available data and data
requests should be reviewed and organized. A field contact is
invaluable to reviewers in order to explain any project modifica-
tions since the NEPA document and to provide a pre-construction
Prototype Evaluation of Selected NEPA Predicted Environmental
Impacts for Construction Grants Projects - March 1985.
-------
environmental setting in more detail than that presented in the
document.
0 Field observations are to be documented by the use of
handwritten notes, sketches, tape recorders, photographs, or
whatever combination provides the most thorough record of the
visit. Any delay between the site visit and the report prepara-
tion (or visiting a series of project sites) will diminish the
recollection of the reviewers. Therefore, complete documentation
in the field is necessary.
Standardization of evaluation categories for each issue
(floodplains, wetlands, etc.) is needed when planning documents
are written. NEPA documents often predict impacts without refer-
ence to specific categories. The evaluation of these types of
predictions requires the reviewer to select categories which best
reflect the predicted impacts and then make further decisions
regard-ing the intensity or degree of impact. This situation is
unduly subjective and not conducive to program evaluation. NEPA
documents are developed as tools to be used in a decision-making
process. The objective of collecting and presenting data in
these predictive documents is to provide enough information so
that a decision concerning the environmental acceptability of a
project can be made. This objective does not necessarily require
a consideration of the data base needed for long-term monitoring
of parameters nor does it necessarily require a detailed present-
ation of all assumptions and considerations employed in profes-
sional judgments. These types of considerations, however, are
essential to the evaluation of impact predictive accuracy and
program evaluation. By standardizing categories and parameters
relative to the long-term monitoring and evaluation needs of
future NEPA documents, the documents would lessen subjective
interpretations by reviewers of projects or programs and provide
a more useful data base to conduct longitudinal program evalua-
tions.
-2-
-------
Conclusions Based on Population Predictions Prototype
0 The Manual was very useful in identifying the census
sources of information and identifying a methodology for anal-
ysis. It should be noted though that significant additional time
over time anticipated was required to use the RTF computer
system.
0 The SCADS installation took a great deal of time. The
support of staff at RTF, while very helpful, was not geared to
provide the large amount of time necessary for installation and
data processing. Additionally, the STF3 tape files which were
discussed in the Manual were not directly accessible. There is,
in fact, only one person at RTF who has functional knowledge of
the location of the tapes and their volume designations. His
name is George Duggans and he works in the Economics Division of
the RTF facility. The primary contact for consultation was
Thomas Lewis, who proved to be very resourceful and helpful. The
relative novelty of the raw STF3 tape files for many analysts and
the time needed to work with SCADS suggests that use of these
resources be fully understood for their time and manpower
requirements. The tapes are documented and are readily available
via computer programer staff who have experience with interfacing
and data base construction.
Conclusions Based on Land Use Plan Prototype
0 As its name implies, the Manual basically provides pro-
cedures for evaluating the accuracy of NEPA predicted impacts of
Construction Grants projects. The socioeconomics chapter deals
with land use issues, but not land use plans. It is believed
that the inexperience of the original study team did not permit
an adequate transition from the Manual to the task required.
Thus, instead of an "in-depth analysis of the projects...", the
definition of Projects Elements was incorrectly perceived as an
evaluation of the accuracy of predictions of impacts on land use
plans. Thus, it is believed the user of the Manual should be
knowledgeable in the subject area being studied and in basic
research technique which includes organizing files and thoroughly
-3-
-------
documenting the procedual steps employed. It is strongly sug-
gested that experienced senior staff with CG experience and
knowledge of CG programs and policies in Region V be used.
0 The Manual is designed for determining the accuracy of
NEPA impact predictions. It contains no procedures for preparing
an "in-depth analysis of projects" having different characteris-
tics. Although the Manual can assist a researcher with such a
task (i.e., data collection, data compilation, various evalua-
tions of the data), objectives which are beyond the limits of the
Manual should be accompanied by additional procedures; general or
specific depending upon the experience of the researcher.
0 Data collection is an important effort but can be very
time consuming and labor intensive. Where the objective of the
study relies on an analysis of comprehensive data from some mini-
mum number of projects, an accurate estimate of the data collec-
tion effort should be derived before establishing a budget limit
for this task. In this case, full NEPA documentation should have
been obtained from consulting engineers or applicants as well as
from EPA files, and current land use planning data should have
included changes in zoning as well as land use plans. It is
quite possible that, in many cases, a trip to the appropriate
planning or zoning agency would have been necessary to obtain and
properly verify the required data.
Conclusions Based on Bloomington/St. Cloud Prototype
0 The NEPA documentation on Bloomington's sewage treatment
facilities was a superb example of the NEPA process in action.
It is a success story which resulted in the avoidance of substan-
tial construction-related impacts to raparian habitat and water
quality as well as long-term development related impacts to Lake
Monroe and the surrounding lands. The process also provided the
necessary sewage treatment facilities at a cost several million
dollars less than that of the facilities plan's recommended pro-
ject. Unfortunately, these facts are irrelevant with respect to
the use of Manual, since the Manual's objective is to assess the
-4-
-------
accuracy of impacts predicted for the constructed project not
impacts avoided by altering the facilities plan project.
Since EPA intends to employ the Manual in its future policy-mak-
ing efforts regarding conduct of the Construction Grants Program
and NEPA implementation, it is clear that EPA's objective extends
far beyond the simple determination of NEPA impact predictive
accuracy. Rather it is to determine the effectiveness of NEPA's
ability to preserve and enhance environmental quality. As demon-
strated in the Bloomington prototype report, the strict applica-
tion of the Manual to evaluate impact accuracy does not reflect
the impacts avoided nor cost savings accrued. It is conceivable
that in addition to the Manual, a separate procedure applicable
to NEPA projects which resulted in a significant alteration of
the facilities plan project, should be carried out as part of a
full program evaluation. Its purpose would be to assess impacts
avoided because of the NEPA process which otherwise would have
occurred, bought and paid for with 75% federal funds.
General Conclusions
0 In general, it is believed that the data needed for
application of the Manual are not located in readily accessible,
computerized data bases. Therefore, substantial labor may be
required to compile and verify the data necessary to an evalua-
tion or to develop the required data bases for general applica-
tion. Given the constraints of budget, manpower and time
schedules, prioritization of the issues to be evaluated via the
Manual should be carried out with respect to their importance to
policy-making.
Prototype reports completed under Delivery Order 027 all
used a criterial elimination method for selecting projects to be
studied. It is recommended that a prototype report on an aggre-
gate of projects for a programmatic evaluation be conducted using
the statistical reduction method of sampling projects described
in the Manual.
-5-
-------
0 From the projects reviewed during the preparation of D.O.
027, a majority of the NEPA predicted impacts evaluated were
qualitative. These required interpretation by individual
reviewers. Depending upon the knowledge and experience of the
reviewer, the reviewer's particular point of view, the available
data, and analytical time, it appears that substantial variations
in the results and conclusions are possible.
0 Finally, it is recommended that the Manual receive wider
agency review and comments and be refined prior to board applica-
tion and use in regional or national policy-making.
-6-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......... 1-1
PROTOTYPE REPORTS
Impacts on Wetlands and Floodplains ........ II-1
Impacts of Population Predictions ........ .111-1
Impacts on Land Use Plans IV-1
Evaluation of Two Completed NEPA Documents ..... V-1
Appendices
A - Data Base for Prototype Report Impacts on Wetlands A-1
and Floodplains
B - Data Base for Prototype Report Impacts of Population B-1
Predictions
C - Data Base for Prototype Report Impacts on Land Use C-1
Plans
D - Data Base for Prototype Report Evaluation for Two D-1
Completed NEPA Documents
D-1 St. Cloud Case Study D-1
D-2 Bloomington EIS Case Study D-13
Disclaimer
Extrapolation of findings in these Prototype Reports require
caution. While additional time and dollars were provided to edit
the findings, no additional time nor dollars were provided to
resolve every anomaly, to pursue best possible data, nor to veri-
fv all data.
i.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The promulgation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
in 1969 established a process by which federal agencies were re-
quired to assess the environmental impacts of their actions.
With the passage of P.L. 92-500 in 1972, also known as the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), a detailed facili-
ties planning process was defined as part of the Construction
Grants program. The Agency's environmental review responsibili-
ties of individual facilities plans are defined in 40 CFR Part 6
(Implementation of Procedures on the National Environmental
Policy Act). Additional policy and guidance documents have been
issued which provide technical guidance regarding the scope of
USEPA's environmental review process.
Throughout the 1970's, environmental impact assessment methodolo-
gies were refined, areas of concern expanded and environmental
data bases accumulated. Also, the intensiveness with which cer-
tain environmental issues were evaluated changed with the passage
of specific federal legislation or requirements such as those
relating to wetlands and floodplains. Secondary impacts, those
associated with the development stimulated by a Construction
Grants (CG) project (but not the project itself), became an
important issue.
Beginning in 1978, EPA began delegation, a process by which many
of the administrative functions of the Construction Grants pro-
gram were turned over to state agencies. Although EPA estab-
lished its role as the oversight agency of the Construction
Grants program, many of its direct environmental review functions
were delegated to the states. The Agency has always maintained
final NEPA authority to determine whether an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) should
be prepared. However, in many cases where facilities plan review
has been delegated, detailed reviews are accomplished at the
state level where an environmental assessment (EA) is prepared
and EPA's responsibility is carried out based only upon its
review of this often brief EA. Furthermore, the use of categor-
ical exclusions from NEPA compliance requirements and the elimin-
1-1
-------
ation of Step 1 and 2 grants reflect the evolution of EPA activi-
ties from direct scrutiny to oversight responsibilities on Con-
struction Grants projects.
As an oversight agency responsible for NEPA decisions, EPA must
periodically determine the effectiveness of the Construction
Grants Program and NEPA in restoring the quality of the nations'
waters and in protecting the environment. As such, a methodology
was developed for evaluating the accuracy of NEPA predicted
environmental impacts. This methodology is presented in EPA's
Manual for Evaluating Predicted and Actual Impacts of Contruction
Grants Projects. The methodology can be applied to single
project, groups of projects, or an entire program.
This report, intended as a companion document to the Manual,
presents four examples of the Manual's use which illustrates its
versatility, strengths and weaknesses. Each was originally pre-
pared by a different study team and later edited and revised by
another team based on draft review comments. Thus, each example
reflects an individual interpretation and use of the Manual.
Field reports, notes, evaluation forms, narratives on judgments
and the like are retained as Appendices, one for each Prototype
Report, filed in the Environmental Impact Section, EPA, Region
V.
The examples employed in the prototype reports are confined to
four specific environmental concerns: (1) Impacts on Wetlands
and Floodplains, (2) Impacts of Population Predictions, (3)
Impacts on Land Use Plans, and (4) Evaluation of Two Completed
NEPA Documents. They represent two types of program elements:
analysis of specific environmental issues and analysis of indivi-
dual projects.
Objectives of the prototype reports were to: "test" the Manual's
utility in practical application; address the four specific
environmental concerns mentioned above; drawing conclusions where
possible on the accuracy of predicted versus actual environmental
impacts; making necessary revisions to the Manual; and provide
the user with the benefit of this background experience prior to
their use of the Manual. Another objective was to comprehend the
quality and quantity of work that could be accomplished within
rigid time and dollar constraints.
1-2
-------
Briefly, the purpose, scope, data characteristics, applied analysis, and
presentation of findings for each prototypical case are provided below:
o Impacts on Wetlands and Floodplains
Purpose - Determining the accuracy of environmental impacts predicted in
the NEPA planning documents and assessing the effectiveness of
NEPA in minimizing adverse impacts and protecting the beneficial
values of wetlands and floodplains
Scope - Primary impacts
Data Characteristics - Predominately qualitative, manual files
Applied Analysis - Comparative, aggregate analysis of project areas
Presentation of Findings - Quantitave measurement of qualitative data
o Impacts of Population Predictions
Purpose - Evaluating the 1980 population projections contained in the NEPA
documents of CG projects with actual 1980 Census data
Scope - Region-wide
Data Characteristics - Predominately quantitative data in machine readable
files, computers
Applied Analysis - Comparative, aggregate analysis of project areas
Presentation of Findings - Statistical description of analysis with tables
showing mean and average percentage error
o Impacts on Land Use
Purpose - Determining the accuracy with which the NEPA process assessed the
impact of CG projects on land use, and, thus the effectiveness of
NEPA in preventing adverse impacts
Scope - Secondary impacts
Data Characteristics - Predominately interviews, maps, land use ordinances
Applied Analysis - None [Task/Skill Misalignment]
Presentation of Findings - Corrective anecdotes, pitfall analysis
1-3
-------
o Impacts; An Evaluation of Two Completed NEPA Planning Documents
Purpose - Determining the accuracy with which NEPA planning documents
assessed the impacts of two specific CG projects
Scope - Critique and/or evolution of project
Data Characteristics - Predominately reports and interviews
Applied Analysis - Comparative analysis and/or process analysis
Presentation of Findings - Accuracy and category of impacts and/or staff
influence on the NEPA process
For information on how to provide comments on this process, see Appendix D of
the Manual.
1-4
-------
PROTOTYPE REPORT
IMPACTS ON WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS
Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the accuracy
of environmental impacts predicted in the NEPA planning documents
and to assess the effectiveness of NEPA in minimizing adverse
impacts and protecting the beneficial values of wetlands and
floodplains. The procedure used is described in EPA's Manual for
Evaluating Predicted and Actual Impacts of Construction Grants
Projects.
The remaining sections of this report document the specific steps
carried out by the study team from the definition of the project
elements through the findings of the analysis. Where appro-
priate, there is a discussion concerning the assumptions made,
time intervals considered, and the sequencing of specific steps.
As an aid to future users of the Manual engaged in similar in-
vestigations, a generic methodological approach was developed.
Figure II-1 presents a flow chart summarizing the major steps
accomplished in this evaluation. The steps are numbered in
sequence as they were accomplished.
Definition of Project Elements
The issue examined in this evaluation was the accuracy of NEPA
predicted impacts to wetlands and floodplains resulting from the
building of wastewater transport or treatment facilities. While
impacts to wetlands and floodplains were addressed as distinctly
different NEPA issues (as they are in the Manual) in nature, they
often occupy the same area. Therefore, throughout this report
wetlands and floodplains are referred to in parallel, i.e., wet-
lands/floodplains; except where only one is specified.
As in most inquiries, budget and time constraints help to pre-
determine the magnitude of the evaluation. Note that this evalu-
ation, due to budget and time constraints, did not include anal-
II-l
-------
TABLE 11-1
GENERIC APPROACH TO PROJECT DATA GATHERING FOR WETLAND CR FLOOOPLAIN ISSUES
Search USEPA "EA Log" for projects receiv-
ing wetland or floodplaln review comments.
Create preliminary list of projects con-
sisting of project name and grant number.*
Request of GIGS, Transaction Numbers: G3,
N4, N5, 29, 32, 87, 99 (or modify to suit
needs) for preliminary project list. GICS
generates al I grant numbers for these
projects.
Screen out a11 grant numbers except those
In Step 3, and of those projects >50t con-
structed.
Grant applicants may be represented by
multiple grant numbers. Identify consoli-
dated list of grant applicants and needs
numbers.
Based on above Information, use best pro-
fessional judgment to decide whether to
pursue or drop each project Investigation
using this guidance:
* If primary impacts do discuss wet-
lands and/or floodplains, then
pursue project.
* If primary Impacts Indicate "no
Impact", Interpret as "zero Impact"
and pursue project.
* If wetlands/f loodplalns not mentioned
or It Is stated that there are no such
areas In project, use available pro-
ject map to verify such statement.
If statement can be confirmed, doc-
ument such and drop project. If
statement cannot be confirmed be-
cause of Inadequate map, make decision
to either (a) assume there are no
wetlands/f loodplalns Impacts and drop
project or (b) allow approximately
2-3 weeks to locate appropriate pro-
ject data and proceed to the above
steps.
Manually search USEPA's EA file for pro-
ject summaries for each of these grant
300 11 cants.
8
Create Final list of projects for Investi-
gation.
6
Review project summaries to determine
whether primary Impacts had been pre-
dicted for wetlands and/or floodplains In
or adjacent to project construction area.
Obtain NEPA document(s) from most acces-
sible source: EPA, state or consulting
engineers. Allow 2-4 weeks for this step
regardless of source.
* Where crucial Information Is unrecorded, mlsflled, or
possessed only by members of the organization staff,
specific resource persons may be consulted.
II-2
-------
TABLE 11-1
(continued)
GENERIC APPROACH TO PROJECT DATA GATHERING FOR WETLAND OR FLOOOPLAIN ISSUES
10
11
Extract from NEPA document(s) primary
Impacts and Identify baseline data needed
to fully understand Issues. Begin to fill
In Manual Evaluation Form.
Collect additional baseline data as need-
ed and data updates, as available, for
each project. Allow minimum of 4-6 weeks
for this activity.
14
Conduct field Investigations to observe
(a) actual Impacts, (b) Implementation of
mitigating measures, (c) Indirect or re-
lated Impact Issues, and (d) unanti-
cipated Impacts. Utilize local project
contact to (a) reconstruct baseline (pre—
construction) situation and (b) explain
project site modifications that have
deviated from original plan. Each site
visit requires two observers, 1-2 days
project time, and the use of whatever
visual aIds/record Ing devices optimize
sIte observatIons.
12
13
Review and organize available Informa-
tion (from NEPA documents and additional
baseline data collected) for each pro-
ject In terms of:
* p red i cted i mpacts,
* mitigating measures, and
* related issues that would Involve
use of other Manual chapters besides
Met lands and Floodplalns.
Identify and document data gaos for which
there Is no avallable Information.
Organize and schedule field investiga-
tions as all data for the project become
available. Contact, as appropriate and/-
or available, someone Involved with (a)
project construction, (b) facilities
management or (c) facilities operation for
each oroject.
15
16
Compare observed impacts with predicted
impacts. Evaluate the accuracy of quanti-
tative Impacts and Interpret the author's
intent In qualitative impacts using pro-
fessional judgment. Document all assump-
tions and judgments in a supporting narra-
tive field Investigation report. This
report must accompany the comp leted pro-
ject avaIuatIon forms.
Completed project evaluation forms and
supporting narratives are available for
trend analysis or other pertinent aggre-
gate project analysis.
II-2a
-------
yses of secondary impact issues. This evaluation was concerned
with building-related, primary (direct) impacts where project
construction was located either within or adjacent to wetlands
and/or floodplains. The initial scope of primary impact categor-
ies included area (size) of wetland/floodplain affected, wet-
land/floodplain boundary encroachments, topographic and/or drain-
age patterns, soil loss (floodplain only), total design flow and
cost estimate. Note that impacts related to a number of other
project elements could also be associated with wetlands/flood-
plains. However, these are addressed separately in the Manual
and were specifically excluded from this evaluation.
In addition, two other areas of impact were examined; unantici-
pated/unforeseen impacts, and mitigating measures (short and/or
long-term). The evaluation of these project elements is dis-
cussed in Chapter XIV of the Manual under Interrelated Issues.
Identification of Projects to be Examined
The original list of projects was generated from EPA, Region V's,
Environmental Impact Section file called the "EA (Environmental
Assessment) Log". The EA Log spanned the years between early
1977 through mid-1984. All projects which had a wetland or
floodplain comment included in the "comment column" by the EPA
document reviewer were selected. In many instances the comment
expressed the need for a "Statement of Findings" concerning wet-
lands or floodplains in the environmental assessment. (A State-
ment of Findings is the term given to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality (CEQ) December 15, 1979, procedures for implemen-
tation of the Executive Orders 11990 and 11988 on Wetlands and
Floodplains.) Another example of an EA Log comment was "wetland
issue" or "floodplain issue". The more recent EA Log records
(1982-1984) contained a specific column heading for "Wetlands/-
Floodplains Statements of Findings" which required a yes/no
response. From this exercise, the reviewers identified 70 pro-
jects which were listed by grant numbers and by whatever project
name was found in the EA Log.
The grant number and project name for each of the 70 projects
were entered into the regional Grants Information Control System
II-3
-------
(GIGS), and the following information was initially requested by
transaction numbers (TN) for each project:
29 - EPA cost estimate,
32 - Facility or needs number,
87 - Project step code (Step 1, 2, 3),
99 - Total design flow,
G3 - Consultant - code number and name,
N4 - EIS code and date,
N5 - Completion code and date.
Items #29 and 199 were not utilized during this study due to time
constraints of sorting the data to provide a cost per design flow
profile. They have application in future studies where aggregate
project samples may be comparatively profiled by project cost and
total design flow.
A computer printout of grant numbers was generated by GICS from
the original list of 70 prospective projects. The listing was
created by requesting all grant numbers that might exist for a
given grant applicant. Grant amendments, as well as project
steps (1, 2, 3), are assigned separate grant numbers, thus, a
list of 160 grant numbers was produced. Appendix A-1 presents
the computer printout of the 160 projects.
From the list of grant numbers, projects were selected using the
following criteria: (a) project in Steps 3 or 4 of the Construc-
tion Grants process, (b) project greater than 50% constructed,
and (c) applicable complete information available. All entries
not meeting these criteria were eliminated from further consider-
ation. This screening step resulted in 63 grant numbers. It was
assumed that multiple Step 3 grants having the same facility
(needs) number were the same project. Thus, the 63 grant numbers
represented 20 candidate projects (Table II-1).
At this point in the selection process, the list of projects was
not supplemented by individuals having knowledge of suitable pro-
jects for study, but not documented in the EA Log. This might be
described as a resource person. It is useful when crucial infor-
mation may be unrecorded, misfiled, or possessed only by members
II-4
-------
TABLE I1-1
CG PROJECTS GREATER THAN 50% CONSTRUCTED
POTENTIALLY HAVING WETLAND/FLOODPLAIN ISSUES
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Applicant Name
Mason, Village of
Edgewood, Village of
Westfield, Village of
Carmel, Town of
Schneider, Town of
Fort Wayne, City of
Jackson County RSD
Leslie, Village of
Muskegon, County of
Pontiac, Township of
Alpena, County of
Calhoun County BPW
Berrien County DPW
Missaukee, County of
MWCC
Northfield, City of
Paynesville, City of
Cokato, City of
Ortonville, City of
Lester Prairie, City of
Grant Number
170595001
170595002
173202001*
180015002*
180114001*
180225001
184714001
260063001*
260214001*
260570001*
262000001*
262006001
262101001*
263208001*
270001001
270036001
270299001
270347001*
271104001
275804001
* Project documents obtained.
II-5
-------
of the organization staff. Use of such knowledgeable persons in
this way is another valid approach to project identification.
EPA's EA file was seached manually for project summaries for each
of the 20 candidate projects. An EA is a NEPA document and
public record description of a proposed CG project including
location maps, feasible alternatives, comparative impacts and
mitigation measures to minimize predicted impacts. Attached to
it is a letter of Negative Declaration (later termed "Finding of
No Significant Impact" - FNSI) stating that based on a review of
the project planning document(s), preparation of an EIS was not
warranted. Ten of the 20 project summaries contained language
referencing wetlands or floodplains as indicated in Table II-1
with asterisks.
Project summaries for the ten projects referencing wetlands
and/or floodplains were reviewed to determine whether primary
impacts had been predicted. Seven of the ten projects made no
mention of wetlands/floodplains impacts under the heading "Major
Primary Impacts of Project". Projects were eliminated from
further consideration using the following guidelines: (1) if an
adequate project location map was included, the conclusion of no
wetland/floodplain impacts was confirmed and the project was
dropped, (2) if the project map was inadequate for determining
wetland/floodplain locations or was missing from the project
summary, the reviewers assumed no wetlands or floodplains impacts
and the project was dropped. Additional time would have been
required to document these assumptions with appropriate project
data (estimate: 2-3 weeks).
Three projects remained for evaluation. The Westfield, Illinois,
summary stated that the project was "not within a floodplain".
Thus, it was dropped from further consideration. The two remain-
ing candidate projects (Muskegon, Michigan, and Schneider,
Indiana), were summarized as having "no impact" to wetlands or
floodplains. This was interpreted as a quantified impact of zero
according to the Manual.
Two projects were not considered sufficient to meet the goal of
this investigation. Therefore, a decision was made to consult
II-6
-------
with experienced personnel (resource persons) at EPA, Region V,
and the states in an attempt to identify other candidate pro-
jects. Five additional projects were identified:
0 Menasha, Wisconsin,
" Brillion, Wisconsin,
9 Lester Prairie, Minnesota,
" Ortonville, Minnesota, and
0 Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor Project, Ohio.
All of these projects were part of the preliminary project list
but were dropped because of (a) incorrect grant numbers or grant
applicant names, or (b) project summaries were not available in
EPA project summary files. These projects were, therefore, con-
sidered suitable for inclusion in the investigation.
Two projects from this semi-final list of seven were eliminated.
The Lester Prairie, Minnesota, project proposed an outfall struc-
ture and no other facilities to be built in the floodplain. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) did not consider this
an adverse impact to the floodplain. Therefore, this project was
dropped from further consideration in this analysis.
The Muskegon, Michigan, project involved the rehabilitation of an
existing outfall to a wetland/creek. According to the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the Muskegon planning
document did not address wetland impacts nor did it acknowledge
that the proposed actions would result in any permanent environ-
mental damage. Because the wetland/creek had received impacts
from earlier projects previous to the proposed rehabilitation,
the reviewers at the suggestion of MDNR, deleted this project
from further consideration.
The final list of projects for aggregate analysis consisted of
the following:
0 Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor Project, Ohio,
0 Ortonville, Minnesota,
" Brillion, Wisconsin,
8 Menasha, Wisconsin, and
0 Schneider, Indiana.
II-7
-------
Their general locations are shown in Figure II-2. Table II-2
summarizes basic GIGS file information as well as wetlands/flood-
plains locational information (relative to construction) gathered
prior to NEPA document review for each of the final projects.
Figure II-3 is a diagramatic synopsis of the project selection
procedure. Figure II-4 summarizes, in a pie chart format, the
result of project selection for this study.
Compiliation of Data
NEPA document(s) were requested for each of the selected pro-
jects. EPA provided the Facilities Plan/EA and EIS for the
Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor Project. The State agencies respon-
sible for facilities planning were then contacted for either a
copy of each needed document or a document loan. It was deter-
mined that State agencies often keep single copies of approved
facilities plans and do not loan these documents. Additional
time (estimate: 1-2 weeks) would have been required to travel to
the State agencies involved to review their document copy and any
supplementary project files. Instead, documents were obtained
from the consulting firms who conducted the planning. The
engineers' names were obtained from the GIGS printout (TN-G3).
The addresses were obtained from the State facilities planning
sections.
The engineers contacted and the arrangements made were as fol-
lows:
0 Project: Schneider, Indiana
Engineer: PTGR
158 Napoleon
Valparaiso, Indiana 46383
(219) 462-1158
Document Arrangements: Document on loan,
$10.00 express mail fee.
II-8
-------
FIGURE II-2
LOCATIONS OF FINAL WETLANDS/FLOODPLAINS
SITES SELECTED FOR AGGREGATE ANALYSIS
United States \.
^ivironmental Protection Agency
II-9
-------
s?
I
I*
*
2
s
3
*
I
I
u
S.
i
s
£
f
*
^
8
1
S
tl Tj
"si
a
15
S
O *
-; 8
« u
I
u
e
*l
j
3
fl
i
^
Ml
•
•
U
s
*. a
i*
u
e
U)
u
S
H
H
j
3
e
a
e
I
S
J
?
3 e
t 1 c «
: c ' 1
i
i
s"
•~
§
i
"
s
2
i
2
X
i
I
.
S •"
1
k.
a
e
c
u
Wl
0
e
{
X
i
X
S
1
J
e
J*
• ft
Ul <
O
1
«
CM
I
O
CM
Si
2
§
X
J
^
s
,-
c o
n
1
0^
*^
-
-JO
a a »
z a =
S
f
J
f
Is
? ! s
» < —
s.
a
4
**
3
1
n
|
3
9
a.
1
; =
H
« X
LU
^
s s
s :
-:l
a cj
s
s
>
«
a s
-°5
1 1 IS
g
5
^
« I 2
a. * ***
lifi
a * * »
^
S 0
S V
2 S g 5
= j 2 i s
S « u S, S
S S — O u
S I fe S i
i ?i £ Z
x ec a o —
11-10
-------
FIGURE II-3
PROJECT SELECTION
EA Log
Book
Staff
Recommendations
•^ 70 Projects by Applicant Name
and Grant Number contained
language referencing wetlands
or floodplains
Projects by Applicant Name
with all Steps and Amendments
20 Projects without Steps 1 & 2
by Facility Code and greater
than 50% constructed
». 5 Projects for Evaluation
11-11
-------
FIGURE II-4
No data available
10 projects
(28%)
>50% complete
16 projects
Not an issue
5 projects
(14%)
5 projects
FOR ANALYSIS
(14%)
TOTAL = 36 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FACILITIES
(160 separate grant numbers)
having wetland or floodplain
comments in the EA log
11-12
-------
8 Project: Ortonville, Minnesota
Engineer: Ellerbe Associates, Inc.
One Appletree Square
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420
(612) 853-2000
Document Arrangements: Mailed 2 volumes,
one on loan, no charge.
* Projects: Menasha and Brillion, Wisconsin
Engineer: McMahon Associates, Inc.
1377 Midway Road
Menasha, Wisconsin 54952
(414) 739-0351
Document Arrangements: Mailed one document,
no charge; made visit to their offices to
review other documents while in area for
site visit.
The time interval required to obtain these documents (2-3 weeks)
was judged to be average considering the involvement of a consul-
tant locating old documents, copying and mailing time.
Once the NEPA documents were received, the reviewers extracted
information related to the primary impacts and mitigating
measures applicable to wetlands and/or floodplains. This infor-
mation was found in various sections of the facility plan/EA's,
except in the impact analysis section; appendices, corres-
pondence, supporting project files, public hearing records, and
EPA project summaries.
Impacts were extracted as direct quotes, interpretations or para-
phrasing and as either quantitative or qualitative statements.
Each impact or mitigation was documented by source and type. In
addition, reviewers identified the baseline data needed to fully
understand project issues. Evaluation forms were completed as
specified in the Manual. A separate form was completed for each
impact in each project.
All supplementary baseline data ("before" project), as needed for
each project, and data updates ("after" project) were collected
by telephone requests. The major sources of data generally
11-13
-------
needed to adequately characterize a project are presented below.
The Directory of Environmental Data bases (WAPORA, 1983) or tele-
phone directory assistance was used to locate telephone numbers.
* USGS 7.5 minute Topographic Map
(requested by quadrangle name)
Source: State DNR or equivalent agency
Map Sales Department
" USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map
Source for Ohio and Indiana:
Eastern Mapping Center (NCIC)
536 National Center
Reston, Virginia 22092
(703) 860-6636
Source for Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota:
Mid-Continent Mapping Center (NCIC)
1400 Independence Road
Rolla, Missouri 65401
(314) 341-0851
Source for Wisconsin:
WDNR
Geology and Natural History
Madison, Wisconsin
(608) 263-7389
9 FEMA FIRM Map
(requested by community numbers)
Source: National Flood Insurance Program
Post Office Box 34604
Bethesda, Maryland 20817
(1-800) 638-6831
9 USGS Floodprone Areas Map
(if "c" is not available)
Source: State USGS office or State DNR
or equivalent Flood Planning Section
9 USDA - SCS Soil Survey
Source: State USDA office or
11-14
-------
County SCS office
0 EPA River Reach File
(requested by longitude and latitute)
EPA, Region V
Stuart Ross - STORET
(312) 353-2061
All available information from NEPA sources and additional data
collected were organized for each project in terms of predicted
impacts, mitigating measures, and related issues that would in-
volve the use of other chapters of the Manual besides Wetlands
and Floodplains. Data gaps particularly related to the "after"
project condition, were identified and documented. IT WAS CON-
FIRMED THAT FIELD INVESTIGATIONS WERE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL PROJECT IMPACTS. All "after" pro-
ject data that may have been collected were utilized as supple-
mental, supporting documentation.
Field investigations were organized, scheduled and conducted.
The five sites were visited by two reviewers within a period of
two weeks. Handwritten notes and photographs were taken to
record observations. In all cases, except Schneider, Indiana
(the first visit), a field contact was arranged with either the
construction (consulting) engineer, the WWTP operator, or facili-
ties manager. These contacts proved to be invaluable sources of
information concerning the "before" project setting and to ex-
plain project modifications (change orders) subsequent to the
approved NEPA document that may have altered environmental
impacts. The field investigation schedule is summarized in Table
II-3.
Evaluation of Data
Observed impacts ("after" project conditions) were compared with
predicted impacts using the specific evaluation steps in the
Manual chapters on Wetlands and Floodplains Issues. A narrative
field investigation report was written and project evaluation
forms completed for each project. This information provides the
11-15
-------
ca
j
03
en
E*
M
en
M
>
u
EH
M
en
M
M
Eb
b
O -*
00
>4 ON
05 _i
<
s »
S >i
3 -H
en 3
en
a
<
OS
a
•z
M
CT
0> *
-t 0} *
r-4 JJ P»
•H 0 CN
> cn
c
0 C -<
JJ C 3
M-H 1-3
0 S
* C *
C — i •*•
O CO CN
••* C
** 0 >
-i O -(
•- < CO 3
SJ--H 1-3
03 2
• C *
(0 -H ^
jr co CN
Cfl C
(8 O >
C O -i
0) Cfl 3
£•-. t-j
S
a
CN
<0 - 1
CP SN w
O CO O —
.C fH "H
<8 i— f .C ><
>i tj O »-i
3 > 3
u »-s
u
0) nj r-
tj C fH
•-4 in
0) — * >i
C T3 r-l
£ C 3
ej i— i 1-3
en
U --H
ftj (TJ
U JJ
\ c
U 01
•H iJ
rtj
U .-H
HJ (0
U JJ
\ c
ij a>
•H U
HJ
U r-l
(0
O
eu
O
^*
ro
<—
O
fN
V0
O
VO
in
o
m
in
o
fN
fN
S
O T3 -™*'
U C CU
iw 41 --i
00 lj
0) O" EH
o or o
C JJ — i T3
us 3 y-i c
JJ 0 •*•! 3
co en O o
-H OS
Q ^
CN
Xx
•—
1
i—
^
»—
CN
V—
^ U3
0» >i
> iJ
ft C -r-i 3
(C 0) O O
3 a u jc
iJ CO 0^ *•• '
o
•*
u
0)
. 0)
jj CTI
u o
at jj
a
i U
-I
3
0) CO
JJ
(0 4)
O CO
O (0
-H O
0>
U 0}
01 JJ
o
» Cfl
C 0)
en c
C -H
O Z
o
cn «•
S 3
O
C CJ
O
•H •
r-l JJ
,-t en
u t!
CO C
(t5
•n
c 01
-------
data base for the aggregate analysis discussed in the next sec-
tion.
Each evaluation form summarizes data on a single impact that can
be aggregated for trend analysis. The field investigation report
documents the assumptions made by the reviewers in the interpre-
tation of impacts (both predicted and observed). These reports
should be reviewed in their entirety by others who conduct simi-
lar analyses. Note that they were not intended to be, nor should
they be construed as, case study reports. The field investiga-
tion reports and evaluation forms are located in Appendix A.
Findings of Analysis
A manual table of findings was developed as a tool to compile and
summarize impact information. Had the sample been larger, the
data could have been computerized for this analysis. Tables II-4
on Wetlands and II-5 on Floodplains present the the aggregate
analyses for this study. In the left column, each of the pre-
dicted impacts (and/or mitigations) from each project was related
to an appropriate impact category: size, boundary encroachment
and drainage patterns for the Wetlands issues, size, storage
capacity, drainge patterns and soil loss for the Floodplain
issues. The list of categories may be expanded in future studies
if desired.
The record column contains the impact statement found in the NEPA
document (and sometimes a mitigation measure). This predicted
impact is evaluated as either quantitative or qualitative. In
many cases, the original statement was not written in the form of
a prediction, but rather presented as an item of information.
The reviewers interpreted this as a qualitative impact of minimal
magnitude and, therefore, the qualitative impact column was
checked.
For each predicted impact, field observations were used to eval-
uate the accuracy of the prediction. The choices under the
column heading "Accuracy of Predictions" include "yes" (the pre-
11-17
-------
TABLE II-4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
AGGREGATE ANALYSIS OF WETLANDS ISSUE
1 '! --
Wetiarid Impact Statement
. (and mitigation)
Categoriesj
Size of
Area
Affected
I
i
Wetland
Boundary
Encroach-
ment by
Construc-
tion
Topo-
graphic
or
Drainage
Patterns
Proposed access shaft »16 will cross
small portion of wetland at Sanitary
Road which will be temporarily filled
(391126030 - 391126070)
Tunnel construction requires 1-2 acres
for access site for equipment, storage
and work space - temporary
(391126030 - 39U26070)
30 wetland basins totaling 18.6 acres
may not be filled, burned or drained
during use of 120 acre site for spray
irrigation (271245002)
access shaft 13 will require fill.
Modification is minimized i consoli-
dated at one eriae of the wet area
(39U26030 - 391126070)
Access shaft 117 requires 1-2 acres.
A portion of the wetland at this site
close to the UrecKsville WWTP will be
affectxd 939U26030 - 391126070)
WWTP would occupy approximately 5
acres adjacent to proposed Qrillion
Marsh Wildlife Area (550875030)
During interceptor construction,
proper drainage will be Maintained
and sice grading in road right-of-way
will minimize wetland encroachment
(551275020)
Construction of A stabilization ponds
on SO acres would have very minimal
effect on natural wetland basins
(271245002)
Construction may encroach into long
narrow type 3 wetland located south of
proposed site (271245002)
Access site 115 moved from swamp-type
forest to adjacent drier, higher area
(Mitigation) (391126030 - 391126070)
A small marshy area lies to the north
and east of the 1-2 acres needed for
access shaft 15 (391126030-391126070)
Much of the 1-2 acre site nuedud for
access shaft construction US) lies in
a marsh at the foot of the valley wall
although location of access shaft is
on slope of hill ( 391126030-31126030 - 391121,070)
Predicted Impacts
Quanti-
tative
X
X
X
Lowering o£ t.'ie water level will !
lira in some uf the normally flooded
wut'umls. (J9U2tiG30 - 391126070)
Quali-
tative
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
«
Accuracy of Predictions
(Observed Impacts)
Yes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
Could Not
Evaluate*
X
'
i
|
X
x
1
1
Implementation of
Mitigating Measures
Yes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
X
x
None
Required
X
1
X
!
i
1
X 1 j
1
1 i
X
ror expiai.ation
in.: documentation, see appropriate Field Investigation Report identified by grant number.
-------
TABLE II-5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
AGGREGATE ANALYSIS OF FLOODPLAIN ISSUE
1
< Floodplain
Categories
; Size of
Area
Affected
Changes in
(loot storage
capacity
(or area)
Topo-
graphic or
Drainage
Patterns
Soil Loss
from
Flooiiplain
Impact Statement
(and mitigation)
Two acre minimum sit* requirement
for WWTP in floodplain (180444002)
Loss at 1.6 acres of Type 7 (and some
Type 2) watlanda by filling for WWTP
construction (551275020)
Construction activities will ba
limited aa nearly aa possible to
physical boundaries of the proposed
project (551275020)
Construction of the mounded area
(5-8 ft. high; 2 acres) for the WWTP
site will change flood storage capa-
city within floodplain (IQ0444002)
Loaa of this wetland/floodpiain area
will not meaaureably affect flood
elevation of Little Lake Sucta dea
Morts (551275020)
Localized changes in drainage patterns
around mounded WWTP site (180444002)
Project will involve modification of
immediate landscape but will not
affecc natural drainage (551275020)
Interceptors will be constructed in
floodplain areas. This impact is
minimal. (550875030)
Embankment around plant sodded to
Tunimize erosion (includes mitigation)
( 180444002)
Krosion of site will be kept to a
minimum during construction and will
be prevented afterward by maintaining
^rass cover on all exposed slopes on
the sits (551275020)
Predicted Impacts
Quanti-
tative
X
X
X
Quali-
tative
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
Accuracy of Predictions
(Observed Impacts!
Yea
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
Could Not
Evaluate
Implementation of
Mitigating Measures
Yes
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
I
None
Required
X
X
X
X
1
1
!
I
11-19
-------
dieted impact is considered accurate), "no" (the predicted impact
is considered not to be accurate), or "could not evaluate"
(neither data base, data update, nor field observation is suffi-
cient to make a judgment) . Decisions and judgments are fully
documented in the field investigation report. The identifying
grant number is located after the entry of each impact in Tables
11-4 and II-5, on each evaluation form relating to that project
and on the cover page of each field investigation report (Appen-
dix A) .
The last column in the tables addresses the implementation of
mitigating measures. The choices include "yes", "no", and "none
required". In some cases, reviewer interpretation was necessary
to judge whether an impact was sufficiently mitigated relative to
the mitigation required by the NEPA document. This documentation
is, also, found in the field investigation report (Appendix A).
Figure II-5 summarizes the accuracy of predictions for Wetlands
and Floodplains Issues by percent of total impacts predicted.
The majority of predictions made in NEPA documents were judged to
be accurate when compared against 1984 field observations.
Unanticipated impacts occurred in two projects: Grant Numbers
271245002 and 391126030-391126070; Ortonville and Cuyahoga Valley
Interceptor, respectively. In one case, runoff from a con-
structed embankment created a more stable water regime in a small
adjacent wetland. Prior to construction, this wetland probably
experienced more hydrologic fluctuation on an annual basis. This
was considered a beneficial, unanticipated impact.
In another case, the unanticipated impact involved the mitigation
measure. The expectation was no long-term adverse impact because
wetlands affected by interceptor construction (short-term im-
pacts) would be returned to pre-construction topography and
seeded with grasses. Eventually, wetland species would re-estab-
lish because the environment was suitable for their coloniza-
tion.
11-20
-------
FIGURE II-5
Quantitative Measurement of Findings
PERCENT
100
90
so
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
Wetlands
Floodplains
IMPACTS CORRECTLY PREDICTED
IMPACTS INCORRECTLY PREDICTED
INSUFFICIENT DATA TO EVALUATE
"Comparative Range of Values of Predicted/Actual Impacts for Wetlands/Floodplains
11-21
-------
It was observed that a portion of the wetland (previously owned)
was destroyed by filling after construction, rather than being
restored. This resulted as an unanticipated impact because when
construction occurs on private land, where only an easement is
necessary for access, the expected mitigation may not be imple-
mented unless there is a grant stipulation to that effect.
Some general conclusions can be drawn from the findings of this
analysis. There was a noticable difference between documents
that pre-dated and post-dated the EPA Wetland and Ploodplain Pro-
tection Implementation Policies (1979). Differences were noted
in the extent to which these issues were addressed and the level
of impact analysis undertaken. It was more common for a pre-
dicted impact to address acreage lost/affected than to address
possible long-term effects on the quality of that resource and/or
its ability to continue its natural function.
Most of the predicted impacts derived from NEPA documents, re-
gardless of their data, were qualitative. It was not uncommon to
find a statement of information instead of a predictive statement
of impact (i.e., "Much of the 1-2 acre site needed for access
shaft construction lies in a marsh at the foot of the valley
wall, although the location of the access shaft is on the slope
of a hill"). In each case such as this, the reviewer had quali-
tatively interpreted a statement of minimal, long-term, adverse
impact.
Based on documented field observations, most predicted impacts
were judged to be accurate. Quantitative predictions were eval-
uated with field observations and appropriate qualifying remarks.
Additional effort (time, equipment and specific skills) would
have been required to evaluate quantitative predictions of acre-
age using surveying equipment.
In almost all cases, mitigating measures were implemented to the
extent that the reviewers determined was intended in the NEPA
document. Adjacent, undisturbed areas were utilized for baseline
comparison.
11-22
-------
Conclusions
As a result of this study, certain recommendations can be made
regarding the overall approach (method), the data base documenta-
tion (field investigations), and EPA program management.
8 Project selection and sample size were substantially
affected by the completeness and accuracy of the EPA data base.
Also, EPA's project summary files should be amended to identify
adjustments after a FNSI, when project changes affect environ-
mental consequences.
8 On the basis of the sites visited in this study, two
observers are required for field investigations since there are
times when one must focus all attention on driving while the
other functions as navigator, primary observer and recorder. At
other times, both can observe.
8 The field investigation report format helped to docu-
ment explanations of the assumptions used for making decisions
that require professional judgment. Examples of this are the
interpretation of qualitative impacts, degree of significance of
impacts, and the definition of an acceptable margin of error
within which two values are considered to be equivalent. Most
impacts were found to require some amount of reviewer interpreta-
tion, as the criteria or logical assumptions used needed to be
documented.
Because of the importance of documentation of assump-
tions, the Field Investigation Report is needed as a supporting
data base to the Project Evaluation Forms. The report must ac-
company the evaluation forms.
8 For the objectives of this study, National Wetland
Inventory Maps are not always an essential part of the data base.
The scale of these maps (1:24000) makes identification and evalu-
ation of small wetlands extremely difficult and sometimes impos-
sible.
11-23
-------
0 Standardization of evaluation categories for each issue
(floodplains, wetlands, etc.) is needed when planning documents
are written. NEPA documents often predict impacts without refer-
ence to specific categories. The evaluation of these types of
predictions requires the reviewer to select categories which best
reflect the predicted impacts and then make further decisions
regarding the intensity or degree of impact. This situation is
unduly subjective and not conducive to program evaluation. NEPA
documents are developed as tools to be used in a decision-making
process. The objective of collecting and presenting data in
these predictive documents is to provide enough information so
that a decison concerning the environmental acceptability of a
project can be made. This objective does not necessarily require
a consideration of the data base needed for long-term monitoring
of parameters nor does it necessarily require a detailed presen-
tation of all assumptions and considerations employed in profes-
sional judgments. These types of considerations, however, are
essential to the evaluation of impact prediction accuracy and
program evaluation. By standardizing categories and parameters
relative to the long-term monitoring and evaluation needs of
future NEPA documents, the documents would lessen subjective
interpretations by reviewers of projects or programs and provide
a more useful data base to conduct longitudinal program evalua-
tions.
11-24
-------
PROTOTYPE REPORT
IMPACTS OF POPULATION PREDICTIONS
Purpose
The goal of this effort is to evaluate the 1980 population pro-
jections contained in the NEPA documents of Construction Grants
(CG) projects with actual 1980 census data. From a comparison of
the predicted 1980 total population for CG planning areas with
the actual 1980 census population figures, a significant discrep-
ancy in population figures by size of community, county, state or
geographical area could be indicative of an even wider discrep-
ancy at the end of the 20-year planning period. This could have
the effect of altering the projected needs placed on CG project
facilities.
The flow chart presented in Figure III-1 displays the six steps
involved in conducting the evaluation. Each step is detailed in
the following sections.
Definition of Project Elements
Population projections are extrapolated under the assumption that
past population dynamics continue. Most estimates appear to be
based on this type of assumption.
The rate of population change from 1970 census counts was deter-
mined for each project included in this evaluation. These esti-
mated rates of change in population size were recorded as decimal
values to establish a linear trend line for each project which
can be compared with the actual 1980 population figures.
Census of population counts are available for a number of geo-
graphic units. Geographically, the units are state, county,
county subdivision, places (incorporated places, e.g., cities,
boroughs, towns, villages, and the like; census designated
places; and extended cities), urbanized areas, standard metropol-
-------
FIGURE III-l
rtt
Step 1
Define research
objectives
T
Step 2
Review relevant sections
of the Impact manual
T
Step 3
Select Projects
for analysis
Step 4
Compile data for analysis
Step 5
Analyze data
T
Step 6
Discussion of findings
with respect to:
Objectives
Impact Manual
III-2
-------
itan statistical areas, and standard consolidated statistical
areas. For the purposes of this research, the census "place"
level seems most appropriate. There are approximately 23,000
census designated places in the United States. This includes all
incorporated geopolitical units; those unincorporated densely
settled population centers of at least 1,000 persons per square
mile. The Census Bureau identifies each place with a number and
areaname. The area names, for the most part, correspond with the
planning areas identified in the NEPA documents because it is not
always the case that the census designated place corresponds
geographically with the NEPA planning area. For the purposes of
this evaluation it was assumed that they are comparable. Addi-
tional time and money to obtain and evaluate the necessary census
units, census tract level, and NEPA documentation outlining the
exact planning areas for several hundred projects (estimated at
175 labor hours and 1.5 months duration) was not provided.
Printed and machine readable census data were examined. The
printed census documentation is not available for all places and
where place statistics are available they are very limited in
number. On the other hand, the census summary tape file (STF)
3A contains 150 tables of information for every census place in
the country. This source provided the basis for comparative
analysis.
Identification of Projects to be Examined
Project selection consisted of a survey of NEPA documents, the
selection of a sample of these documents and the comparable iden-
tification of NEPA project areas with census places. The selec-
tion of NEPA documents was pursued in the following manner as
defined in the Manual.
1. A listing of all available NEPA documents from Region V was
generated from the Grants Information and Control System
(GICS). The only condition limiting this search was that the
projects had to be dated prior to 1980. This produced a base
listing of 1,210 projects.
III-3
-------
2. A 50% random sample was selected from this listing in order
to make the data handling more efficient. The sample size
(605) was determined to be sufficiently large to insure
applicability to Region V.
3. A search was then conducted of EPA Region V files to obtain
the 605 NEPA documents. After an extensive search, 234 of
the projects were found to have documentation consistent with
Step 4, below. In many situations, some facilities plan
environmental review information had not been transferred to
the NEPA document.
4. The following data was then collected for each project from
the NEPA documents:
8 Current population (as of the NEPA document),
0 Design population,
" Location of affected planning area,
0 Rates of expected population growth,
* EPA facility number, and
0 Consultant name.
These data were not fully available for an additional 37
projects. This reduced the sample to be analyzed to 197.
5. Finally, the locations of seven of the candidate projects as
indicated in the NEPA documents, did not correspond by name
to the names of places as defined in the census STF3A file,
further reducing the sample size to 190.
Figure III-2 depicts the project selection process. Figure III-3
depicts the distribution of selected projects by county.
Compilation of Data
Data gathering in this evaluation required knowledge of locating
and manipulating computer files. The STF3A file is a large
data base on computer tapes located at the main EPA computer
facility at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (RTP). A
micro computer, Apple III, was used as a remote terminal by means
III-4
-------
FIGURE III-2
TfOP
30 72 eliminated
No data available
371 projects
50X eliminated by
random sampling
605 projects
3.6X eliminated
Insufficient data
44 projects
15.7S studied
190 projects
1210 Construction Grants Projects
III-5
-------
FIGURE III-3
LOCATIONS OF PROJECTS BY COUNTY
O - indicates number of projects per County.
III-6
-------
of telecommunication software, Access II. TYMNET lines were used
to facilitate a local call connection with the IBM system at
RTF.
In order to create a data base or a working file of population by
places, two additional computer programs had to be merged. SCADS
(SAS Census Access and Display System) is an intermediary compu-
ter program that converts STF3A into a format for the Statistical
Analysis System (SAS). SAS is a computerized filing program that
assists large volume data analysis. The basic SAS options pro-
vide tools for information storage and retrieval, data modifica-
tion and programming, report writing, statistical analysis, and
file handling. Overall SAS is a data management system for
machine readable data.
The Study Plan Flow chart is presentd in Figure III-4. The Study
Plan is divided into two distinct parts. Part 1 is the initia-
tion phase of the study wherein the purchase and installation of
SCADS took place. SCADS was not available for use prior to the
start of this project. It had to be purchased and installed at
RTP as part of the allocated time provided in this prototype
evaluation. In addition, 1980 summary tape files were accessed
and SAS work files were created. Two sets of data were merged in
the last step of Part 1. These were the data derived from the
written NEPA documents and the 1980 census data. The merged data
set represented the data base for subsequent analysis. Since
demographic base information was available for the STF3A file
beyond the single population counts, the merged file contained
the following additional demographic items.
0 Total population for the area,
0 Occupanying status of year-round housing units,
0 Source of water for year-round housing units, and
0 Sewage disposal for year-round housing units.
These items were used to generate a demographic profile for the
communities under study. Part 2 illustrates the actual proce-
dures of statistical analysis concluding in the preparation of
this report.
III-7
-------
STUDY PLAN FLOW CHART
FIGURE III-4
PAHT I
Become familiar
with RTF computer
Select 50%
temple at project!
M - 605
familiarize with
SCADS and 1990 cen
sus tape filec
Oetermine
needed and collect
data where
available
S - 197
Map
Cotmunltiei
III-8
-------
Evaluation of Data
The first phase of the analysis was to generate a predicted 1980
population for each planning area identified. These were com-
puted using the base year, 1970 population, incremented by the
rate of growth given in the NEPA document to achieve the pro-
jected population for 1980 (PROJ80). The actual population in
1980 is represented by the code T1I1. This code represents Table
1, Cell 1 in the STF3A data file. Note, the SCADS program gen-
erates variables for each cell of each table in the STF files
using this same coding system.
Analysis was conducted on two levels:
* Region V as a whole, and
0 States within Region V.
The first analysis on the region level was to determine if there
was a significant difference between the actual 1980 population
and the projected 1980 population. A paired T-test was used to
compare the mean population projected for the 190 CG projects
selected and the actual mean population for these planning areas
based on the 1980 census. The T-test resulted in a T score of
-.70 which had a probability of .49. This would indicate that
the difference between the projected and the actual population
was not statistically significant. A probability of .05 or smal-
ler would have been required to indicate a significant dif-
ference. The average difference in the projected and actual
figures was 1,968 fewer persons. This would indicate that the
projected figures slightly underestimated the population in 1980,
but, as indicated by the T score this difference does not exceed
the range of sampling error.
While this finding would suggest that the projected and actual
population figures are reasonably in line with one another, the
average difference between the actual population and the pro-
jected population was 16.5%. This percentage difference suggests
that a comparison of the percentage difference between the pro-
III-9
-------
jected and actual figures for individual projects would be use-
ful.
The percent of difference (PERDIF) was calculated for each place
and a test was conducted to see if the rate of error or percent
of difference was significantly different from zero. This test
resulted in a T score of 4.57 which was significant at the .0001
level. The average difference was 17%. This approach emphasizes
the percentage by which the projected population missed the
actual figure for each project while the first analysis empha-
sized the amount of difference between the two population
figures. Note in the table below developed for illustrative pur-
poses, that the difference in the average population values is
2,875 which represents a 10.5% error from the Actual average
population figures. The error is largely due to discrepancies
for Places A, B, and C, while being reasonably accurate for Place
D. A comparison of the percentages yields an average percent
difference of 38% which indicates substantial inaccuracy while
the mean difference or error was only 10.5% from the actual
figures.
Projected
Population
Actual
Population
Difference
Percent
Difference
Place
Place
Place
Place
Total
Mean*
A
B
C
D
10
10
1
100
121
30
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,250
5
5
99
109
27
,000
,000
500
,000
,500
,375
5
5
1
1 1
2
,000
,000
500
,000
,500
,875**
50%
50%
50%
1%
151%
38%***
**
Total divided by 4.
This difference is equivalent to 10.5% of the actual
population mean (percent difference of the means).
*** The mean of the percent differences.
111-10
-------
In summary/ the regional analysis leads us to conclude that there
is a great degree of variability in the accuracy of prediction
and the overall percentage difference is not acceptable. A dif-
ference of 10% might be considered reasonable especially given
the number of small areas involved, but a 17% difference might
not be accepable. This finding, however, should be viewed with
some caution. Some large percentage differences appear to be due
to errors in the data. An examination of the census bureau's
1975 middle series Population Projections (see Appendix B, Table
B-10) reveals that their state level projections are within two
percentage points of the actual 1980 populations for this region.
It should also be noted that the 1980 census count data may be
somewhat off the true figures due to non-sampling data handling
errors. Ideally, it would be useful to simply compare the rates
of change projected for EPA sites with the rates of change found
by a comparison of 1970 and 1980 population size for comparable
areas rather than comparing projected counts with actual counts.
A similar analysis was conducted at the state level. The demo-
graphic profile data for the region and the states is presented
in Appendix B, Tables B-8 to B-10. Note that these data are
based on the 190 places being analyzed in this research. No
demographics, other than those in Tables 3-7, B-8, and B-9
(Appendix B) , were provided for; occupying status of year-round
housing units, source of water for year-round housing units and
sewage disposal for year-round housing units. The states with
the smallest number of occupied housing units are Minnesota and
Illinois, while the Ohio and Indiana sites have some rather
populous areas included in the research. The comparison of means
for each state is presented below.
III-11
-------
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
# of
Sites
30
32
27
3.6
31
34
Difference
in Means
-157
-15441
24
-7
2555
1331
+T
-0.56
-0.93
.02
-0.15
1.09
2.09
Probabil
.58
.36
.99
.88
.28
.04
ity
Note that only one state, Wisconsin, has a significant difference
between the projected mean population and the actual mean popula-
tion for the places studied. Also note that the largest dif-
ference in means is in Indiana. The reason the Indiana dif-
ference in means is not significant lies in the overall variabil-
ity of the mean differences in Indiana. The standard error for
the estimate is 16,555 in Indiana in contrast to only 637 in
Wisconsin.
The percentage by which the projected and actual population were
different is presented below for each state.
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
# of
Sites
30
32
27
36
31
34
Average
Percentage
.96
16.80
30.72
.46
33.27
26.10
+T
.22
2.08
2.11
.13
3.11
2.31
Probabi
.82
.05
.05
.89
.00
.03
lity
Note that there is a great deal of variability in the accuracy of
the projections amoung the states. Illinois and Minnesota appear
to be accurate on the average while the other four states appear
to be very inaccurate. These differences in accuracy may be due
111-12
-------
to the fact that rural area projects and stable populations make
projections relatively simple while states with unstable popula-
tion dynamics are difficult to estimate population change, or,
these differences may be due to the sample of projects selected
as a prototypical exercise rather than a full-scale study. As
noted above, the projects in Illinois and Minnesota were located
in smaller more rural places while projects in the other states
included some large cities.
Appendix B contains a listing of the projected (PROJ80) and
actual (T1I1) 1980 population values for each planning area.
This listing provided the basis for determining the statistics
provided above.
Findings of Analysis
Two findings can be concluded from this analysis. First, the
regional level of accuracy appears to be good in terms of actual
size comparisons. The aggregate mean difference is not great.
Secondly, the average percentage error in the Region and particu-
larly in four states, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, is
quite large when compared to the accuracy of census projections.
This may indicate a greater need to monitor and evaluate the
development of population projections in these states. Greater
attention should be used in defining the NEPA areas so as to
correspond directly (or as close as possible) with comparative
data resources that permit long-term monitoring and evaluation,
i.e., secondary resources such as census designations. If there
is a need to retrieve other files for comparative analysis (e.g.,
geographies), combining computerized data bases without a uniform
system of long-term measurement will prove much more costly and
time consuming to evaluate accuracy at the the environmental
issues level.
111-13
-------
PROTOTYPE REPORT
IMPACTS ON LAND USE PLANS
Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the accuracy with
which National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process assessed
the impact of Construction Grants (CG) projects on land use
plans, and, thus, the effectiveness of NEPA in preventing adverse
impacts. The procedure used herein is described in EPA's Manual
for Evaluating Predicted and Actual Impacts of Construction
Grants Projects.
The following sections of this report document the specific steps
carried out by the study teams (original study team and the
edit/revise study team) from the definition of project elements
through the findings. Certain assumptions made by one or the
other team are discussed.
As an aid to reviewers, the general procedural steps used by the
original study team in this analysis are shown in Figure IV-1.
It should be noted, at this point, that EPA reviewers and the
edit/review study team had substantial misgivings concerning the
original study team's efforts in this evaluation. The procedures
employed casted serious doubt on the credibility of the original
study team's findings and conclusions. Since a prime objective
of the prototype reports was to document an actual use of the
Manual as a learning experience, the original study team's proce-
dural approach is presented in the following sections. The con-
clusions section of this report then critiques the original eval-
uation, pointing out its weaknesses and provides a procedure
which could have resulted in a much more adequate study.
Definition of Project Elements
The issue examined in this evaluation was the accuracy of NEPA
predicted impacts on land use plans resulting from the construc-
tion of wastewater transport or treatment facilities. Of speci-
IV-1
-------
FIGURE IV-1
Decision Tree
Changes in Baseline for Land Use Plans
EPA Region V
files examined
for documentation
Projects with
documention
available entered
on preliminary list
Projects with
documentation
unavailable
eliminated
Telephone survey
of localities for
baseline and
current data
Projects with
available local
data retained
on final list
1
Projects with
local data
unavailable
eliminated
Preliminary
report
prepared
IV-2
-------
fie importance were changes in land use plans which would accom-
modate new development not originally planned for but made poss-
ible by a Construction Grants project. This can be viewed as
unanticipated secondary development. The ramifications of such
an occurrence can be substantial due to the environmental impacts
of unanticipated secondary development particularly if such
development occurred indiscriminately or in environmentally
sensitive areas.
Identification of Projects to be Examined
The initial list of projects to be examined was derived from
EPA's Grants Information and Control System (GICS). The system
was asked by the original study team to generate a list of Region
V Construction Grants projects which provided for increased
treatment plant or interceptor capacity and which were greater
than 50 percent completed. A total of 152 grant numbers (includ-
ing sequence numbers) were identified as meeting these criteria.
A review of the GICS listing revealed that, in many cases,
several grant numbers were listed for a single applicant. For
example, the City of Chicago had eight of the 152 grant numbers
and the City of Detroit had 18 grant numbers listed. In such
cases, it was assumed that the multiple grant numbers were for
different parts of the same Construction Grants project. Thus,
the list of 152 grant numbers represented 92 initial candidate
projects.
A search of EPA's manual Environmental Assessment (EA) files was
conducted to obtain written documentation on the candidate pro-
jects. NEPA documents were obtained for 36 of the projects. The
56 projects for which documents were not available in the EA
files were eliminated from further consideration in this anal-
ysis by the original study team.
The edit/review study team assumed that the original study team
could have obtained additional planning documents from either the
applicants or the consultants, however, time schedule and budget
constraints did not allow for this. It is estimated that an
attempt to obtain documentation on the eliminated 56 projects
IV-3
-------
would have required at least 100 man-hours over a 4 to 6 week
period and still would have been only partially successful.
The final step in the identification of projects to be examined
in this study resulted from a telephone survey. As in the pre-
vious step, the ready availability of data was the criterion.
The objective of the telephone survey was to identify and contact
the local agency and specific personnel who could supply informa-
tion or documentation concerning the baseline and current land
use plans and to determine the availability of this data. A
limit of one hour per project was established by the original
study team as the maximum time to accomplish this task for 36
projects within the time and budget constraints.
It was determined that land use plan data for 20 of the 36 candi-
date projects could not be obtained for one of the following
reasons: (a) the data were unavailable at the local level, (b)
no knowledgeable local contact could be identified, or (c) the
knowledgeable local contact was not available during" the time
frame of this study. Also, one project was eliminated because it
did not meet the original criterion of the study which was to
provide increased system capacity. Thus, the remaining 15 candi-
date projects became the subject of this evaluation of Construc-
tion Grants project impacts to land use plans. These are listed
in Table IV-1, and their approximate locations in Region V are
shown in Figure IV-2. The project identification process carried
out by the original study team is summarized in Figure IV-3.
Compilation of Data
The collection and compilation of data was carried out simultan-
eously with the identification of projects to be examined. This
occurred because the major factor which eliminated projects from
the study was the availability of data.
The initial step in the collection and compilation of data was a
search of EPA's manual EA files to obtain NEPA documents. The EA
files yielded documentation for 36 of the 92 projects. Portions
of these documents which summarize the expected impacts are con-
tained in Appendix C. The expected impacts on land use plans and
IV-4
-------
TABLE VI-1
CG PROJECTS GREATER THAN 50% CONSTRUCTED, PROVIDING
INCREASED CAPACITY, AND WITH READILY AVAILABLE NEPA
DOCUMENTATION AND CURRENT LAND USE PLAN DATA
State
Applicant Name
Grant No.
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan
Minnesota
Minnesota
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Wisconsin
DeKalb Sanitary District
City of Moline
Springfield Sanitary Dist.
Urbana Champaign San. Dist.
City of Bloomington
City of Huntington
City of New Castle
City of Grand Rapids
City of Kalamazoo
City of Rochester
City of Saint Cloud
City of Canton
City of Kent
City of Sandusky
City of Eau Claire
171334-03
171118-01
171807-05
171568-03
180560-03
180396-03
180490-02
262654-08
262583-03
270804-03
270747-01
390622-01
391002-03
391117-02
550628-03
IV-5
-------
FIGURE IV-2
PROJECT LOCATIONS
for
Land Use Plans
Analysis
*~ •*•' '••• j '*£*' l//r~7v=~11"™'
=T «^ >?;=H MLJ ^rH :
^^^~l^S=rr^r-^Ur:
IV-6
-------
FIGURE IV-3
Project Identification Process
Impacts on Land Use Plans
22% PROJECTS
CURRENT & BASELINE DATA
NOT READILY AVAILABLE
20 PROJECTS ELIMINATED
61% NEPA DOCUMENTS NOT
AVAILABLE FROM EPA EA FILES
56 PROJECTS ELIMINATED
1% PROJECTS
DID NOT MEET ORIGINAL CRITERIA
1 PROJECT ELIMINATED
16% PROJECTS
MET ALL CRITERIA
15 PROJECTS STUDIED
TOTAL OF 92 CG PROJECTS HAVING INCREASED
TREATMENT OR COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPACITY
NOTE: Only EPA's files were reviewed. EA files are also maintained at
states in Region V. EPA files, where construction and final audits
are complete, may be warehoused.
IV-7
-------
other data were summarized on evaluation forms also contained in
Appendix C. Had sufficient time and budget been available, the
original study team could have obtained planning documentation
for additional projects directly from the applicants or their
consultants.
The final step in the compilation of data involved a telephone
survey regarding the 36 candidate projects. It was first neces-
sary to locate and identify a person having access to and knowl-
edge of past and current land use plans. This only happened for
the 15 selected projects. Next, certain specific information was
obtained. The telephone survey respondent was asked:
1. Has the applicable land use plan been modified
since the NEPA decision?
2. If yes, was the modification major or minor?
3. Were any changes in the land use plan influenced
by the Construction Grants project?
Table IV-2 summarizes the results of the original study team's
telephone survey. Those projects highlighted were selected for
further analysis.
In accordance with the general procedures outlined in the Manual
for for Evaluating Predicted and Actual Impacts of Construction
Grants Projects, the following steps were carried out by the
original study team:
1. The NEPA documents for each of the projects were
reviewed and the predicted impacts on land use
plans were recorded on an evaluation form.
2. Where the NEPA document did not specifically
predict an impact on the land use plan, it was
assumed that a "no impact" prediction was
intended.
3. From the telephone survey, the actual changes in
IV-8
-------
TA6LE l"-i
SUwwr uf N£PA OOCUMCMT «» rElEPxOIC SURVET DATA
ProjacT Location
ana
'acl 1 Itr "uaair
Aurora, llllnola
170*5*001
Coraaofarttlllo. Mllnolo
170*4*001
9
Oa*ala. Illinois
170119001
filaa Cllyn. Illinois
I 70*15001
9
'•Ollno. Illlnot*
I7U3MOI
Saygaf, lllinola
I 702»OOI
O
| S0nngti«ld. 1 1 1 molt
t 70*02001
O
1701 12002
3
aiooaingron. Indiana
1*2020003
CM!. I..IM.
1*0015002
Sas City, inaiana
IMMMOI
?
MU«I r I A^TOI , 1 rttf 1 »n«
IU04000I
0«w tgtlo"
of Projacf
Tr^twif Plwit
E>MMl«.
Tr««T— T 'l4Wt
4 litT«re.*fflr
IxMHtlOH
l«t«r«Mtor
t.T.1
7raan».f Plant
^r.TTap
Tr*Mr*Mtr I*I*J«T
fnamian
Vaafawif Plant
E.M.IIO.
--«-
Ti-B.irw.Mit Plant
E-P«MIO«
TrMt«.t Plant
E«aonalon
Utaroaofor
l.a^.1..
r*-«4|f*»w»T ^'•nr
t lAftwcMfor
C Mean* ten
r«r Co.-
•rructlon
CoiwlatM
I*M
lt>»
t9flt
1941
H7i
(501 Con-
t rrucr «d)
IM!
19*3
(901 Can-
•"•«»o*
1963
14*2
Old UaM
uso
CMnjaJ
0)M
OM
NO
9NA
No
OKA
No
•0
OKA
DMA
NO
MS
Chofltfa Ouo
r» C8
ProioetT
ONA
owt
N/A
ON*
N/A
UNA
N/A
N/A
ONA
ONA
N/A
*aa
Cnango Major
ar niitorr
OM
ON*
N/A
ON*
N/A
DMA
H/A
K/A
ONA
ONA
N/A
•o> Land
Use Plan
Clung*
Pratflcraof
N/A
N/A
NO
N/A
No
N/A
No
No
N/A
N/A
No
Sowea
OoKala Planning Ooaf*
Hollno Clfy Planning
OKIca
Soringtlald Planning
Aaglonal Planning CcaH.
aiooolngton Planning
Oaot. i Honroa County
Planning Ccavlailon
Hgntlngton Planning
Olractor
ONA - Oati Not A.ailaala.
x/A - not «oallca6la.
O - S«l»ctad tar lurrnar analyst*.
IV-9
-------
Projaet Locanon
and
facility NIMOOT
o
No* Caafld. Indian*
1*21*0001
o
«ran« »aol«, Klcnijan
2M31HMI
Itnaoaiina;. Hlcnlgan
262014001
9
ffalaauuov. Mlcnlgan
2*010*001
wanting. Hicftlgan
2*0032001
•onr,,. KICtllgM
2*0(00001
St. Jcnna. Nldnlgan
2*0007001
rgailanti. mcntgw
2*0729001
•oornaad Ntnnaaofa
270032001
O
270O4300I
9
St. Cloud, Nlnn«aota
27004)001
aafavla. Onlo
)»l 46000*
Oa«cri0rion
of Projact
Intaroaator
E>aan*nf Plant
E>Mn..on
Traa'>**nt Plant
E,«..,on
rraanant Plant
(w.i.
Traaf*ant Plant
1 intoreaator
Caaacity
Traat«ant "lant
I Intarcaator
TraatajaMt Plant
£,,»»„.
1 ntaroaator
Caaaei ty
Intarcoaror
Caaaclty
C*aa**!on
TMr Con-
struction
CopvlatM
19(1
19(3
mi
19(0
(Ml Can-
Itructod)
I97(
19(3
I9U
I9U
19(3
1977
1979
Old Land
Ula
CMngor
No
Na
OM
Na
OM
OM
OM
OM
OM
No
No
OM
"»a«
Land Uta
Changa Qua
ro C5
Projact7
N/A
N/A
OM
N/A
OM
'
OM
OM
OM
DM
N/A
N/A
OM
•aa
CKanga Major
or ninor?
N/A
N/A
OM
N/A
OM
OM
OM
OM
OM
N/A
N/A
OM
•aa low
UM Plan
CMng*
PradlctMt
No
No
N/A
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO
No
N/A
Sourca
NOT Caatla Planning
Coiailtalan Staff
Grand! Patldt Planting
0«aarra»rr
KalaMtoo Planning
0«.rt-nt
City of P-oatMtar
Planning 0«eart*M*t
St. Cloud Planning
Oaoartaotit
ONA *
N/A *
Q -
NOT AV«I i*at«.
*«lteabu.
cr*a 'or turrti«r
IV-10
-------
Projact Locate
ana
'acmtv NuMar
0
Canton, Onto
3*1 32MOI
9
trucra< )
(901 Con-
•trucrat)
l*»l
IMO
1*7*
I9M
.9*1
1*11
1*11
014 land
Ufa
CHangol
No
No
aw
aw
ow
No
aw
aw
aw
aw
Land UM
Changa Oua
racs
Prajactt
N/A
N/A
OW
OW
aw
N/A
aw
aw
ow
aw
.«
Cnango Major
or ninorf
M/A
N/A
OW
OW
ow
»/A
aw
aw
ow
aw
•a> UaM
Ula Plan
Cnanga
Pra
-------
land use plans was determined and recorded on the
evaluation forms. Where a change had occurred,
the magnitude of change (i.e./ minor or major)
and whether or not the change was significantly
affected by the CG project was strictly the
opinion of the survey respondent and no attempt
was made to verify or quantify the information
obtained.
Evaluation of Data
The actual impacts to land use plans ("after" project condition)
were compared to the impacts predicted in the NEPA documents (or
assumed where no NEPA prediction was made) as specified in the
general procedures outlined in the Manual. This comparison pro-
vided the original study team's basis for an aggregate analysis
of the impact of CG projects on land use plans.
Findings of Analysis
Based on an analysis of the data contained in Table IV-2, 14 of
15 CG projects evaluated showed that no changes in land use plans
had occurred. Also, in the one case where no impacts were pre-
dicted but major changes had actually occurred, it was the survey
respondent's opinion that the changes were not substantially
influenced by the CG project. Thus, it was concluded by the
original study team that CG projects have had no impact on land
use plans.
Conclusions
It should be noted that the majority of projects analyzed were
completed since 1981, and all have been completed since 1977.
Also, of the 14 projects where "no changes" had occurred, it was
stated by respondents that in all cases land use plans were in
need of updating. It is possible that given the infrequency with
which land use plans are updated and changed (which is a reflec-
tion of the need versus the priority at the local level) less
than 4 to 7 years simply may not be enough time for potential
impacts to manifest themselves in terms of a major change in the
IV-12
-------
land use plan. Also, the list of projects analyzed did not
include any large metropolitan area (i.e., Chicago, Detroit,
Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Columbus). Thus, the results may not be
representative of these areas.
The analysis shows that impacts to land use plans from CG pro-
jects were correctly predicted (as "no impact") in every selected
project. Within the limitations with which these projects repre-
sent the original 92 candidate projects, these results could be
generalized to include them. The edit and review study team,
however, had substantial misgivings concerning the conduct of
this evaluation by the original study team which casts serious
doubt on the credibility of the findings. Thus, conclusions
regarding the utility of land use plans for this type of analysis
cannot be made with confidence at this time.
The edit and review study team has developed several conclusions
regarding the overall approach of this evaluation by the original
study team. So many errors in good evaluation technique were
made that this Prototype Report better represents an example of
how not to conduct an evaluation rather than the opposite. It
should be noted that an attempt was made to edit and revise this
Report, but an almost complete lack of documentation precluded
the effort from acheiving the desired goal. Since available time
would not allow a total reanalysis, this section will provide the
reader with a description of how the evaluation might have been
conducted to provide more meaningful and credible results.
The work order for this report specified four basic tasks with
suggested relative levels of effort:
1. Identify a representative sample (2%).
2. Collect and compile data (16%).
3. Map the location of projects analyzed (2%).
4. Use the Manual to prepare an in-depth analysis
of projects having extensive land use plan
changes and contrast them with projects showing
minor or no changes (80%).
IV-13
-------
As its name implies, the Manual basically provides procedures for
evaluating the accuracy of NEPA predicted impacts of Construction
Grants projects. The socioeconomics chapter deals with land use
issues, but not land use plans. It is believed that the inex-
perience of the original study team did not permit an adequate
transition from the Manual to Task 4 above. Thus, instead of an
"in-depth analysis of the projects...", the definition of Project
Elements was incorrectly perceived as an evaluation of the
accuracy of predictions of impacts on land use plans.
Two conclusions were drawn from this:
1. The user of the Manual should be knowledgeable in the
subject area being studied and in basic research technique
which includes organizing files and thoroughly documenting
the procedural steps employed.
2. The Manual is designed for determining the accuracy of
NEPA impact predictions. It contains no procedures for
preparing an "in-depth analysis of projects" having dif-
ferent characteristics. Although the Manual can assist a
researcher with such a task (i.e., data collection, data
compilation, various evaluations of the data), objectives
which are beyond the limits of the Manual should be accom-
panied by additional procedures; general or specific
depending upon the experience of the researcher.
Assuming the objectives of the study were as stated in Tasks 1
through 4 above, the use of GIGS to identify the 92 candidate
projects was appropriate.
With respect to the next step, Compilation of Data, the original
study team failed to collect adequate NEPA documentation in terms
of both number of projects and amount of data. They, also,
failed to document and catalog properly the data that was ob-
tained. Thus, it is concluded that:
3. Data collection is an important effort but can be very
time consuming and labor intensive. Where the objective
of the study relies on an analysis of comprehensive data
IV-14
-------
from some minimum number of projects, an accurate estimate
of the data collection effort should be derived before
establishing a budget limit for this task. In this case,
full NEPA documentation should have been obtained from
consulting engineers or applicants as well as from EPA
files, and current land use planning data should have
included changes in zoning as well as land use plans. It
is quite possible that in many cases a trip to the appro-
priate planning or zoning agency would have been necessary
to obtain and properly verify the required data. Also,
large metropolitan cities as well as the medium and small
cities should have been represented in the projects
analyzed.
4. Comprehensive data collection on many projects require
organization, a filing system, and written documentation
of data gathered verbally. In this project, data to
facilitate an in-depth analysis could have included any or
all of the following:
Name GIGS Transaction f
Applicant's state 13-A
Cumulative EPA funds awarded 19-B
Project description 20-A
Population served 45-B
Industrial flow capacity 49-B
New project or expansion project 56-A
Total flow capacity 99-A
Construction start date MO-D
Project completion date N5-B
NEPA decision data from NEPA document
The analysis of data by the original study team concentrated on
the objective of the Manual; to determine the accuracy of NEPA
impact predictions, in this case, land use plans. However, the
intended objective was to identify a group of projects character-
ized by extensive changes in their land use plans (or zoning) and
contrast these with projects having minor or no changes. Con-
clusions 1 and 2 also apply here.
IV-15
-------
Assuming all necessary data had been obtained and computerized
for a larger selection of projects, a suitable analytical proce-
dure might have been carried out as follows:
1. Define the terms "major" and "minor" changes. This
could be done as an absolute value (i.e., major change = changes
in land use plan or zoning greater than 640 acres). It could
also be defined in terms of a relative value (i.e., major change
= change in land use plan or zoning greater than 20% of planning
area). Finally, it is possible that "major" and "minor" changes
would best be defined for each project on a case by case basis.
2. Compile the lists of projects with major changes,
minor changes, and no change.
3. Using the computer, analyze and contrast the lists of
projects and apply appropriate statistics to determine signifi-
cance. Some of the analyses which might be conducted are as
follows:
0 Have major changes in land use plans or zoning occurred
at a significantly higher rate in some states than in
others?
0 Have major changes in plans occurred at a significantly
higher rate where interceptor capacity has been
expanded as opposed to projects where plant capacity
has been expanded?
* Have major changes in plans occurred at a higher rate
among new projects or expansion projects?
0 Have major changes in plans occurred at a significantly
higher rate for projects with total flow capacity
greater than 1.0 mgd as opposed to those less than 1.0
mgd?
IV-16
-------
0 Have major changes in plans occurred at a significantly
higher rate for projects where the NEPA decision
occurred before 1977 as opposed to those after 1977?
0 For all selected projects, contrast the change (major,
minor or no change) against the project completion
dates, population served or any of several other
parameters.
4. From the analysis of data, draw appropriate conclu-
sions and generalize these to the extent possible to the total
number of Region V projects meeting the original project
criteria.
5. Prepare a report containing a liberal use of graphics
explaining the analytical procedure, the findings, conclusions
and generalizations. This should include a discussion of all
assumptions and an appendix containing all pertinent documenta-
tion.
In summary, this project required a more experienced study team,
more knowledgeable in socioeconomic issues, research techniques,
and statistics. The data collection and compilation effort was
insufficient and should have included contact with applicants and
consulting engineers. Site visits to planning and/or zoning
agencies should have been made where necessary to obtain and
verify current status information. Finally, the procedural steps
employed should have been geared toward the four basic tasks
stated in the work order.
A broader question emerges from this evaluation: Are changes in
land use plans an appropriate measure of impact accuracy and
aggregate analysis of NEPA effectiveness? There are several
reasons which point to an answer of "no". For example, there are
many other factors aside from wastewater infrastructure that can
elicit land use plan changes. Among these are zoning, zoning
variances, transportation, employment, etc. Also, a land use
plan in place during facilities planning may have been previously
changed in anticipation of a WWTP. A more appropriate level for
such an analysis might be the county or regional land use plans
IV-17
-------
which are consistent with the Areawide Waste Management Planning
(208 Plans) for the selected project areas. Also, perhaps NEPA
documents should reflect specific portions of the applicable
"208" plans.
IV-18
-------
PROTOTYPE REPORT
EVALUATION OF TWO COMPLETED NEPA DOCUMENTS
Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the accuracy with
which National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning documents
assessed the impact of two specific Construction Grants (CG) pro-
jects. The procedure used herein is described in EPA's Manual
for Evaluating Predicted and Actual Impacts of Construction
Grants Projects, dated January 1985.
The following sections of this report document the specific steps
carried out by the study teams (original study team and the
edit/revise study team defined on page 1-2) from the definition
of project elements through the findings. Certain assumptions
made by one or the other team are discussed.
Definition of Project Elements
A broad evaluation of CG projects was conducted by USEPA, Region
V, to select projects which when implemented, resulted in a
diversity of impacts. This Prototype Report represents the use
of the Manual's methodology to evaluate the entire spectrum of
NEPA predicted impacts for two specific projects. Impacts which
have been evaluated include: water quality, land use changes,
biota, flow augmentation, visual impacts, traffic, construction
impacts, inter-related/other impacts, unresolved issues and grant
conditions.
Completion of the evaluation of the two NEPA projects required
the coordination of numerous interviews and discussions between
the contractor (study teams) and EPA employees. The coordination
required after each initial data gathering consumed approximately
10-15% of the total project evaluation time. Without the in-
volvement of the EPA resource persons, it is doubtful that the
products would reflect the NEPA decision-making process.
V-1
-------
Identification of Projects to be Examined
Two projects were selected by EPA Region V which represented the
spectrum of NEPA decision-making. The Bloomington, Indiana/ pro-
ject was the subject of a complex and detailed draft and final
EIS, while the St. Cloud, Minnesota project received a Negative
Declaration. Both projects were completed during the same
general time period with the final EIS being issued in August,
1976, and the Negative Declaration issued in April, 1976.
V-2
-------
A. St. Cloud, Minnesota (EPA Project No. C270807;
Project Description
The St. Cloud PAN Interceptor Sewer project was the subject of a
Facilities Plan/Environmental Assessment and Supplemental Envir-
onmental Assessment, dated March 1975 and March 1976, respective-
ly. The purpose of the project was to relieve raw sewage dis-
charges (CSO) to the Mississippi River. The selected alternative
resulted in the construction of a sanitary interceptor sewer.
The project was expected to: (1) improve water quality in the
Mississippi River; (2) slightly stimulate land development in the
service area; and (3) result in the destruction of trees (mostly
American Elms) along the chosen interceptor route. A Negative
Declaration was issued on April 16, 1976, by USEPA, Region V. In
1977, final plans and specifications were approved and a NPDES
permit was issued.
Compilation of Data
Two primary sources of information were contacted and requested
to supply both historical and current documentation. These were
USEPA Region V and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Specific documents obtained were:
1. Environmental Assessment of Proposed PAN Intercepting Sewer
dated March 1975.
2. Supplemental Report to the Environmental Assessment on the
PAN Intercepting Sewer dated March 1976.
3. USEPA Region V Negative Declaration dated April 16, 1976.
4. Miscellaneous project correspondence.
Data regarding the current conditions were obtained via a site
visit by the oriqinal studv team.
V-3
-------
Evaluation of Data
Available data was evaluated with respect to three impact cate-
gories identified in the NEPA documents; land use, water quality
and biota (terrestrial). Table V-1 summarizes the findings for
each of these impact categories.
Findings of Analysis
All NEPA predictions, as summarized in Table V-1, were qualita-
tive relative. Only one of the impact predictions, biota, was
based upon documented baseline data. The predictions for water
quality and land use were unsupported in the NEPA documentation.
The prediction for impacts to biota (trees along interceptor
route) were determined to be accurate. No data were collected by
the original study team to determine the accuracy of the qualita-
tive predictions for water quality and land use. Appendix D con-
tains the evaluation forms.
Conclus ions
The documentation available on the St. Cloud Minnesota PAN Inter-
ceptor project, generated by both the grantee and USEPA was lack-
ing in substantive data to support the impact predictions made.
Also, the original study team did not follow the procedures out-
lined in the Manual with respect to the acquisition of baseline
data from available historical records where such data is not
provided in the NEPA documentation.
A diligent use of the Manual would have resulted in the following
additional steps being carried out:
1. Obtain the historical ("before" project) and current ("after"
project) water quality data for the Mississippi River,
upstream and downstream of St. Cloud from STORET.
2. Determine if the qualitative impact prediction ("improved
water quality") was accurate.
V-4
-------
TABLE V-l
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IMPACT CATEGORIES
Water Quality Land Use
Terrestrial Biota
NEPA PREDICTION
(documentation)
Improved Water
Quality
(No baseline data
to support pre-
diction)
Slight stimulation
of land develop-
ment
(No baseline data
to support predic-
tion)
Tree removal along
interceptor route,
mitigation and com-
plete revegetation
(tree count under-
taken)
CURRENT CONDITION
(Current data
presumed avail-
able but not
obtained)
(Current data pre-
sumed available
but not obtained)
Revegetation com-
pleted based on
field observation
V-5
-------
3. Obtain "before" project and current or "after" project land
use data.
4. Determine if the qualitative impact prediction ("slight
stimulation of land development") was accurate.
5. Include the results of these evaluations in the case study
report and appendicize the back-up data.
V-6
-------
B. Bloomington, Indiana (EPA Project No. C180560)
Project Description
The sewage treatment facilities projects for the South Blooming-
ton and Lake Monroe Service Areas were originally developed in
two separate facilities plans. Regionalization was a major con-
sideration and resulted in the consolidated of the two planning
areas with the City of Bloomington acting as lead agency. The
facilities plans were submitted to EPA as one document with a
request for 75 percent federal funding.
The facilities plan recommended construction of a new regional 20
mgd, single stage, complete mix, activated sludge WWTP with sand
filtration of effluent at a site located near the confluence of
Salt Creek and Clear Creek. Sludge was to be aerobically
digested followed by lagooning and disposal by soil injection.
The existing WWTP was to be abandoned. The new regional plant
was to serve the South Bloomington Service Area (17 mgd) and the
Lake Monroe Regional Waste District (3 mgd). Flows from South
Bloomington were to be transported to the new plant through a new
50 mgd gravity interceptor constructed along a 13.4 mile route
adjacent to Salt Creek.
Following initial review of the facilities plan by EPA, a number
of deficiencies were recognized. This led to the issuance of a
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on May 14, 1975. A Draft EIS
was published in March 1976. It examined eleven categories o£
issues:
1. Regionalization of the two planning areas,
2. The treatment process,
3. Feasibility of renovation and expansion of the existing
plant,
4. Plant capacity and location,
5. Trade offs between a Clear Creek site versus the Salt
Creek site,
6. Present worth of alternatives,
7. Distribution of costs,
V-7
-------
8. Sludge treatment and disposal,
9. Environmental impacts of alternatives,
10. Induced growth around Lake Monroe, and
11. Mitigation of adverse environmental impacts.
The Final EIS was issued in August, 1976. The NEPA process
rejected the concept of regionalization, and, thus, recommended
facilities for the South Bloomington Service Area only. This
eliminated the need for the 13.4 mile interceptor and associated
environmental impacts since a site much closer to Bloomington was
suitable (the Dillman Road site). Also, since a regionalized
plant would not be constructed, the growth and development of the
Lake Monroe area induced by easily accessible sewage treatment
facilities under the regionalized plan was eliminated. The
single service area population was smaller than that under
regionalization, therefore, the capacity of the plant was reduced
to 15 rngd. Assuming 15 mgd alternatives, the present worth
savings of the NEPA site and project over the facilities plan
site and project was over $11 million.
The proposed NEPA project was a 15 mgd two-stage activated sludge
plant with rapid sand filtration to be constructed at the Dillman
Road site. It would serve the South Bloomington Service Area
with potential service for Smithville and Sanders. Sludge would
be aerobically digested, dewatered by centrifugation, and dis-
posed of in an environmentally acceptable manner in consideration
of the potentially excessive PCB and heavy metal concentrations.
With the exception of Smithville and Sanders, the remainder of
the Lake Monroe District would be adequately served by its
existing and proposed local facilities.
Following issuance of the Final EIS, the Army Corps of Engineers
raised several concerns regarding the need to relocate approxi-
mately 2,000 feet of Clear Creek in order to use the Dillman Road
site. As a result, alternative site layouts were investigated.
In January, 1977, a supplement to the Final EIS was issued des-
cribing a new site configuration at Dillman Road. This new lay-
out not only eliminated the need to relocate Clear Creek, but it
also eliminated the need for flood protection, provided better
V-8
-------
access, facilitated gravity flow through the plant and resulted
in a present worth cost savings of $332,000.
The new recommended NEPA project at the Dillman Road site was
expected to result in the following types of impacts:
A. Short-term Construction Related Impacts
1. Destruction of vegetation in interceptor rights-of-way.
2. Disruption of stream bed and banks at four pipe cross-
ings.
3. Stream siltation during site development (five feet of
soil over bedrock, 6 to 12% slopes).
4. Minimal impact to railroad traffic at three tunnelled
pipe crossings.
B. Long-term Impacts
1. Improved water quality in Clear Creek due to the elimina-
tion of the existing (Winston Thomas WWTP) discharge.
2. Continued augmentation of Clear Creek flow by the Dillman
Road WWTP and dilution of upstream pollutants.
3. Approximately 10,500 feet of Clear Creek between old WWTP
discharge and new WWTP discharge reduced to natural
flow rates.
4. Minimal visual impact.
5. Minimal impact on traffic flow.
6. Enhanced recreational opportunity on Clear Creek.
7. No induced growth around Lake Monroe.
C. Other Concerns Requiring Additional Study
1. Determine if chlorine disinfection of effluent would
result in the formation of toxic chlorinated organic
compounds in concentrations which would present a risk
to the environment or human health (Bedford water
intake 20 miles downstream).
2. Determine if nitrate in the plant effluent would present
a hazard to drinking water supplies downstream
(Bedford).
V-9
-------
3. Determine the extent of the PCB/heavy metal problem in
sludge, take corrective actions as necessary to ensure
safe agricultural application, and determine the best
application rates for sludge produced at the new plant
relative to the different soil types on which it will
be applied.
General and specific mitigation techniques were discussed in the
EIS. With mitigation, none of the adverse impacts were expected
to be substantial.
Construction of the project began in 1978 and the plant became
operational in June 1982 with the following effluent discharge
limitations:
BOD - 10 mg/1
SS - 10 mg/1
TP - 1.0 mg/1 May to October
NH3~N - 2.0 mg/1 May to November
PCB - 0.1 ug/1
FC - 200/100 ml April to October
Compilation of Data
Certain NEPA documents were obtained from EPA regarding the
Bloomington project:
1. Investigation of key issues to be addressed in the EIS
for sewage treatment facilities for the South Bloomington
and Lake Monroe Service Area, Bloomington, Indiana, dated
December, 1975.
2. Draft EIS, dated March, 1976.
3. Final EIS, dated August, 1976.
4. Supplement to Final EIS, dated January 26, 1977.
Current data was obtained by the original study team through
personal observation and discussion with a local county planner
V-10
-------
(Mr. Daniel Combs) during a site visit. Additional information
was obtained by the edit/review study team through telephone con-
versations .
Evaluation of Data
Available data gathered by the original study team and the edit/-
review study team were evaluated for the two short-term impact
categories, five long-term impact categories and two grant condi-
tions discussed in the EIS which cover all the types of impacts
previously discussed. All predictions were qualitative. Table
V-2 summarizes the findings with respect to each predicted
impact. Appendix D contains the evaluation forms.
Findings of Analysis
All of the qualitative predictions made with respect to the
Dillman Road WWTP were determined through this evaluation to have
been accurate. It should be noted that the effluent limits were
relaxed due to a re-evaluation of the low flow characteristics of
Clear Creek at the Dillman Road site. The original effluent
limits and the actual effluent limits are given in the evaluation
form in Appendix D-2.
Two unanticipated impacts resulted from the project. Blasting
carried out by the interceptor construction contractor resulted
in damage to a nearby house foundation. The damage was repaired
through the contractor's insurance. Also, the small community of
Clear Creek, Indiana (15-20 homes), was provided access to city
water as partial payment for interceptor and water line easements
through the area.
V-1 1
-------
ip£
CJ *4J
••* Otf
O 3
1x2 CJ
^ ;j
a- <
i
i
i
•
i
5
<
^
s
5
i s
i £j
1 <
i |
7^ 1
1 !
2 '
7- '
> i. i
it; i.
_j — , i
-»% ^ ' i
S- as |
1 i
v; —
rj
M- 1
' 'jl
2S
a-
5
<
^ ,
i ^ t
!
!
! l
1
i
!
1 t
I
i
! .-
' :- '
! —
! * !
! 2-
' ^
: "" 1
; i
a
01
>
73
01
01
a.
o
CJ
C
o
|«4
CB
01
SO
01
>
01
x
LJ
3
4-1
U
CO
§•
•*•
^
s
c
=
cfl
O
32
.
CO
C I i-1
U 4-1
01 CO
4-1 01
1 u
4-1 U
U 0)
O r-
u
01
>•!
§
0
s
2
u
—4
3
C
]
4
U
3
O LJ
CJ
•0 CO
01 a.
— S
Ld 1^
LJ
CO 01
CJ i-l
43
S CO
O U
— i 3
co ca
BO 01
— S
u
-4 O
s z
•f
"3
4-1
CJ
CO C
a. 3
CO
— BO
CO -4
w .
~c S
••4
r
c
••••
^J
CO
4J
— -
•i"4
C/.5
s
u
01
4J
1
30
O
_3
V3 Cfl
0) 01
>• >
«»
u
3
3
e
•^
4J
e
0)
01
>
01 ^ 3
30 ^ ~t U
co so***** a.
U E BO fl
Ol S —
> <"H
< — • 41
1 — <
-T i -a
» a
— 33 C/J U
01
Cfl
4Q
C
— o o -^.
r"i c*1 fn C
•^^. ^. **«^ ^-4
O — i -T 1
«~ «-4 | •«!
1 1 — --
•«^- — CM W
E 3
r- — 1 -^ ~^. -^ -^ O 01
-•»• — . BO BO so BOC >
SOBOSSSS— 3
SS -^i-
o c o — c a.
c a • • . . o s
i-4 — -* -H CM LH ^ CN ™->
i i i i i i e
01
4-1
Z 1
1 30
O f*1 33 C
C V3 3- -Z U U 3
2
"i w4
"~ to
4-1 3
c c-
01
y u
— -J
'4* .-J
>4n CC
-£ 3
01
^
CO
u
3
CO
01
r
Ol
CO
BO
CO
•o
c
CO
^^
U
•wJ
"O
jS
^ri
2
"
g
CO
01
w
u
•JJ
a.
3
g
01
01
3
u
J
ff^.
a
0
33
4^
^
11
S
01
3
u
£L
e
•^
01
30
U
CO
*c
CJ
CO
•o
U4
3
s
01
u
CO
e
3
S
•c
•c
c
CO
•JJ
*"
^j
CJ
CO
a.
E
01
CO
01
>
TJ
CO
4J
c
CO
u
n4
04
C
BO
CO
3
en
4-1
U
CO
^
S
1-«
^— *
15
E
«•
C
«^
s
1— '
'C
2
en
•i— t
>
CO
cy
0
t^
IL^
CO
U
4J
c
*^4
0)
BO
CO
t~.
CJ
L t
c
C8
CJ
uw
^-
e
BO
CO
3
Z
CJ)
4-1
CJ
CO
Q.
E
.p*
—4
eg
E
•*•*
C
U
01
CO
0)
u
a.
33
01
^y
00
^
14^
3
CO
eo
01
CO
CO
O)
u
CJ
2
^4
^J
.p4
C
3
^
O
•a
c
Q
CO
jr
4-1
3
O
BO
-a
01
CJ
2
•o
C
•^4
3
Ol
Cfl
•"^
TJ
C
^
^J
01
3
JJ
3
S
U
^
cc
M
V3
0)
Cfl
C
C
O
O
e
u
O
3
CO
BO
3 73
3 Ol
•c -i
01 3
T4 cr
U 01
U IU
CO
u
-a 73
Ol 01
S Ol
U CJ
3 X
'-u oi
CJ ec
-. SO
s: M
^ "3
u LJ
H C 73
— 3 £
01 —< CO
73 4-> 4J
— CO -J!
73—01
3 3 S
3 J= 71
CJ ^,
4-1 ^
= 30 33
CB C u
O —i 01
•r4 U T3
— 2 Ol
0.73 '•>-
a.
—* I
3 73
73 S
C
CO c
—
73
0) —i
a. to
3 C
> u
Ol to
73 U
01
c a.
CO 3
C
CO
•JJ
3
co
-o
0)
30
3
11
_cu
2
"vj
CC
CJ
V-12
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA BASE FOR PROTOTYPE REPORT
IMPACTS ON WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS
-------
APPENDIX A-1
LEGEND* FOR LIST OF GRANTS AND
GIGS INFORMATION FOR SELECTED FACILITY NUMBERS
FOR WETLAND/FLOODPLAIN STUDY
87 - Project Step Code
1 = Step 1
2 * Step 2
3 = Step 3
4 = Combined Steps 2 and 3
N4 - F-EIS Code and Date (Region V)
T = original target date
N ~ Finding of No Significant Impact
A = Record of Decision
Project Award - year, month, day
T = original target date
A = final event, grant award accepted
%CP - Percent Complete
CP - Completed
N5 - year, month, day
T = original target date
TA = rescheduled/municipal backlog
TD = rescheduled/contractor-consultant problems
A » final event - project completed
Needs Number - Facility Number
For complete interpretation of all items, see complete
GICS legend.
A-1
-------
09 03 «
a a a o a
0 1
z
s
O (
z
T)
« I
» Id l
p> *
* ?'
«t uj *r «
ui r >• j
TOTFL4 CONSl
= ST DESIST fMH
•?i?i 04:
a. u» r- •
Ul w O <
c-
JL * *"•
Ijm 3 N f
U u* C1 -
or -'
or o
IT a. en
a
Z ' w *•• • •
U.I O f r
>- W O < t f.
•« a: a. j
j?i:-c. i
r T
1 N
:r kiv~uocci>i f
i. .* »» ^
a. « .4 '
^ «^ ^ r* i
,* *• i>. e~* *
4"» nt 3 ^ r*
s
3 a
r z
ERUNLOH
» 0*»1I
» r.\»Tt
4.330 0006 15 101
i n <
I C I
i >f t
i 0 C
1 A.
•0
o «•
(ft 1
u>
c
•i h
1 ^
^J
fj
o
•1 t
a
o
7
. N» ^
R
9
T.
a
3
3
•
u
z*
«
i i
•
i
*
t f
i r
i C
i
r
•
«
r
1 1
r
\ *
i -
1 t
) r
i '
• -
ft
« r
i
i
i
i
i
j )
* 1
1
• i
* t
i t
^ r
e i
» <
?
• ;
3 <
t (
»
i i
i
i
1
1
i
i
F
1 C
i t
\ r
1 C
i f
h
(
1 *
P
*
* <
. r
r
.
i i
i
h
•» (
. f
t
E j
3 <
e a
E ;
3 <
3 C
•
3 <
i /
, t
\ r
> <
) C
l t
i <;
i c
i f
»
f
i •
C
*
" C
• *
e
b, p
c
/
i .
i
[
-
u
c
t t
t I
'KCND03
» COKNC
) O (
a
C!
(3 <
o *
o *
(1 -
1 V* N
r? (
1 O (
> CJ C
o <
rr f
O f
n
•
^
n
o
•4
J
-1 1
11
O C
t « .
r.
}
3
:
i
•
u*
» <
« •
r
f
•
> f
^
)
1
)
» >
t (
» r
* C
> C
> C
\ c
. "
I
> r
• C
i
i
i
1 •
t (
3 C
A i,
t 1
i :
1 1
i <
» c
i e
• c
> e
) r
f C
r r
i C
i
i^.
1 C
t
i.
3 O (
* v* t
c r i
1 3
1 Ul
i a <
o
a
•A
O
o
n '
0 <
r^ (
IK >
O <
O (
O 1
O c
rs f
'O <
N f
a (
0 <
o
J.
i :
* i
i-1 «
O'
3 (
rt i
i
» <
l
i r
i r
i <
1 c
F C
: r
<
D <
i
t
3 0 1
i
1 Utf
I O
i
i
i
i
0 '
O i
o <
a <
e i
o <
a <
0 (
ffl c
•O '
O '
O '
O f
' >
t T. C 1
. fc. H <
I
* « <
1 X •>
9Oai
3 o a <
> e
> a
i «
i a
> a
i a
> o a e
i a o <
1 •« I1* <
l .r 0 3
> O O '
> a o c
i a a fl
i o a <
1 O Cj l
» *• o *
> ci n f
< a
• •* f i
<& a <
C
t,
c
J .J -J •
' Ml Ut *
£2;
& o o •
' r^ pj ^
C C
K ar v
u u
L .j
i u
W Ul 1
i a <
a
a
n
a
I 0 (
1 O t
• r- C
i a M
1 i-> 0
1 o C
i O C
t a <,
iesl
^
Ol<
1 f"-»l t
2
I W (
r/
c :
U h
X 3
»
1 t
• 1
) (
i r
1 r
I *J
• t
1 t
1 C
t C
1 f
1 <
(
r
E
1 I
r
i
»
i
i
1 1
i «
1 1
> i
i <
• <
t (
1 C
t <
<
t
1 r"
< •
3 »
/i
4
<
> <
^ t
1 '
i <
i <
i <
» (
I i
I C
i i
t
i /
i f
X « X <
EC ASSOC
r MAVNE
3 e
i
• •« >. c
U t-
* • M
3 o o <
0 (
m <
K* <
«• -
O <
a i
I a m i
i n 4.1 i
> ft a '
IOO'
' o a <
>OO!
1 O O C
a »• i
) — 0 f
i K N. r
•>• o <
o ^^ ^
U f 1 i
n >•> >
N. F«» '
^ O '
•r •« -
T •»
O 1* '
I C> O f
f 1 l-i <
« :
3 I
f» .
a
C
n i
»
• >
9 t
1
)
(
1
(
\
1 ?
1 (
» f
i f
i <
i (
i t
i *
1 C
i r
r
<
C
r «
u a « i
C W9 .
W O
> 0 (
• «J
m fl « 1
•• t O »
310 OOOCOO BS6C4
L«0 OG0900 000V
i »^ O <
> O O <
1 O O C
i O O C
i O O C
' *• O C
1 O O C
: N 740622 j
K 770403 J
o o <
O o <
no*.
O O t
> -1 0» -
\
U <
1 1
i
»
3
«• fl
•i
3 C
i
1 i
i f
1 1
t C
i C
1 C
i e
1 a
1 <
: {
f
(
«
f
f
(
<
C
J
3 t
rt
a
•
<
*
D 1
t •
(
%
1 C
> *
<
C
1 <
G
e
i f
<
t
c
U i
E
3 I
•» ]
•* »
1 C
i i
i <
1 C
1 C
i e
t c
I C
I G
1 C
I G
<
<
U h
s :
3 <
k* I
• •
I C
i t
t
i <
i C
1 t
I C
i C
' C
<
1 <•
t
c
u u
r a
» e
» i
M •
I <
I (
1 h
1 C
I C
1 1
1 1
1 C
1 L.
1 C
1 f
(
c
Z w
J IK W * Ul O
1 z z * n
O 19 t
.J I- I
> e o a o a
W I <
• M M O M | <
) o o o o a <
Q v
a i
O I
•0 C
a <
e <
i a a ooa <
» o n a o o x
i ^ a o o — c
i a o o o a e
i a n n o u c
i a a a a a c
i a o o a o -.
i f «- O O O «
o o a a r> (
» o ^ o a o <
0 O O O O
2 z y z T- i
•* i •» ai :» <
o a a o o .
o o o o a
i-> c i o
) f
1
|
|
1
1
1
> c
1 (
1 f
1 f
1 (
» c
4
*
i e
• f
^
t
I
i
j
C
> Q
« «z)
2*
U UJ
E Z
» *•
J ,j
a ui
r z
a a
' r
I O
i e
15;
i 0 <
i a <
1 O C
i O <
-* -
e
A
Q <
o e
*/»
i
o
o ^
31 '
a
i
•
t
i (
i <
\ c
i r
I C
i r
• c
p
i
. (
i <
* i
r
«t
* z
N4 <
*>•
r ,J
* 3
J Z
41 O
• W
E
rt O
J A
IO
to
i a
i •»
1 O
in
i a
IO
Q
t **
• O
i
I
l ^
!£
0
Ut
_l
'II
w
o
•J
<
C
V
?
«» 1
z
<
N> 1
J
a
z
n
W i
••1
9
) (
)
3 f
* r
I f
i
1 <
) <1
3 c
'
. (
» (
' 1
. tl
1
<
1 (
(
1
t
<
1
1
c
t
'
i
r
r
j
A
r
• «
• t
i e
t
1 1
t
i
i
•
•
'
)
) l
1 1
1 4
1 <
1 '
} 1
1 '
1 I
> 1
> <
t •
1
1
i
»
1
t
»
> ^
> <
:
> <
i
l ;
f
i
?
r-
r
j f
• §
2
a.
-------
M Z
.4
3
w z r
ft.
a
TOTFLt* CONS
Sf OcSIiN FI*W
ft. 11
A
2? ;
u a
» Z r
UJ '
UJ .J .
n a. »
o »
CE O
V*
OE A r
IB
C l»
* u
UJ O \.
M
C o r -f ! .
u1 O
-3
O * r
tft >U »"
»•> •* ;
Z ,
» o *
U* v*.
.? '
_j • * ;
(V «
;• "• r :
m >- >.i l>
M r " f
O \.t 7 "
3
,j
;
J
J
t
>
i
i
>
' <
t
n
ci
•
f
(
,
1
C
f
:
5
(
*
'
n
A
I
» i
I N
l (
l <
I c
i (
1 (
1 fl
l «
i r
1 c
1 C
i <
, *
•
• f
f!
a
i f
* *
t n
n
i (^
' i*
£
H
f
1
.
*
f
•1
a c
r i
* i
j •
i <
• t
1 u
i e
> f
1 C
> e
i U
• V
> C.
i e
i r
; c
i f
i •*
1 C
1 «
' r
a
> 0
, ^
• n
l 1*
l f*
i r
N
C
> *•
C
r
i
i :
*
r-
f
.
<
^
rl
ti
>
i
t
<
t
t
A
e ^
u
b
•
> r
i ^
^
1 C
1 1
! C
t f
f1
» f
i <•
tf
! <
i C
i r
C
C
i
f
1
1*
i
j
i
i
*
i
<
i
\
^
,.
£
<»
M
*•
M
J
9
A
ff
(
.f
C 3
^
<
i
*"
r
r
C
r^
C
a
,.
C
r
*
r
f-
(
•
J*
» <
»
1
I
i
c
.
«
t
c
c
f
c
r
c
c
e
c
r
re
fN
a
e
N
^
;
c
c
:
1
:
'
f
S*
3
i
1
1
i
t
>
•
i
ft
ft
f
(
f
'
t
O
a e a e q o
>t VI M M M M M
w w
1 J 1 J
luaoooooo
i^'MOOOOO*^
ooooooao
aoaoaooo
oooooooo
ooooooao
e- f « o ^ o -• n
e)o»T<"O'^o-»n
aooooooo"
.'. nl .1* -u eu * TI i\j
"
9 . (^ P ^. ^ ^ ^
*• **l f*| f*i M Pn *
O 'J n r ) « a '
* *• ^ .? e sr ;
.- •• : ?• .• r ? /• i
n r» o o e c o o :
n n -3 -3 -.1 3 3 TI ;
n ?*, m ?. ^ ^ s £ r
^ ^. ^i "i rj M*M **4
L
c
E
1
r
1
1
1
' f
1 *
1 r<
> r
3
<•
k
C
f
r
Jj
e c
**:
CHARD f»
O
o
a
ei
o
o
o c
a o
0 C
n c
o -
«- t
w
O r
ai <
<
f
r>
•
a.
r (
f
•x >
o •
-
r> ,
O r
r* r
r i.
h
! j
C
r
C
c
e
e
c
c
f>
a
^
'
"
••
.
r
A
U 1
u
C i
m
•
•
, ,
' <
t
i
f
r
(
c
C
c
c
r
f
q
c
p-
u
i
L
.
'"•
uisli
A M M VI
• M MM
B 0 0 0
. & A a.
: r c r
• jr 2 z
1 1* -4 Kl
1 O O O C
i o a o c
> O O W>
. a o in t
i n o o c
i n a o e
t o o o c
i O O 0 f
i O CT O «
o o o c
' o o o f
ei a o "
o a a c
C' 0 0 C
o *. o c
c
f
c
V
i.
3" 7! 3! •
3 3 3 (
.1 ul IU '
J _1 -1 -
O O C! C
IM PI «| *
n ,N «
I vt
• z
i -a
I 0 C
1 O I-
> o
i -» e
1 O C
) e? c
) a e
1 O •"
> a c
i a e
i a c,
0 «
& e
irt -
53520 <
e
a.
a- s
3 >
a -
' :
T :
t .
0 C
tM "•
fM fll
K
«
<
M
K
9
A
L.
1
i
i
i
i
t
i
,
• i
t.
i
• i
«
C
V
•>
C
c
r
;
c
^
*
r
f
r
E9
»
•
1 C
> c
1 <
1 f
1
c
c
c
*
1.
c
f.
1
-
c
o
E n x
VI
1 M
r > 7
t ^ ^0
> aa
o
o
i a o c
a o c
' o a e
i a o c
i a o •
i O U •
0 *""
0 O C
^ o ^
p
•1
w
L
ft
O
3 :
C> O f
3 3 I
T i ;
< t >.
r3 O c
£~'
IMfMrt
U U
• *
M M
a a
k,
i »
60 2(0000 9«l<
a '
l o
O
• O '
o
a (
•O f
a. >
a c
3 .
0 .
UJ f
a '.
IM f
nj rl
M
a
*
a
o
a
V
0 <
M 1
«
M
D
D l
9 i
'u i
0 l
9 I
1 <
1 l
1 <
> <
J (
J <
1 <
* *
f
1 C
, *
c
r
C
r
h
«
»
<:
r
e
J
Z
•4
»
9
3
m
3
rt
<
j
•> 4
>
)
I f
t
9
)
) C
» C
1 C
' C
1 <•
1 C
1 *
1 V
i C
1 f»
a
ff
c
^
w
M
c
c
r
a
H
a
1
S
•*
z
o
/>
<
^
L
l
i
i
s
t
i
i
) c
t
r
l
1 C
1 C
1 C
1 I
h
c
*
c
t
V
;
c
c
h
»
1
1
1
1
1
1
. 1
<
h
c
t>
t
<
H
f
1
1
1
>
1
v
f
(
t
1
) t
;
e
f
f
•m
*
il
(
i
i
c
1
i
)
<
v
;
e
<
5
* -
W
M U
M M
O
l
M <
1
) ]
1 t 1
1
t i
1 C i
i (
i C
e
<
< C '
f
i a '
C
e
•
Sl
4
J
II
e
^
f
0
f i
c. i
ni
w
i*
•
M
£
; »
1 1
1 1
r i
« <
;;;
« i
C 1
C i
Z i M
C «
< <
C ' C
C i C
c *•
• c
(. 1 »
1*
, ' *,
»
t. 1
r t <
» . .
r t r
f^i r
3
0
kf
L*
IU
Z
•
l
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i f
m
h
i i
f
i h
e
1 ^
V
C
C
fv
11
f
»
fc
(.
.
s
C
p
•« Ml
3 O
M W
* I*
1 M
1 ae
> 19
i O
, ft,
' 40
1 O
e
o
Q
a
o
O r >
VI < 1
o .
O '>
O c I
a <
in
O
a
o
>* c
a .
•O s
>
>
Z 0
3
w ^
UJ v
UJ >
3 1
'" l.
—
CT C
^j r
•" u
at
e
w
tttf
I-
M
a
z
THOPOLtK
K
a
o
o
(A
a
o
0
1 1 .* a
( 1 IW O
« i a ««
< i o a
<» o o
' i o a
c i a o
oSS
< l O O
N. »
0 —
!>. K
W W
e i o. i>-
.'0 U
. (VJ >V
*
z
1
C
<
e
V '
V
»
i
•^ '«
r O <"*
i -O 0
n O o
£££
I
-0
UJ
z
2
i
-------
-_-
OOOOOOOOOOOOOaOeOOOOMOOOOO
t
a
<
b
»
«
>
m z •
p- <
a <
VH U* i
-W T. I . 1
« w z
k-
z * <
a —
w »
3 J! '
_l 0 I
» •« r
«• a c
k» '
M t4
< p» <•
& VI C
u> u c
c
r
a. .
a *. r
ui r r
ttj a pw
X > "
HI- C
M *j V
O « 1"
X 0
M
or a. o
a
s
Z u t
LU a r
«. i «
•• at a: i
M a
« Z i*
a j >
u o x -r
L1 ^ «
a <-
K x :
^ M
* fl! k
O M.
a r s
A <
^ -X r
%. < r /•
o ct r c
r :
3 «
* V
E :
3
1
t 1
t t
1 1
| (
1 f
I;
i *
i t
. C
r>
, w
^
r
c
i C1
1 *
1 (•
! ',
N>
1
1 (
1
M
E a
3 <
J U
E 1
"* i
3 •
• i
t <
> k
i ,
i ^
r
I C
1 ^
l C
1 f
t f
i r
• c
t e
' f
c
*
i r
r
i r
r
c
f
1 W
i **
< *
c
r
h
: f
. f
Ezzzzzzzzzara
9OQOOOOOOOOC
»-»««««««-««
aoonoooooooi
3eoaac9oopoo<
DOOOOOOOOCiOC
s O f^ C^ ^ O f 3 O ^ O *
c>ooc»oc3 a o o f
1 O *tt i»i O fl rj r j ry (M C
i o cj n o a u oraac
*v* »* *- j, o f*» rt o rj « c
oeapoaoooooc
aooocjaooouf
oanooooaooc
i
•^ p^ 1^ rt ^ ** irt ^ ^ 0 <
(•a CM *M *i rj rw rj *-i f>j O <
:•; ?, s u 2 :,' £ < s s i,
: K o n T o
•* >. (\. :• rt t* ci
U rv. ;.j »* tu \.i »-« UJ )
.1 *t C* J k- a: . J k- w9 >•
l» 1* J U. U' {> J ill ll -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O -rt O c
t 1
9 e
J u
1 I
» <
(
• 1
1 <
u
c
e
e
e
c
e
e
c
C
*
^
a
«
M
U
=
r
n
> o o o o o oooao
Z 33
eaoooaoeoniM
oooooaooooo
oooeooeaoont
aaciooonaaoo<
o-ooooooaaao-
nooouaaarsaOK
S22!GS^?:2"223
-^ *N* t^ (^ u^ O O -O ao > O -
oaoaoaaooaoc
ooooouoooaor
oooooaoooaoc
O O CJ vJ? ^ O O s3 (J O O f
O O ^ O O O C) C3 O ^ O C
aaocjootjnoaoc
e««*I"«"^^fc,
» N » 0
— •• U O
•o o r* f*.
a & < A -u u» »
j at ».«»'-• -3 «
v3 O >- .» u 3 T (x Z c
UJ
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 !
O W^ f"5 CT O ^ O ^ '* ^ ^ C
Q O O C5 O C^ O ^ O C~* ^3 C
1
I
1
»
1 C
t <
t f
i e
1 C
i r
1 C
i (
I C
t M
' *
fr
a
^ 1
«
1
1 r
r
r.
L
4
I
<
<
<
(
i
I
I
C
1 (
1 f
1 <
1 <
c
f
i C
€
f
*
C
c
c
w
f
P
f
0
1.
f
1
i
;
-
*
r
y
e
y
E
3 <
3 <
3 I
•
n
U
!
3 <
1 (
1 <
1 <
r (
I C
i (
1 C
i r
• d
a
c
1 c
1 1'
, 1
1 I
» c
y r
li
U Ud i
r z >
k
I
U UJ (
e z t
a e
3 0 1
B « 1
A VI
y U! 9
t X i
) O c
o e
m e
f '.
O t
O C
0 C
i o •
1 O C
i o c
1 O C
i a t
i a t
I ** r
»0 r
' N. »
' > C
' 0 f
0
' V »
u c
*.
Z C
i a .
1 a c
0 »
A
•
4
J
3
4
K
•
e
i
3
l
l
l
1
l
l i
• <
i i
i i
i i
i i
i <
i t
i (
(
f
.
C
c
e
i
c
»
p>
'
t
L
c
r
c
9 O
3 3
3 3
* «
1*0 680000 (
»fcn i
n a i
3 a i
3 a <
3 a <
a a i
g o i
10
w*.
» 0 «1
1 O v
I
(
1
k
I
i ife C
1 O
> h- -
i f^
( UJ H
I 0 C
>f N
. !»«• f*
) n -
u M n
/"^
t
<
t
i
*
i
t
<
* *
* f
1 P
3 t
3 C
3 <
3 fl
3 C
3 e
I C
) C
) e
c
c
f
a
• C
1 U1
C
c
f
b
C
' 1
1 *"
4
r
k
t
*
r
n
J t
3 <
ft «
A *
« «
«J -
k e
•» «
i :
1 C
t >
i *
t c
1 <
1 C
1 <
1 Cl
1 (•
i C
i e*
i C
i C
. «
' C
1
• 1
c
1 Q
i n
b
f
)
^
e
e
»
•
c
f
*
T
r
i
b
J *
3 «
ft
ft a
c <
*
j
K «
•1
• '
l C
i U
1 C
l C
1 c
1 C
' C
i C
i C
i C
i C
i C
i C
c
• G
w
a
c
f
a
*
C
*
(
Y
t
t,
f
f
t
f
rt
J i
* «
ft i
C «
E 3
3 C
i i
3 :
v %
i
c
<•
i
t
c
h
C
<
C
c
f
c
c
e
c
c
e
r
f
N
C
c
f.
c
Vj
C
r
c
.9
J
ft
ft
K
E
3
1
3
4
:
>
4
»
9
i
9
i
i
i
9 <
It «
i <
l C
i e
1 1
i
i
i v
' C
e
s
u
r
p
*
M
t
I
k
t,
I
h
t
1
<
(
1 <
1 C
1 C
B <
i C
1 C
e
c
t,
e
c
r
r
e
p
*
c
»
L
I
r
< *
*
*>
i
* i
E
*
u :
K
1 *
C
» I
to I
M t
- 1
> i
» c
0
*
c
c
c
c
t C
l C
' C
t C
1 C
1 C
1 *
l C
1
t
i C
1 <
i C
9 *
1 p
i C
. k
c
1 h
i i
t t
t \
• r
• C
i r
K
•* i
J t
U t
E .
•4 •
3 e
K t
R t
J
• ,
, (
1 <
i <
i i
i (
i (
i (
> <
(
(
< (
(
' (
(
•
C
{
e
f
c
t
c
N
i C
1 t
c
h
e
c
r
E K i
* ** '
0 O 1
1
E Z '
»
* « «
3 0
K m i
K or
U UJ l
t C i
l n <
3 at
1 •»
i a
•> o
i a
> o
j r» n
1 O C
i a c
i o a
1 O <"
' ft f
i a e
a. t
•- c
a «
*
e
e
%
<
i
a *
V
o :
^a ;
O r
u (
a '
VI •
9- <•
O •
r>j *
J w
E X
* * 1
rt Wl t
J U
3 a i
n vi i
J U<
: V
i 1*1 i
i Ml ^
1 N .
10 <
0
a
0
0
< O (
> n fl
i « <
i f» C
i o c
•o e
i a c
i o e
«* a
> 0
IM
a c
o c
' >• *
«:
^ u
a: «
l 0 3
Tl f
„ .
IM "
* I
> :
^ •
E
* k
J V
* 1
f •
i *
I C
ft
c
c
c
c
c
1 C
u1
1 C
i e
i r
i e
» c
> c
a
9
C
fl
a
V
C
0
n
C
f
u
c
1
»
t
*,
L,
1
i
5
C
• »
r
r
•
r*
i
i
9 t
t I
M 1
; .
l V
i
i
• i
t
• f<
C
«
<
f
«
w
C
C
c
c
*•
c
c
*
h
<
»>
V
fa
k.
L
<
f
c
i
fl
».
C
i
«
c
u
e
»
u
•
e
^
c
i
<
t
<
<
c
r
c
(
c
c
c
c
h
w
^
•
(
'
e
f
*
e
c
,
c
c
"
k
i
c
a
,1
•:
F
e
3
-------
iu ae r
a o «
« W 7
t
n r
z v
o »
H- *>
O W
X
« »•>
• VI
O ff.
W >'
•n 4.
o r
O. 0
ft. u
M
«• a.
W I M U
u a
•t a-
w e 4.
x 1
* 4.
H. a
u O
X Z
e «
3 3
C X.
I I
w
iu 4^
O
O
n
^
O C
a. >
a. •/
•( S.
n o
V* C
x " r
•o tt 3
O U Z
i
D
z
-------
APPENDIX A-2
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR
SCHNEIDER, INDIANA
(Grant Number 180444002)
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this field investigation was to observe actual
building impacts and mitigating measures that resulted from the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities and an inter-
ceptor in Schneider, Indiana. The findings from this report form
the data base for the aggregate analysis of wetland and flood-
plain issues.
Scope of Issues (Project Background and Predicted Impacts)
The Town of Schneider, Indiana, constructed a 0.065 mgd oxidation
ditch treatment plant one mile north of the developed residential
area at the southwest corner of Ackerman Avenue and Brown Ditch.
A sewer system was installed for the town with a main interceptor
connecting the Town to the plant. Effluent is discharged to
Brown Ditch immediately adjacent to the plant. The treatment
plant and the entire service area are located within the 100-year
floodplain of the Kankakee River, located 1/2 mile south of town.
The purpose of the planned construction was to abate existing
groundwater contamination from malfunctioning septic systems and
surface water pollution to Dike Ditch south of town. Figures
showing project location, floodplain boundaries, and relative
position on a USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map are found at
the end of this report.
The predicted impacts were derived from the 1976 Facilities Plan
for the Town of Schneider written by the engineering firm, PTGR,
Inc.
0 There will be a two acre minimum site requirement for
the treatment plant which will cause a permanent loss
of the current land use - sod farming. This land is
within the 100-year floodplain (paraphrased from fac-
ility plan). This is a quantitative impact.
A-6
-------
"The construction of the treatment facility will be at
an elevation five to eight feet above existing ground
elevation to provide flood protection." This mitigat-
ing measure was based on an IDNR recommendation
(located in Correspondence Appendix) that the finished
elevation of facilities be at least three feet above
the 100-year floodplain elevation of 635 feet mean sea
level (msl). The plant site is somewhere between
625-630 feet msl. This statement may be interpreted
to predict that (a) changes in flood storage capacity
of the floodplain will occur with the construction of
the mounded area for the plant site and (b) there will
be localized changes in drainage patterns in the
floodplain around the plant site. Interpreted predic-
tion (a) can be considered quantitative because an
actual volume can be calculated which represents two
acres covering a depth of five to eight feet (between
216, 264 and 346, 112 cubic feet). Statement (b) is a
qualitative prediction.
Methods
Prior to field investigation, the following data base materials
were collected:
9 Schneider Quadrangle - USGS Topographic Map 1959
(photorevised 1980). (SHOWS PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
* Schneider Quadrangle - USGS Map of Floodprone Areas
1972. (PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
9 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for Town of
Scheider and unincorporated areas of Lake County
(initial investigation 1973, revised 1976). Requested
by community numbers. (PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
9 Schneider portion of the National Wetland Inventory
Map (USFWS photocopy, not field checked). Date
unknown.
A-7
-------
° IDNR, Flood Planning Section. Flood record data
for Kankakee River (background information).
(PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
* USEPA River Reach File Map containing project area.
Requested by latitude/longitude polygon.
No contacts were made with the construction/design engineers or
with any plant operator in Schneider. No plant operator is nor-
mally on duty at the treatment plant.
A site visit on July 17, 1984, consisted of viewing the con-
structed plant from all sides, walking up and down the stream
bank in the immediate area of Brown Ditch, observing the outfall
structure along that bank, and locating manholes to determine the
actual sewer alignment between the plant and the town. Photo-
graphs were taken to document observations.
Findings
The WWTP was constructed on a mounded area approximately eight to
ten feet above the adjacent grade and currently covers approxi-
mately two acres of land (including a sludge drying/disposal area
to the west of the oxidation ditch). (Expansion is proposed to
the south of the oxidation ditch.) The mound was created using
borrow material from within the floodplain (statement implied
from facility plan) negating any loss in overall flood storage
capacity. Creation of this mound has likely changed the flood-
plain boundaries in the vicinity of the WWTP site, but this
impact is considered insignificant by the reviewers when com-
pared to the extensive floodplain area of the Kankakee River
which flows through a griddle flat plain. A localized change in
runoff patterns has occurred because of the mounded site but this
impact is considered minor and no ponding was observed around the
site following a day of rain. The embankment around the plant
has been sodded to minimize erosion.
No interceptor impacts were addressed in the NEPA document (also
in the 100-year floodplain) and no long-term adverse impacts were
observed. The main sewer line has been constructed in the right-
A-8
-------
of-way to the west of Ackerman Avenue and is currently underneath
fields of grain and a sod farm.
The facilities plan did not discuss any impacts resulting from
the physical location of the effluent pipe in the floodplain.
Rip-rap was observed all around the pipe and natural vegetation
was growing nearby. The normal condition of the floodplain of
the channelized Brown Ditch was very similar to the slope and
other conditions observed at the discharge pipe.
No impacts to wetlands were predicted since no wetlands were
located at the site or along the interceptor routes. Field
investigation confirmed this prediction.
Summary
The construction of the WWTP and interceptor in a 100-year flood-
plain appeared to conform to the limitations predicted (acreage
used) and mitigations proposed in the 1976 facilities plan.
Impacts that may have occurred to the floodplain (as loss of
flood storage capacity) are judged to be insignificant in light
of the exceedingly flat topography of the general area.
The 1976 NEPA document did not contain a floodplain impact anal-
ysis. The 1976 plan preceeded EPA floodplain protection policy
(Executive Order 11988, 42 CFR 26951, May 25, 1977; CEQ procedure
for implementation of this Executive Order, December 15, 1979)
which now requires a Statement of Findings for floodplain im-
pacts. Therefore, it was not possible to compare the accuracy of
1976 predictions (obtained by interpretation) with 1984 observa-
tions. If the lack of 1976 floodplain impacts can be assumed to
mean that little or no long-term adverse impacts were antici-
pated, then 1984 obeservations would bear this assumption out.
The only recommendation is that contact with the local WWTP oper-
ator or manager would have provided first-hand information in the
pre-construction environmental setting.
A-9
-------
.-• '..'.•• './ ._^ "' •' • •.';?
••i-: :'Sumava Resorts -=•! •
• i
3CAL£^fc24000 CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FE5T
PROJECT LOCATION ON USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
WWTP SITE AND MAIN INTERCEPTOR ROUTE SCHNEIDER. IN
A-10
-------
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP DRAFT
WWTP SITE AND MAIN INTERCEPTOR ROUTE
A-11
SCHNEIDER. IN
-------
\VV>~^ './RM141
JE '.^-- "•
-------
HMJ
ZONE A2
ZONE S
ZONE a
ZONE A3
KEY TO MAP
JOO-Vear Flood towndary
100-Viar flood •ovndary-
ZOM OnMiuiMni* with
Data of ia«nun«uion
i.«.. IJ/J/7«
100- Via/ Flood Sowtdarv -
SOO-Yev Flood foyndary-
l»M flood Elevation Lint
WttX EloeeUa* III Feel"
taw Flood tlmnlon In FMI
«n«< UiMloim Wluiln 2on«"
ElmUan Ritoranci Mwk
KIM> Milt
ZONES
ZONES
BM7X
• Ml.5
•*Ktl>rinci« la UU Nulanil Giodlflc V«rUcU Dttum of 192*
•EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
ZONE IXPLANATION
A ATMS of I0&>vtjr flood; Out flood «M*«uont ifit
flood nwwd facton nol dtWftnMitd.
AO Ar*M of 100«t««r iA«Jlow floadmf *n«r« dtoifit
irt o«tw«cn on* (I) and ihrtc {31 l of IOO-Y.4T flood, ban "ood tii.iuoni and
flood nuard facion dtitrmined.
AM Ar>a> o< 100-oar flood 10 M >>ouct«d By flood
protection tvium undlr construction; »IM Hood
aMvationt and flood nafard factor* nol datcrmincd.
S Ariat b«iw««n limta of lAa lOfrvcar flood and SOO-
vtar flood, or certain ar«ak lubiect to 100-vcar flood-
inf wltn a««ra|l deotns Ictt tftaft one (11 foot or wnert
in* cont/iowuni drainafC arta n l«u man one wuare
mue. or areas protected by levees from ine baM flood.
{MedMm Uiadinil
C Areas of minimal floodlne, (No Uiadwil
D Areat of wnoetermmed, but powMe, flood hazards.
v Areaa of lOOvear coaual flood vith velocity (wave
action), baM flood elevations and flood nuard factors
not determined.
V1-VIO Areaa of 100-year coastal flood «itn velocity (vave
action), base flood elevations and flood nazard factors
determined.
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
TOWN OF
SCHNEIDER,
INDIANA
* PROJECT LOCATION
A-13
-------
APPENDIX A-3
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR
BRILLION, WISCONSIN
(Grant Number 550875030)
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this field investigation was to observe actual
construction impacts and any long-term mitigating measures re-
sulting from the construction of new wastewater treatment facili-
ties in Brillion, Wisconsin. The findings from this report form
the data base for the aggregate analysis of wetland and flood-
plain issues.
Scope of Issues (Project Background and Predicted Impacts)
The original WWTP at Brillion, Wisconsin, was built in the 1950's
and by the early 1970's, had become overloaded and was no longer
able to meet the terms of its NPDES permit. It was determined
that a new activated sludge WWTP be constructed at either the
then existing WWTP site or at a new location one mile southwest
of the City. The site southwest of the City was chosen because
the then existing WWTP was located within a 100-year floodplain
and there was limited room available for construction and future
expansion. The site southwest of the City would be adjacent to
the proposed Brillion Marsh Wildlife Area and effluent would be
discharged to it.
Expanded service was also proposed for three areas: (1) the area
immediately south of the then existing plant bounded by South
Glenview Avenue to the west and Vista Court to the south, (2) the
area south of Fairway Drive and National Avenue, and (3) a small
area approximately 2400 feet west of Brillion along U.S. 10.
Figures showing project location and relative position of the
project on Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory Map are found at the end
of this report.
The Brillion Facility Plan prepared by McMahon Associates, Inc.,
was submitted to the Mayor of Brillion and the Utility Commission
on November 15, 1976. This document was reviewed at the engi-
neer's office immediately prior to conducting the July 24, 1984,
A-14
-------
field investigation. The potential impacts were described under
Section C of the Facility Plan, "Environmental Effects of Feasi-
ble Alternatives". It should be noted that this Facility Plan
may not have been the final approved document because the plan
recommended either of two sites and either of two possible acti-
vated sludge treatment mechanisms. Also, no public comment had
yet been received.
Impacts to wetlands and floodplains relevant to the chosen site
were not specifically addressed in the Facility Plan. The only
associated areas of impact discussed were:
" The new WWTP would occupy approximately five acres ad-
jacent to the proposed Brillion Marsh Wildlife Area.
This is a quantitative impact paraphrased from the
facility plan.
0 The construction of the WWTP at the southerly location
would involve the installation of a force main to the
plant and three stream crossings with only temporary
impacts. This is considered a qualitative impact
relative to construction.
9 Effluent would be discharged to the proposed Brillion
Marsh Wildlife Area (no impact named). This is a
qualitative statement.
Methods
Prior to scheduling the field investigation, relevant NEPA docu-
ments and other appropriate baseline and/or current data regard-
ing wetlands and floodplains were gathered because the reviewers
presumed both sensitive areas were relative to project construc-
tion .
0 Brillion Quadrangle - USGS Topographic Map, 1974.
(SHOWS PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
0 FEMA FIRM Maps for City of Brillion and unincorporated
areas of Calumet County. (Pertinent panels initially
A-15
-------
identified in 1977.) (PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
0 USDA - SCS Soil Survey for Calumet and Manitowoc
Counties (February, 1980).
0 Wisconsin DNR Wetlands Inventory Map, Calumet County
(T20N, R20E). Photographed 1966, interpreted, 1979.
(PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
° USEPA River Reach File Map containing project area.
Requested by latitude/longitude polygon.
On the morning of the field investigation, the reviewers met with
Mr. Jeff Kellner of McMahon Associates, Inc., of Menasha, Wiscon-
sin. Mr. Kellner provided (a) the project document and (b) the
name of a contact person, Mr. Robert Carey, operator of the Bril-
lion WWTP. McMahon Associates was able to locate the facility
planning document for the scheduled visit by the reviewers.
A field investigation was conducted on July 24, 1984. The Bril-
1 ion WWTP was visited, the site and surrounding areas surveyed
both by automobile and by walking where possible. Photographs of
the WWTP site, adjacent areas and Black Creek were taken as docu-
mentation records.
Findings
The Brillion WWTP has been constructed southwest of the City in
the area south of Black Creek and west of State Highway 114.
Effluent from the plant is currently discharged directly to Black
Creek and not to the marsh. (By personal interview, Mr, William
Fritz and Ms. Mary Pavone, ESEI, inc., with Mr. Robert Carey,
Operator, Brillion WWTP). The WWTP site was previously utilized
for agriculture and confirmed by the aerial photographs in the
soil survey. It is immediately east of the Brillion State Wild-
life Area, most of which is wetland. The WWTP site appeared,
from observation, to be approximately five acres, coinciding with
the predicted impact area dimension. The topography of the plant
site had probably been graded to accomodate buildings, but did
not appear exaggerated when compared to adjacent topography.
A-16
-------
Therefore, drainage patterns from the WWTP site northward toward
Black Creek and the 100 feet or so of cattail marsh along either
side of it have probably not changed significantly since con-
struction. The cattail marsh adjacent to Black Creek appears to
coincide with the approximate dimensions of the floodplain for
that creek noted on FEMA floodplain maps.
None of the area observed to be occupied by the WWTP is located
in wetland areas identified on the Wisconsin Wetland Survey Map
nor in the floodplain of Black Creek shown on the FEMA floodplain
Map.
No long-term adverse impacts were observed in the area of inter-
ceptor stream crossings. Regrowth of natural vegetation had
occurred.
Summary
Impacts from construction of the Brill ion WWTP adjacent to a wet-
land/floodplain (of Black Creek) appeared to have no long-term
negative effect upon the low wet areas. The WWTP size conformed
to the geographic area proposed for construction in the 1976
facilities plan and did not encroach on naturally flooded land.
Because the 1976 document did not specifically address or measure
any wetland/floodplain impact categories, no comparisons regard-
ing the accuracy of predictions could be made against 1984 obser-
vations .
A-17
-------
-- ..-• — . 1
Sibaas :;i * :: ij^ *_
'
**4rsES3i!!Pi iS**-
O.sgoul 9ai : si: ;|_ ,a ;.. «j,
—T- "^ ' —ii^ -r5- -ll:-i: :S «
"
S-y-;^.^^,. M_
- "-^- —-^-1 •',•(,
PROJECT LOCATION ON USGS TOPOGRAPHC MAP
WWTP SITE
BRLUON. W1
SCALE 1:24000 CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
A-18
-------
au- :
WISCO^BJN WETLANDS WVENTORY MAP
WWTP SUE
BRILUON, Wl
SCALE 124000
A-19
-------
BRILUON SITE MAP
WWTP
CrTY PROPERTY
FORCE MAIN O Q O O D
OUTFALL >•••••
A-20
-------
APPENDIX A-4
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR
MENASHA, WISCONSIN
(Grant Number 551275020)
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this field investigation was to observe actual
construction impacts and mitigating measures that resulted from
the expansion {regionalization) of wastewater treatment facili-
ties and an interceptor in Menasha, Wisconsin. The findings from
this report form the data base for the aggregate analysis of wet-
land and floodplain issues.
Scope of Issues (Project Background and Predicted Impacts)
A regional treatment facility was planned for the Towns of
Menasha and Grand Chute, Wisconsin, at the site of the existing
Menasha Sanitary District No. 4 (west) WWTP. Wastewater from the
Town of Grand Chute (Sanitary District No. 2, formerly the Butte
des Morts Utility District) to the north was routed to the new
regional WWTP. This new facility was proposed to eliminate sev-
eral existing water quality problems caused by: (1) the Grand
Chute discharge to Mud Creek, (2) the Outagamie Airport package
plant discharge to a dry run tributary to Mud Creek, and (3)
excessive I/I and wet weather bypassing and overflowing through-
out the sewerage system in Menasha Sanitary District No. 4 (west)
to Little Lake Butte des Morts (part of Fox River).
The regional plant used portions of the existing (Menasha) treat-
ment works, and, in addition, built a contact-stabilization acti-
vated sludge treatment process. This process was chosen because
it had the least wetland encroachment of all other alternative
processes. The new facility also included construction of a new
service building, treatment tanks, clarifiers, and a chlorine
contact chamber.
The areas of primary impact for this investigation included an
area of swamp (wooded wetland) adjacent and north of the existing
WWTP and a river crossing possibly in the floodplain, along the
A-21
-------
route of the new interceptor between old Grand Chute and the new
Menasha WWTPs.
The proposed project conformed to Federal and state wetland/-
floodplain protection policies (according to EPA project sum-
mary) .
Figures showing project location and relative position of the
project on a Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory Map are found at the
end of this report.
Several historical planning documents for this service area were
available from the consulting engineers, McMahon Associates of
Menasha, Wisconsin. The Facilities Plan Amendment for Wastewater
Treatment Works, Butte des Morts Utility District and Town of
Menasha (West) Sanitary District No. 4 Planning Area 1980 was
provided by the engineers prior to field investigation. This
document was an amendment to the 1977 Facilities Plan for Waste-
water Treatment Works, Butte des Morts Utility District, Town of
Menasha Sanitary District No. 4 (West Side) Planning Area which
the reviewers looked at in McMahon' s offices on July 24, 1984,
the day of field investigation.
Environmental impacts in the 1980 facilities plan amendment were
considered (by the consulting engineers) to be the same as those
addressed in the 1977 document and, therefore, were not repeated.
Impacts assessed in 1977 were located throughout that document
and are listed below along with some impacts derived from the EPA
Project Summary. Sources are identified.
0 "Project will involve the modification of the immed-
iate landscape but will not affect the natural drainage of the
area." (1977 Facilities Plan). Qualitative impact.
* "Erosion of site (and siltation of river) will be kept
to a minimum during construction and will be prevented afterward
by maintaining grass cover on all exposed slopes on the site."
(1977 Facilities Plan). Qualitative impact.
A-22
-------
9 "Construction activities will be limited as nearly as
possible to the physical boundaries of the proposed project."
(1977 Facilities Plan). Qualitative impact.
9 The major function of the wetland area to be filled is
flood storage within the floodplain of Little Lake Butte des
Morts. Loss of this wetland area will not measurably affect the
flood elevation of Little Lake Butte des Morts (EPA Project Sum-
mary). Qualitative impact.
The WDNR, USEPA, USCOE and USFWS described the wetland
to be filled as primarily a seasonally flooded, Type 7 wetland
(wooded swamp). In addition, a portion directly north of the
existing site was classified as a seasonally flooded, Type 2 wet-
land (inland fresh meadow). The wetland loss was estimated to be
1.6 acres (EPA Project Summary). Quantitative and qualitative
impact.
9 The interceptors will be constructed in floodplain
areas. This impact is minimal and does not warrant discussion.
(EPA Project Summary). Qualitative impact.
9 During interceptor construction, proper drainage will
be maintained and site grading in the road right-of-way will min-
imize wetland encroachment. (paraphrased from 1980 Facilities
Plan). Qualitative impact.
Methods
These baseline data (pre-construction) and data updates (post-
construction) for the Menasha service area were collected prior
to field investigation:
9 Neenah Quadrangle - USGS Topographic Map, 1955
(photograph revised, 1975). (PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
9 Wisconsin DNR Wetlands Inventory Map, Winnebago
County (T20N, R17E), photographed 1966, interpreted,
1979, revised 1983). (PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
A-23
-------
a FEMA FIRM Maps for City of Menasha, Wisconsin and
unincorporated areas of Winnebago County (pertinent
panel initially identified 1977, revised 1982).
0 EPA River Reach File Map containing project area.
Requested by latitude/longitude polygon.
On the day of the field investigation, the reviewers met with Mr.
Jeff Kellner of McMahon Associates, Inc. Mr. Kellner provided
the 1977 facilities plan and the contact person, Mr. David
Carlson, WWTP operator.
On July 24, 1984, a site visit was made to the newly operational
Menasha Regional WWTP. Mr. David Carlson, treatment plant opera-
tor, was briefly interviewed in order to understand the plant
layout and operation as well as discuss the site description
prior to construction.
The visit included a walk around the grounds of the WWTP, noting
embankments in the filled area, proximity of the lake and char-
acterization of the wetland area that remains between the lake
and the WWTP.
A portion of the 5,490 feet main interceptor route was driven,
with observations noted on long-term construction impacts and the
proximity of the sewer alignment to low or wet areas. The re-
viewers observed, at close range, the area where the interceptor
crossed Mud Creek on the south side of the Creek. Photographs
were taken to visually record observations as well as handwritten
notes.
Findings
By observation, the combined area of wooded wetland/fresh meadow
that was filled in order to accomodate the regional plant ap-
peared to be about two acres. This estimate is within approxi-
mately 20% of the original 1.6 acres predicted. No long-term
disturbance of surrounding vegetation in the floodplain was
noted.
A-24
-------
While the immediate landscape was modified by filling and then
grading a steep enbankment (about eight feet high), the natural
surface drainage patterns appear to have not been disturbed.
Runoff continues to drain to the west across approximatley 20
feet of wooded wetland remaining between the WWTP and Little Lake
Butte des Morts. All cleared areas on the plant site have been
sodded and, therefore, siltation and/or erosion to the remaining
floodplain is minimized.
Flood storage capacity over an area of approximately 1.6 to 2.0
acres and a depth ranging from 0-8 feet has been lost to the
1300-acre lake which is part of the Fox River. A strip of wooded
wetland still exists between the site and the lake and provides
water storage capacity in the event of a flood. Additional
effort would have been required to quantify this observed impact
and verify it with earlier Federal and state approval of the pro-
ject.
The major part of the 5,490 feet main interceptor did not appear
to have any long-term impacts to adjacent wet areas nor was it
constructed through any wet areas. The floodplain of Mud Creek
that was crossed (tunneled) by the interceptor was noted to be
steep sided on the FEMA map and confirmed by observation to be
minimal in width. The banks had been seeded but some minor
erosion was observed. It was unknown whether this was construc-
tion-related or naturally occurring.
Summary
The impacts observed from the expansion of a WWTP into a wet-
land/floodplain and the construction of approximately one mile of
interceptor sewer appeared to conform to the quantitative and
qualitative predictions discussed in the 1977 planning document.
The mitigating measures regarding drainage patterns, erosion and
siltation of the floodplain, site grading and site dimensions
were observed to be effective in minimizing long-term adverse
impacts. The 1984 observations were judged to concur with the
facilities planner's intent that any long-term impacts to sensi-
tive areas would be insignificant.
A-25
-------
— Jl
T^T St Jour
8CAL£ 124OOO
CCNTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
irrfckj C«
PROJECT LOCATION ON
REGIONAL WWTP
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
D o tr V i *.«' .
MENASHA, Wl
A-26
-------
... PLANT E*PANSION ABEA
INTEBCEPTOB SEWER ROUTES PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTED INTERCEPTOR ROUTE
PROJECT SITE MAP
A-27
-------
w$£;I" ,
Z?y?~ 'r"f» ••'*• ~ ••-" '." • ' '
S^Ss? & - •'--' •*"• * •• ' •
*c£3' ?1 '•' -.;^ •'•*•'^ '' ' <• • ' - '-
fc2^1; VfS XtJv ' A -• - -" ••-':" ^
J^:^;^ft^j^4iA.
^"~-~" ''^^ifX^j7'-
s -^ -j^r.' ;.,-.• %^.; ..
WISCONSW WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP
REGIONAL WWTP SUE
MENASHA. Wl
SCALE 1^4000
A-28
-------
APPENDIX A-5
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR
ORTONVILLE, MINNESOTA
(Grant Number 271245002)
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this field investigation was to observe actual
construction impacts and mitigating measures that resulted from
the construction of wastewater treatment facilities involving a
land application of effluent in Ortonville, Minnesota. The find-
ings from this report form the data base for the aggregate analy-
sis of wetland and floodplain issues.
Scope of Issues (Project Background and Predicted Impacts)
In the late 1970's, the existing wastewater treatment system for
the City of Ortonville was unable to meet its new stringent ef-
fluent limitations. A 1979 Facilities Plan for the City of
Ortonville, prepared by Ellerbe Associates, Inc., selected a land
application system consisting of stabilization ponds and spray
irrigation as the most cost-effective and environmentally sound
alternative for upgrading wastewater treatment. After consider-
ation of several specific locations for the site operation, the
final site agreed upon for the ponds and spray irrigation system
was located southeast of the City in parts of Sections 14, 15 and
23 (T12N, R46N) in agricultural land. Wetlands within the pro-
posed land areas were identified by the USFWS in 1979, totaled
approximately 20 acres and included wetland Types 1, 2, 3, and 4
(classified by the USFWS system, Circular 39). The final site
selection met with the approval of all agencies involved. The
USFWS stated that the project conformed to Executive Order 11990
on wetlands protection.
Figures showing the project site location are found at the end of
this report.
The facilities planning effort produced two documents: Waste-
water Treatment Facilities Plan - City of Ortonville, Minnesota
(May, 1979) and Facilities Plan Supplement Land Application of
A-29
-------
Wastewater - City of Ortonville, (December, 1979) which were
reviewed for predicted impacts.
The main document of the facility plan did not specifically
address impacts to wetlands. This document preceded official
publication of wetland protection implementation procedures
(December, 1979) but through agency negotiations during planning
it was agreed that the project conformed to the Executive Order
11990 (on wetlands protection). The document did include a
statement of no significant adverse impacts to existing wildlife
or vegetation in the vicinity of the project. This may be inter-
preted to mean that hydrologic regimes or topography will not
change enough to have a significant adverse impact on the exist-
ing biota and habitat.
Specific adverse impacts were quantified by the USFWS to wetland
habitats in the proposed site by acreage, wetland type, and num-
ber of wetland sites. As a result of this specific wetland
impact analysis, modifications to the site layout were nego-
tiated. From correspondence between Ellerbe Associates and the
USFWS found in the Facilities Plan Supplement, Appendix A, the
following wetland impacts and/or mitigating measures were ex-
tracted by paraphrasing:
0 The 80 acres required to construct four stabilization
ponds and access roads currently in cultivation are in the N-l/2,
NW-1/4 of Section 23 and a small part of NE-1/4, NE-1/4 of Sec-
tion 22. Construction in this area would have a very minimal
effect on natural wetland basins but may encroach into a long,
narrow Type 3 wetland located to the south of the proposed site.
Qualitative impact.
9 The north, 120 acre irrigation field (located in the
S-l/2, NW-1/4 and the NE-1/4, NW-1/4 of Section 14) is in private
ownership but the USFSW has perpetual waterfowl management rights
over this land. Within this 120 acre are 30 wetland basins,
totaling 18.6 acres, predominately Type 1 wetlands with one Type
4 wetland in the extreme SE corner of the NW-1/4 of Section 14.
Ortonville may use these 120 acres for spray irrigation with a
wetland easement from the USFWS. The easement does not permit
A-30
-------
burning, filling, or draining any of the wetland basins within
the 120 acres. Mitigating measures.
Methods
Prior to scheduling the field trip, the two-part Facilities Plan
was obtained directly from Ellerbe Associates.
In addition, other baseline data was collected:
0 Ortonville Quadrangle - CJSGS Topographic Map, 1971
(PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
0 USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map for the area.
Incorrect maps sent. Appropriate maps then requested
through NCIC would take an additional 4-6 weeks.
0 FEMA FIRM Maps for City of Ortonville and unincorp-
orated areas of Big Stone County, Minnesota.
(Effective date, 1981. No other date on maps.)
A one-day field trip was conducted July 27, 1984. On that day,
the reviewers contacted Mr. Roger Anderson, Water Department
Supervisor, in Ortonville who allowed the reviewer access to the
site and discussed changes that had been made to the site layout
as described in the original Facility Plan. Mr. Anderson was
also helpful in describing aspects of the spray irrigation opera-
tion that were not necessarily addressed (or known) at the time
of facilities planning. For example, very little effluent may
actually be sprayed in 1984, because of summer evaporation rates
and the small volume of effluent collected. The two reviewers
walked around the stabilization ponds noting wet areas adjacent
to city property and drove along the main access road to observe
the spray irrigation fields noting wet areas both within the pro-
posed irrigation areas and adjacent to the property. Photographs
were taken where appropriate to document the nature and extent of
marshy areas.
A-31
-------
Findings
The site layout appeared to coincide with the stated acreage
required in the Facilities Plan. The pond system had only been
on line for two weeks and test spraying was scheduled for mid-
August, 1984. All four ponds contained some wastewater; two with
secondary effluent and two with primary wastewater. The depth of
the effluent was not more than several feet.
The elongated, Type 3 wetland (shallow fresh marsh) adjacent to
the southern border of the ponds was observed to have some open
water. Runoff from the embankment around the ponds contributes
to this marsh. While this is an unanticipated impact, it is
apparently beneficial in that it provides a more permanent marsh
environment than might have previously existed. The reviewers
were not able to determine if the estimated one-acre marsh was
any smaller than pre-construction time.
All other major wet areas identified and documented by the USFWS
and also derived from a 1979 aerial photograph in the Facilities
Plan were observed to still exist within the proposed irrigation
areas. There appeared to have been no filling of any low, wet
areas within the irrigation circles. Many of the "wetland
basins" identified by the USFWS were dry during the late July
field trip, but nevertheless, undisturbed.
None of the project sites were found to be within FEMA identified
floodplain areas. Observations confirmed previous documenta-
tion .
Summary
Observed impacts to wetland areas within the project site, as
well as mitigation measures, appeared to have been predicted
accurately.
A-32
-------
NATIONAL WATERFO
PRODUCTION A
lELD-No. 2
ACRES
IRRIGATION PUMP STATION
CHLORINAT1ON FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND
STORAGE FACILITIES
PROJECT LOCATION ON USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET SCALE 1:24000
ORTONV1LLE, MN
A-33
-------
"
&&*&**>•**
BVs.™>>\*& •*•">'
' * i iWV f
fwi***-**
* Cv ' vl.^l:-*-!?
;«.--hff»^*Wf
-------
USFWS NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP
ORTONV1LLE.MN
AN ADDITIONAL 4-6 WEEKS NEEDED TO ORDER MAPS THROUGH NCIC
A-35
-------
APPENDIX A-6
FIELD INVESTIGATION FOR
CUYAHOGA VALLEY INTERCEPTOR PROJECT, OHIO
(Grant Numbers 391126030 - 391126070)
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this field investigation was to determine direct
building impacts, including any mitigating measures, of waste-
water conveyance facilities to wetlands and floodplains immed-
iately along and adjacent to interceptor and trunk sewer routes.
The findings from this report form the data base for the aggre-
gate analysis of wetland and floodplain issues.
Scope of Issues (Project Background and Predicted Impacts)
The proposed project consisted of the development of an inter-
ceptor designed to convey wastewater generated in the corridor
between Cleveland and Akron to the Cleveland Southerly WWTP.
This system eliminated numerous discharges and septic systems
throughout the Cuyahoga River Basin and provide advanced treat-
ment at the Cleveland Southerly WWTP, thus, improving water qual-
ity in the Cuyahoga River.
The wastewater conveyance system consisted of a tunneled inter-
ceptor paralleling the B&O railroad on the west side of the
Cuyahoga River. The Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor (CVI) inter-
cepted flow from several trunk sewers and discharge into a lift
station at the Southerly WWTP. The 168 MDG interceptor is seven
miles long and runs from the lift station to the Brecksville
WWTP. Tunnel construction was employed to reduce or eliminate
severe, long-term environmental impacts. The trunks involved
both tunnel and open cut construction but were predominately open
cut. Trunk alignments were located along roadways and easements
throughout the service area leading to the main line in the
Cuyahoga Valley.
Seventeen access shafts were incorporated into the CVI which
provide input points for the trunks, as well as maintenance
access. Trunks crossing the Ohio Canal and Cuyahoga River were
tunneled along with the main line. Figures of the routing,
A-36
-------
impact areas, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inven-
tory Maps are found at the end of this report.
The identification of predicted building impacts to floodplains
and wetlands involved a review of the Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the CVI (Havens and Emerson, October 1975, prepared for
the Cleveland Regional Sewer District) and the EIS for the CVI,
Cleveland Regional Sewer District (CRSD) (EPA, Region V, Septem-
ber 1976). Building impacts to wetlands and floodplains were not
specifically addressed in the EIS. A detailed review of the com-
plete EIS, including comment letters, however, was needed to
identify various references to wetlands and floodplains. A more
detailed discussion of potential wetland and floodplain impacts
was presented in three sections of the EA, Volume I, Chapter IV,
of the Proposed Action? Chapter V, Effects of the Proposed
Action; and Volume 2, Appendix D, the Archeological Field Study.
In most cases, existing conditions of wetland or floodplain areas
were described rather than an assessment of predicted impacts to
these areas.
Potential impacts to floodplains were only discussed in terms of
potential impacts to water quality in the floodplains (e.g.,
short-term increased turbidity from construction) or disturbances
to the aquatic or terrestrial biota within the floodplain (e.g.,
loss of vegetation resulting from construction activities). No
potential changes in the actual floodplain size or boundaries
were noted. Because the objective of this investigation was
focused on the building impacts to wetlands and floodplains the
aquatic and terrestrial biota and water quality impacts were not
investigated. It was further assumed that the absence of pre-
dicted construction impacts to floodplains implied there would be
no change in indirect impacts to floodplains (water quality,
biota) resulting from construction activities.
Information obtained from the EA and EIS regarding wetlands is
presented below. Sources are identified. As previously dis-
cussed, wetland information was usually discussed without an
assessment of potential impacts.
A-37
-------
Tunnel construction requires access shafts where surface
disruption is apparent and will require an area about 1 to 2
acres for equipment, storage and work space during tunnel-
ing. (Quantitative, EA pgs. 132-133, EIS pg. 5-4).
Access Shaft #3 - A small portion of the wet area will re-
quire fill (Qualitative, EA, pg. 133, and Archeological Sur-
vey pg. 5). The area at site #3 was changed to minimize
damage to a wetland. A portion of the wetland will still be
modified but the modification is minimized and consolidated
at one edge of the wet area. (Qualitative, EA pgs. 147 and
159)
Access Shaft #5 - A small, marshy wet area lies to the north
and east of the site. (Qualitative, no prediction, EA pg.
134 and Archeological Survey pg. 7)
Access Shaft #8 - Much of this area lies in a marsh at the
foot of the valley wall, although the location of the access
shaft is on the slope of the hill. (Qualitative, no impact
implied, EA, Archeological Survey pg. 8)
Access Shaft #13 - Was within a wetland area south of
Pleasant Valley Road. The site and Walton Hills Trunk were
moved to a clearing on fill closer to the road. (Qualita-
tive, no impact implied, EA pgs. 135 and 160)
Access Shaft #15 - Was located in a frequently inundated
area of swamp-type forest. The site was moved south to a
higher and drier area. Additional easements are now pro-
vided east of the alignment in a drier area. (Qualitative,
EA pgs. 135 and 160, and Archeological Survey pg. 12)
Access Shaft #16 - The shaft is located on a somewhat ele-
vated area between two old river channels that are now wet-
lands. The access is now provided west of the tunnel
between the wetlands and Sanitary Road. The proposed access
will cross a small portion of wetland at Sanitary Road which
will be temporarily filled. (Qualitative, EA pgs. 135 and
160, and Archeological Survey, pg. 12, EIS, pg. 5-4)
A-38
-------
Access Shaft #17 - The site is located in a wet area created
by Sanitary Road and contains a small willow thicket. The
presence of cattails and willows attest to the constant
swamp conditions. A portion of the wetland close to the
Brecksville Shaft will be affected. (Qualitative, EA pgs.
136 and 148, Archeological Survey pg. 12, EIS page 5-4)
Access clearing after construction will be much smaller than
the construction area required to build the shafts and will
include only a 12' x 15' concrete pad and manhole cover at
grade. (Quantitative, EA pg. 149)
Several of the access shafts along the interceptor have been
moved to avoid wetland areas. However, we suspect that the
tunnel construction may have a draining effect and dewater
adjacent wetlands. (Qualitative, EIS, U.S. Department of
the Interior, comment letter pg. 7-65)
In addition to the predicted impacts, the documents were reviewed
for potential unanticipated impacts. These potential impacts
were discussed in the EA and in comment letters of the EIS. Two
unanticipated impacts were identified and are described below.
Lowering of the water level will drain some of the normally
flooded wetlands... (Qualitative, EIS, Illinois Wildlife
Federation, comment letter pgs. 7-83 and 7-84)
It should be noted here that in tunnel construction, there
is always the risk of equipment problems in the tunnel which
could require an additional shaft. It is impossible to
predict if and where such a problem would occur. In such a
case, the disturbance of another area of 1 to 2 acres would
occur and could adversely affect a portion of prime forest
or wetland. (Qualitative, EA pg. 142-143)
General draining or dewatering of wetlands. (Qualitative,
EIS, U.S. Department of the Interior, pg. 7-65, and Illinois
Wildlife Federation, pgs. 7-83 and 7-84)
A-39
-------
Methods
Baseline data requested prior to the field investigation of the
interceptor and trunk sewer routings and access shaft locations
included:
Hudson, Aurora, Broadview Heights, Cleveland South,
Northfield, Peninsula, Shaker Heights and Twinsburg
Quadrangles - USGS 7.5 minute Topographic Maps.
Hudson, Aurora, Broadview Heights, Cleveland South
Northfield, Peninsula, Shaker Heights and Twinsburg
Quadrangles - CJSGS Floodprone Area Maps (developed on 7.5
minute topographic base maps). (1963, photo revised 1970)
(PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
Soil Survey of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (December 1980).
Source: Cuyahoga and Lake Counties, Soil and Water
Conservation Districts. (POST-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
Soil Survey of Summit County, Ohio (November, 1974). Source:
Summit Soil and Water Conservation District.
(PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
FEMA FIRM MAPS for the incorporated and unincorporated areas
of Cuyahoga County and the unincorporated areas of Summit
County. (effective 1981) (POST-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
Environmental Impact Statement, Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor,
Cleveland Regional Sewer District, EPA, September 1976.
Source: EPA, Region V.
Environmental Assessment, Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor, Octo-
ber 1975, Havens and Emerson, Ltd., prepared for the
Cleveland Regional Sewer District. Source: EPA, Region V.
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Maps for Cleveland South,
Shaker Heights, Chagrin Falls, Twinsburg and Northfield
Quadrangles, March, 1977. (PRE-CONSTRUCTION DATA)
A-40
-------
Items 2, 6, and 7 were received prior to the actual field invest-
igation. Items 1, 3, and 4 had arrived by the conclusion of the
field investigation. However, the remaining items required a
minimum of 4-6 weeks from date of order to receipt. A review of
available baseline data prior to the scheduled field investiga-
tion was conducted.
A review of the NEPA documents revealed data deficiencies in the
identification of baseline wetlands/floodplains for the project
area. USFWS Maps and Soil Surveys were ordered to supplement
this data deficiency. No new post-construction wetland/flood-
plain data had been developed and, therefore, identification of
actual impacts required on-site field studies.
Arrangements for two investigators were made to conduct a field
study during the period July 19 and 20, 1984. Mr. Donald Shaver,
Construction Supervisor for the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District (NEORSD) was contacted prior to conducting the field
study. Mr. Shaver agreed to accompany the two investigators to
assist in access shaft site identification and trunk sewer loca-
tion identification. Mr. Shaver provided information concerning
the site conditions before construction began, the existing con-
ditions, and any planned future site modifications. Mr. Shaver
also provided the investigators with invaluable background infor-
mation regarding the construction process and any required con-
struction modifications during the project.
Because of tunnel construction, the CVI was inaccessible except
at those locations surrounding the access shafts. Each access
shaft was visited and visually inspected. Field notes and photo-
graphs were taken to record the site conditions. The pre-con-
struction site condition was provided by Mr. Shaver along with
other explanations as appropriate.
Trunk sewer inspections were conducted using automobile surveys.
The entire length of each of the trunk sewers developed as part
of the CVI, Phase I project, was inspected by the investigators.
As with the CVI, Mr. Shaver provided invaluable insight concern-
ing the pre- and post-construction sites and construction activi-
ties, as well as additional future site work. In all cases, the
A-41
-------
investigators looked for evidence of unanticipated impacts to
wetlands or floodplains.
Upon conclusion of the field studies, all documents received
after the investigations were reviewed to determine any dif-
ferences between data obtained in the course of the investiga-
tions and data presented in the documents. Interceptor and trunk
sewer routings and access shafts were located on the USFWS
National Wetlands Maps to determine any potential impacts to
these identified wetlands.
Findings
Building Impacts to Floodplains - As previously discussed, it was
assumed that, due to the absence of predicted changes in flood-
plains, this implied a prediction of no impacts. ESEI's field
investigation could find no evidence of change in the flood-
plains. Much of the mitigation of potential impacts to flood-
plains resulted from the use of tunnel construction methods.
Wetland Impacts/Predicted Impact Findings - The findings of the
field investigations regarding wetlands are described first in
terms of the predicted impacts and then any unanticipated
impacts.
Access Shaft #3 - Access to shafts 3, 4, and 5 was from an old
road paralleling the B&O Railroad between Highway 17 and Rockside
Road. The access road was originally constructed by the Cleve-
land Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) to provide access for
the construction and maintenance of numerous utility poles in the
area. The area west of the river is marshy area. The area had
been previously modified by the CEI road and by the B&O Railroad
which had brought fill back to the area to deposit at and along-
side of the railroad. (By interview, Mr. Donald Shaver, NEORSD,
to Ms. Mary Pavone and Mr. William Fritz, ESEI, inc.) Also noted
was that an area of approximately two acres around the access
shaft #3 had been covered with tunnel construction debris from a
depth of approximately 4 to 6 feet beginning approximately 100
feet west of the River to a depth of 1 to 2 feet at the B&O Rail-
road. Vegetation to the north of the site provided evidence that
A-42
-------
at least a portion of the area was previously a wetland. Due to
the absence of baseline data and problems with the scale of wet-
lands mapped on the National Wetlands Inventory Maps, it was not
possible to accurately determine the extent of the wetlands
affected. According to Mr. Shaver, the land is privately owned
by a Mr. Vinney who requested the wetland be filled around the
access shaft. Mr. Shaver estimated approximately 1 to 2 acres of
wetland were filled. The EA predicted "a small portion of the
wet area will require fill".
Access Shaft #5 - This access shaft is currently under construc-
tion. There is no evidence that the immediate site area was pre-
viously a wetland. To the north of the site there is a small
(approximately 1/4 acre) marshy area with cattails as the domi-
nant vegetation. The Valley View Trunk No. 1 joins the CVI
access shaft 15 here from the east. Spoil material from the con-
struction of manholes to the Valley View Trunk No. 1 was deposit-
ed in a wetland area immediately south of the Valley View man-
holes. Mr. Shaver explained that this land was also owned by Mr.
Vinney and that he requested the spoil be deposited in the wet-
land area. Visual examination of the wetland shows an area of
approximately 10-15 acres to have already been filled to a depth
of 6 to 8 feet with slag debris from other sources. According to
Mr. Shaver, the landowner is interested in developing the area on
the west side of the Cuyahoga River between Rockside Road and
Highway 17 and has been actively engaged in filling the wet areas
in this strip of land for some time.
Access Shaft $13 - The proposed mitigation measure for access
shaft #13 was to move the site to a clearing on fill closer to
Pleasant Valley Road. A site visit verified that this mitigation
measure had been implemented. This area had originally been
filled and regrading of the access shaft site conformed to the
original grade. (3y interview, Mr. Donald Shaver, NEORSD, to Ms.
Mary Pavone and Mr. William Fritz, ESEI.) The surrounding wet-
land areas to the west and south of the access shaft previously
referenced in the EA were still apparent during the site visit of
July 19, 1984.
A-43
-------
Access Shaft #15 - The on-site field investigation of July 20,
1984, verified that the proposed mitigation measure of moving the
site location from a swamp-type forest to a drier area to the
south had taken place. An area of approximately 1-1/2 acres sur-
rounding the access shaft had been filled to a depth of between 1
to 3 feet of construction debris from the tunnel. Construction
debris was also used to construct an access road from Sanitary
Road to sites #15 and #16. According to Mr. Shaver, reseeding
and regrading will take place some time in October, 1984. At
this time, all excess fill will be removed and each site and the
areas impacted by the access road will be regraded to the origi-
nal contour. (By interview, Mr. Donald Shaver, NEORSD, to Ms.
Mary Pavone and Mr. William Fritz, ESEI).
Access Shaft #16 - Access shaft #16 was similar to access shaft
#17 in overall appearance and impact. Approximately 1-1/2 to 2
acres surrounding the shaft had been filled with construction
debris. As previously described, this material will be removed
at a later date (See Access Shaft #15 discussion). Based on the
field investigation of July 20, 1984, the site appears to be
located on the elevated area between two old river channels as
proposed in the EA.
The access road to sites #15 and #16 resulted in filling of a
portion (approximately 50' x 20') of wetland near Sanitary Road.
This material will be removed prior to reseeding at the con-
clusion of the construction contract.
Access Shaft #17 - A field investigation of July 19 and 20, 1984,
located access Shaft #17 immediately south and adjacent to Sani-
tary Road and west of the Brecksville WWTP. The area is char-
acterized by wetlands with cattails and willows as the dominant
species. Only the 12' x 15' concrete slab and manhole showed
evidence of disturbance. No other impacts to the wetlands were
noted.
Unanticipated Impact Findings
During the field investigation, ESEI continued to examine the
routing corridors and areas adjacent to construction sites for
A-44
-------
evidence of unanticipated impacts. The unanticipated impact of
dewatering wetlands or draining of wetlands as described in the
EA and the EIS could not be supported based on the findings of
the field investigation. The other unanticipated impact of
equipment problems and associated risks was realized. The loca-
tions or types of structures used at proposed access shafts #6
and #7 were altered due to tunneling equipment problems. These
alterations, however, did not result in any impact to wetlands
and/or floodplains.
Recommendations and Conclusions
The most significant drawback to both the prediction of potential
impacts and the evaluation of actual impacts to wetlands was the
absence and/or lack of adequate verifiable pre-project baseline
data (i.e., wetlands maps showing the extent, type, drainage pat-
terns and boundary delineations of all wetlands within the pro-
ject area at a sufficient level of detail as to allow for the
identification and evaluation of the discrete wetlands or areas
of wetlands whose impacts are described in the EA or EIS).
In a first attempt to identify and evaluate potential impacts to
wetlands, ESEI reviewed maps of wetlands prepared under the USFWS
National Wetlands Inventory Program to determine if the impacted
wetlands described in the EA were delineated on the maps. The
result of this review showed that only two of the potentially
impacted wetland areas (near shafts #15 and #16) were delineated
on the National Wetlands Inventory Maps. Because of the absence
of an adequate data base, it was difficult to determine the
extent and degree of the actual impacts to wetlands.
The impact to access shaft #3, for example, was described as
follows: "A small portion of the wet area will require fill.
The area at site #3 was changed to minimize damage to a wetland.
A portion of the wetland will still be modified but the modifica-
tion is minimized and consolidated at one edge of the wet area."
Since the baseline boundaries of the wetlands were not deline-
ated, it was impossible to determine the extent of the filling
which took place due to construction related activities. It
A-45
-------
should be noted that no minimum size limits are used as criteria
for mapping wetlands on the National Wetlands Inventory Maps, but
the accuracy of the maps cannot be guaranteed without field veri-
fication and most of the Ohio maps that were used have no been
field checked. Even with field checked maps, the scale of
1:24000 makes evaluations of small wetland (1-10 acres) areas
extremely difficult and sometimes impossible. To overcome this
problem it is recommended that future investigations use soil
surveys and wetland maps developed at larger scale to evaluate
wetland impacts.
A-46
-------
?--,
ST*
S"*r --, '• . ..' '. \
VN
sawe 1.3 -«-s - <* i
T*UHK
£L.3 -G'5
V. i
v«u.Eif VIEW
7 TRUNK
"G75 .
^?Q
TRUNK
H8TS.
s! SARFIEU)
S.TF
\
-.'. M4Pt£ HSTB
:.>;.;. S.T t---.
STCME SO •
MGTi/
TRUNK
.
\v
-WAt_TON
. \x
t V >
TRUNt
HILLS
•SAGAMORE
\
AREA
\
INDICATES ACCESS SHAFTS
HAVENS AND EMERSON, LTD.
CUYAHOGA VALLEY INTERCEPTOR
PROPOSED
TUNNEL INTERCEPTOR
AND TRUNK SEWERS
CLEVELAND REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT
A-47
-------
ACCESS SHAFT LOCATIONS
ON NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAPS
SCALE 1 24000
o
1 MILE
1000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 KILOMETER
CUYAHOQA VALLEY INTERCEPTOR —»
ACCESS SHAFT -0-
A-48
-------
«y . -u...«. y.-(.
^ " ' '
-------
c. * •*£*'$
i. /v, / fj/
;, / xL/ /-y. r/'
a
UJ
UJ
CO
Ui
en
a.
CO
CO
z
o
O
o
z
CO
CO
CO
HI
o
o
UJ
CO
CO
UJ
CO
CO
h-
z
UJ
z
o
(£
Z
UJ
UJ
T
O
O
CM
UJ
O
CO
WETLANDS
A-50
-------
x\> - ,»IM ~<^x£
^ J'/ - • • ^^V^
*y/'it;$
A-51
-------
"^tr^i
v~.x
*^V {* '
^•\*^A^V^^
•••^m:
/
j-
z
in
CO
CO
LU
CO
CO
I-
z
LU
z
o
cc
LU
UJ
Q
UJ
I-
Z
UJ
CO
LU
GC
a.
CO
CO
z
o
O
o
I
CO
CO
CO
111
o
o
o
o
CM
I
LU
O
CO
-------
A-53
-------
APPENDIX A-7
EVALUATION FORMS
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name, h I '• r t vl ' ' -'' < *"I I ' I ^ 'c I' I AI 'vl ^
2. Needs(Faciiity)No. LJllJJ-J^L^lJLI.LLJ NPDES No. I—L LJ._!_ I I | I )
Grant No. I ' I a'ic i-^l" l^ I oi ° I-'-I |
3. Date of Document Tear UJ^lJjlJ Month Ulkl Day LJ_I /
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
3.Location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Poiitical Jurisdiction: I ! I—-L I I I I I I I
JLU-I H '- I-ULLIY
I—I—H—LJ-ULJN-I I ...I I-LJ-J-LJ—IV LJ-J-LJ_J-I—LJN~I_J-J^1-!_LJ-LJ_JW
6.Issue: \?\ H ^l ~' £| "I *-< **' I ^| Parameter: I ^I I -1 -H I | | | I | I | | I | ! | |
7. Type of Impact-LU Q-Quantiative) (2-Qualitative)
S. Prediction:
rl^l°l I'M0!^!^) 'A
f 1 ° 1 'H 1 'H ^1 rl ^ 1 c
1 1 1 f 1 1 J 1 1
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I—I LJ.. LJ_J '— L
1 ; 1 i I 1 1 i 1
1 I 1 I I I I j I
i| / |,;
-I °l
! |
1 |
j |
j |
I |
"I ; 1 "1 yl^l 1^1
>JLi| r IJSsLiLkLLL
1 U 1 J 1 1
1 1 1 1 j 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 I
j | | LJ | |
j j |_J_J | L
1 1 | f| | /
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year LL
IP"! i "'I < m. J fr T^0 A-
\ \\L\ ol* | \ ] n\ AfT |g"J i-| V { )T{^jo| | A|C|g-| I ; !^ ' \' \ ^ i *\ *~> I
13-Summary: ( Code LUJ—I) /y^ rr»c -oo Y<^~*^- ^i-ooo *»*--«" ^'
Aj'lS r\ I Rl L~! QJ "Hi 10 I/"/i | 0 I ^! |T!rtit5| I i*J iU Tl/2 I . IA I 9 \^ It^^-lJj \T\O\ \ \
DO C i'
t i
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: j^l^l^j ]^]-^\0\ | | | I I | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | t t >
Today: |H|o| i HQ'3i j L| - \ i |? | 2_| |A ; P\P \ e\ tJ\ 01 / |> | |A; ;
CBaseiine: 1— I— J_J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I \ \ \ \ \ \
Today: I ?l -" K-t -^ | f / ;A' I '• ] | P\ ^ |T | \^\C-\^M^\^\I \^\f-\^\ \i |/V'|
20. Location of Narrative Report ' ' ' ' « I ' I f I I t I 1 I I M t I |_|_| JU
A-55
-------
Evaluation Form
DRAFT
j_j i i i i i
j ii i j
1. Project Name. I ^ 1^:1^1^ |c
2. Needs(Facility) No. Lfl JLLSlOU jjj. OTJ J J NPDES No.
Grant No. I -'I11 "I ^i VI «MQ |Q I1-) |
3. Date of Document: Year L-ll.Lil.Il Month Lll.il Day LJ-J
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA I-J c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
^Location: (Latitude/Longitude) (deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I I F I ' ' f F _ I LJ
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I | LJ I I I ii i i ii i I I I I i i
\j |-
t.| gjfc |.
LJ-J-LJ-J-ULJ1M I LJ-LJ-J-LJ-JV »— LJ-i— I— I-I-.I. IMH I i 1-1 i hi I jw
6. Issue: f /*M et ° I °|.r'ji.! .-£UJ.*J Parameter: f?!?!' lc | | ,^| °| Af^ | | f}^\^ \^\ \ ] j _ |
7. Type of Impact £J (1-Ouantiatire) (2-Quaiitatire) ^^'° Jp/^ * /V
8. Prediction:
£ | n \ & | A f A j *1 1 /*1 C\ A " | 7"| ] A | *- 1 ."•!
/7) 1 ' 1 ^ 1 ' 1 '*! ' 1 * \ c r\ \ ^ \ f-\ ® \ ^ 1 ; 1
! 1 1 1 1 F 1 ! ! 1 I 1 1 1
l ' 1 F F F F 1 i ' ' F 1 !
i 1 1111,11 1 1 1 1 ,,l , 1
l 1 1 -I ( F 1 -I - ! 1 1 1 1 1
1 J 1 ( 1 1 J i l 1 -1 -( 1 !
- 1 A'l - 1 1 ^Y 1 A\ ^\r \ Y-}^ 1° I '-'I cl -1 l ' ic i i i f
'l^l 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 F ' f 1 1 I 1 f 1
1 F 1 1 1 1 1 f f 1 f 1 f 1 f F 1 1 F F F 1
I | | | | | | I I j I | ; f f | I 1 l l 1 1
J— 1 1 1 1 1 1 J— I-J LJ l«_l 1 f 1 Fill 1
I | | ! | | | | J | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | [ | | | | | | | | f | f f f I l i i i
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I y 1°
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year I ;.l ?l * ,lif\
|£-|^n5|a|*;|KJ.|^e-|Ai|r|_|^e|c|of fff^i | -j |*H ^fT5 J ' I*7 F"'l ! 1 1 1 I I 1 '
I"1!' l^r| ' |/»l '1*1^1 °\ | _| | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
| I | | | | f | | | 1 1 1 i
| | f f f 1 | 1 f | | | | |
! 1 1 1 1 ' 1 I 1 1 1 - 1 1 1
I I i i I f i i | | | i i i
I II 1 1 f 1 I 1 f f f
! ! 1 1 ! ' ! 1 F F I f
f 1 I 1 f t 1 1 f 1 I i
I | i | i | i | i i i i
I 1 f I f / I
I i i I f i f
I 1 I f I f f
1 i i i i 1 i
f f f
f 1 1
1 | ,
i i i
13. Actual current conditions:
s ^^f £"^ oo- o=>g-P« ^° /=* ' ° ^ -*-' ~
\c\f-\
I I | [[I | | III | | || f | | j || f | | | f > f f | || | |
[ f | J [ [| f \ \ I | | | |f | I I I f I f ' ' I > I f I f f M
f f | I I I f I f I I f f I f I I f I f I I I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
14. Data Base: IJll . ' I ^T '-.I c. I I ; Kl A.^\ f-\~\-s-\ *.\ f IT| ' \*}f(\ I F ^-\ /:\ "H F ^ I c I '^ ^F •-
20. Location of Narrative Report: I L
A-5-7
-------
1. Project Name. \': .if.l'jj v'r'l ' "'
Evaluation Form
- ; - -— -1* ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
2. Needs(Facility) No.
Grant No. I \ f-\ "i
NPDES No. I I I I I I I .! I !
3. Date of Document: Year LLLlLlI 7l Month l£l.>J Day I_J_J
4. Type of Document: a, E1S LJ b. EA I_J c. E1D !_] 4. Facilities Plan LU e. Negative Dec. 1— J f . FNSI LJ
3 .Location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Politic*! Jurisdiction: I _ I.. I I I l_ .I_J_J_ j_J
j-i *i ? I-LLLUW
!-J_J-!_J-J-l_J-JN-L_I_l_l-l— I-J-I-J-JT I I u I H I ntf-| i I |-i I u I iw
- 1 H l'v' I fl ^ r ^ I A l'7' ~ ^ g-l >J -I
6.1ssue:
I •• I Parameter I
7. Type of Impact I_=J (1- Quaatiative) (2- Qualitative )
S. Prediction:
.
I Al/g.10 IV I VjCI I r-i nicTj I -.[ I IT I J^| _ I /IVI _ \r\*\6\ I 'I
'V '
i i i i i i
/
"/
~
t Ol^h |A|. ["/I I I I
~™
i i i i i i t
__
I I _ I _ |_J _ I _ I _ J _ i_J _ I _ |_J_J _ I i i i i i i
| | I I \ I I I I I | I I | | I I t I t
I
II I I I ' I' I
I I ! ! ' I I ' i I ' ! ' ' I I
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: ,.1,.
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I • t^i "
D °
/v r
A 1
*
Al-- I
.!—»_{ I t I I I | f | | | I J...J
J— I— I— LJ—LJ-J-J^ I— 1^1— I— i— I— I— 1 . I .1— I— U—LJ-J ..... I..I....I-J
I— I— I^LJ— LJ-J-J—I I , LJ— I— I-J^J-J— LJ— LJ— i— I— I I I.J— LJ.J-J— LJ,.,t I-J
1 1 . Predicted for «nd of planning period: Year LU_l!_l!._i
^JJ^^
UU-J-J-J_J^
l-i-LJ— I— LJ— 1— I-J— I-J— I— LJ-J— I-J— L_!__!_!-J-J— I— LJ_J_J— !__ U J_1_L_LJ_J
A-58
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year UjljJj_ll
»g ^^ r" ° ' ^ r* °
| I | I | I | | | | | f | | [ | | | I | I- | I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
| i | | | T [ | | | | { | | | | | ) | | | | | I | i I i I | I i I I I I )
' I—I II I I II I _ I I > I I i I IN I— I I _ LJ-J-J _ | | || | | | | I | I I
I I I [ | I | _ | | | | | | | | | _ I _ I I I I I I I _ j | | | I I I I I I I I I
I I t I I < | I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I
13. Actual current conditions:
PC rl~ .' r/,^
'L L c tv.'
-r
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | I I I I | I I | _ | _ | I I I I I I I I T I I I
i i i i i \
' H. Data Base: I ? f ' |gf <-! °| f / ! I ^f ^| ^|r I ' I 6 |'^TI '1 ^1 M N'l11 ! M'
^~
13. Summary: ( Code I ~IM )
l^lgl^l/-:! cj I A| /H^"l 1^1 -I rl f A]-D\ ^'I^T^I-Ll ^i l^l^l^-i I I I I f I I I
' r" > ^ "-" 4-'''-- ~^*'=:'L}' ^c^ ^ ^-'^ ^1- "" -
\ ____
Li. | i _ | i i | i | | | | | T | | f f | | | | | _ | | j | _ 1 '| | ' I i 1 I I
16. Regulations in Effect: <
A.Baseline: \P\<--\W \-#\6-\o\ \ \ | | { | | j | | | | | | | | \ f | | 1 f |
Today: |^|o| |d|^l/e| \.o\^\^\r\ |H.J4ICI lcifl.^l l^l^^lrl I3!'"' I I
B.Baseiine: \p \£-\m \~ \<» \ ~|-5"j I I | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ [ _ | [ | I f I | | I | _ |
Today: \»\o \ m ^t*i t ^i • i ^f=» | '.( \<*\ • \*\e\*\ \ A\?\s\e \*\z\ / \*\ \*\ \ <
CBaseline: UL-LJ..I ! I I I I l' I I I IU t I I I I— LJ-J I I ULJ— 1_ J
Today: L£JJLJ K-l^l^l I -J n - 1 c, i M 7 1 -| / I I I I I I || I I I ' ' ' I I
17. Revirver: liZUJdfj 13. Data of Review Year I ' 13 | tj *-/) Month [op | Day \i \tf\
19. Title of Narrative Report | r'-i i [ c| LI o| i/|/viv/| {£j p\r\ | ^|ci^ i ,V|£|/ }D;g|(g| | / [/^/j (
20. Location of Narrative Report: I I i I | I I » t i | f _ |_J _ | _ | ^ I I | | | _|_J_|
A-59
-------
1. Project Name.
Evaluation Form
iJ_l_l^lAL.lAl^ 1* I I I I I I I I i i i i
2. NeedsOaciiity) No. LJU-U_U_J±J-£O_J NPDES No. II I I | I I I I I
Grant No. i /| * i C|-^H-|S' i f>\ o m |
3. Date of Document: Tear UlUJJJJ Month UlLl Day LJ_J
4. Type of Document- a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LU e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
31ocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I I I L I I II I f |
I—I—1—I—I—1—i—I—I—LJ—I—1—1—I—LJ—1—1_J_J_J_I J I I I I II I I I I I I I
I-1LLHJJ.L1-UJ2JN--I
i-J-J-i-J-J-l-J-JN-LJ-J-J-l-J-J-l—I^JV L-LJ-ULJ-I I IN-LJ-J-J-I I M-J-JW
6.Issue: I *t H *i "I '' p ''-' fci' ' 'jl Parameter: I ^j il A| iV[S [(:[.) j , i .V| iPi6iot3iDi i i
7. Type of Impact: LJ (I- Quantiative) (2- Qualitative) s r'J/i *Cjf
8. Prediction:
c /q ^ c ' ~~ '
£
l ' -.1 ' ' '
J—I^L-LJU-J.
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: I-L1A
10 Baseilng Cnpdttiony Year } /' _ |ci_\~'__\'l \
^uc') r?|_ |A-1 c | *2j e] [ ^ ,47- [?"|__ | ^|_A-J p| |A^I^L_IrjijJJT |o.| :'^—tr^l' I"
/^-•'
.t—J—I—l-g.K.I I
J-£J-LLJj
r-io
J_L
! n <• ; >7 I ^ J ^_|^|_
±Ld±J_
I. I_J_I
L/j£j^j
i I l I
LJ_J
11. Predicted for end of plannin g period: Year LLl.2J.ilLJ
A-60
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
«
12. Predicted for current year: Tear I Lfi.$ t I
5ftra-g- ^^ ° •' -7 • ^ *5 15"^0 0^ ^^
I I | i | I | | '' I ! I ' I I '' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I ' I I
i i | | | | | | } | { } | ; | } } f { | | | { } _ j _ | | j | | { | | | I | { .
I i J i f I I I t I | | | t t I I I t I I I I I _ | I I I I I I I I I I I I ,
13. Actual current conditions: ^ rA
p o A..' £ T il L- c r i o rJ u'i A- S I Qi/3 i^s let (2\s &.
1 1. 1 erf s|-v| t Tl^-|>Kt '!r I^M^I I'M H^I^Pt i^^l^l _ |^| i/^-jg'} /|s Pfn _ Li I I ,
{<^{gfr|L»j}(5tc'|'-^f |g~| 'jg-i^f^t lr!°l !Tlelvl l^l^l^l"!- I ) ) I I I I I \ \ \
f i r i i i i i i i i i i i i i ! i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
i j i i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i i _ j i i i i i i i f i i i i i
f I { I I _ i | i i i ; | | | | | | | ) | _ | | | j j | | | j | | | | | I | I (
f I T I I i I I I i I I I I | I I i I I | I I || I I I I I I I I I ' I I
14. Data Base: { ^ I > \ &\ H ° I f ! *•'? '- ]tj\^\r] ' \ c- \ + 1 r.!-^l-° 1^ I IJ IL f;-!^ I I •'! yl ' ; 1 9 I • M^-' I
13. Summary: ( Code |^-|/ I )
; 'b|g|C | ' p|^| fr| |6}o |g [g || |^1Q) (C[^|f^ |^|^KI~| \-\z\ \ \
B.Baseline: 1^1 ^1^1 \^\(f ] ~l ~'\ ' ! I I I I I I ! I I _ L_LJ _ I I ! I ! I ' _ I
Today: l^ioi ictr-i/^ I L-I - 1 ^ t>|5 | | l-j _• | i,]* p-| }A] ?\ S\ 2]M] ^}/ ]}l | }A ] | (
CBascline: L_LJ_I I I I I I I l' I I I I I | I | I ) | | | I | |' | j [^
Today: I^ICI Kir-|^-l I "31 5| . | ^ i IT l~p I I I | I I I I | ' ! ! ' I I I
17. Reviewer: l^|- I ^| 18. Date of Review Year I i] ^]^ |> | Montn IJUJJ Day
19. Title of Narrative Report »^ I • l..?tHDl I / l/v | '/| |^|g|^j | -S;C|H- ;\'|
20. Location of Narrative Report ' I ' ! I I | | | I | | _ |_J _ | | \ | | | | }_| _ |_j
A-61
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. V- IN l~ I ~ ' \c ' "' ' '";| _ I " I '-p ( ul L I ' I1'7! _ ! _ I _ ! _ I
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. UJ^l^ULil_J - 1 .',1, I NPDES No. I_LJ_J_J—LJ_J_U
Grant No. i.rm gm? in C4 3|j_m
3. Date of Document: Year LLllJUlJ Month LOLJ Day !^L£J
4. Type of Document: a. E3S Ul b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan L)4 e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
3 location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg- nun-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I _ 'I II — !_J_J
. _ _ i i i I I
I..J-I-I— LJ-LJ-JN-I I LJ-LJ-J-LJ-JW I _l— l-L I l-i I IN-) I _j l-l ._{. ui | iw
6.1«ue: l.tLlf.l.t J M4' '-'' sl-l ' I Parameter I ^ .•? I c I A; | Q| ^ | f J v |^jrr| _c,U U ^^ I °J
7. Type of Impact LU (1 - Quantiative). (2- Qualitative ) ™f * r
3. Prediction:
1 ^JJLl±' ^ ^ I r I £ I ^-1 / I I .^
( A_) Oj.yj /J|C |c| ,/V| T) _ |T|Q| | /^| ^j o |
l-.LJ—L.I.-1-L-ULJ. . I ..... l-J-,m— I -I ...... !
LJ_I— LJU-I. .1 .JULJ-JUL- LJ— LJ^J-J-J— LJ ..I . I UU-J- I I . I I I-J
_!UU_J_LJ-J-J-J--J— !-J_J_ L-LJ_LJ— I— LJ— LJ_I_JU-J_J-J_J_J_J_J
Ll.^.1— LLLLJ. J I,,, I II - J ..I „.., LJ_LI _ I —I— I— I— I— I -I— I J —I— I- I _ l_l_l_l_|_|
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: .Js^
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I • 'IT I 7 Lil
U ^I
-Jja^ J ..... I .LJ
— I— L_LJ_J-J-J-J-J— I— I— I-J— ]_J_1_J_I_I.-J_ J— LJ_I_ I-J— I_J-J—I_J-J_J
U I— Li—l-J-J-J-J-J-J— I-J— I— I-J— I-J— I— U I-J— I-J— l^-l—l— I— I-J— I-J— J— I. I LJ
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year LLULLLLJ
J-lL£l--!— LJ— I— LJ—I-J— J-J-J— J— LJ— l—l_l— I_J_I__I_LJ-J
I_I«LJ— LJ— LJ-J— UL-I— LJ—I-J-J-. I—I—!— !_i-J-J_J_- L_I_.I_I_I_!>J-J_I_L_I_J
I— LJ_J_J— 1-1J-J— LJ_J— l—LJ—LJ— !— I— I— I— I-J-J-J— L_ I_I_!__I— IU_J— I_LJ_J
l_ LJ—I— I—LJ—I-J-J— LJ— L-l— 1_J_!_L_L.I_J_J-J-J_J_LJ_!_I— I— !-J_J_l_LJ-J
_LJ_UI—LJ—LJ—LJ-J-J
L_l—J—IU-J-J—LJ
A-62
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear j/ H
'
I i M | i | | | | | | | | | I ! I ' I f I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I t t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I f I I I I I
•' I I I I I I i I t ! ! ! I ! I ] _ I f I I I I I _ I _ | | j | | | _ I f I I I I I
I _ i ' | | I I I I '! I I I ! I I I I I I _ |_J _ | _ iij | |_| _ |
I i I I i i I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I | I I | _ j _ | | f | | |
13. Actual current conditions:
^ i — - fe1*2- ; L - / ° *' 'c ' ft" T/4 E £~
IP MA- / A/ 'A
01
i i i i
14. Data Base: \^ '\^\L*D\ \ J\^ \ '*'\ ^1 s I r\ ' \C'\A \ r\ ''\c \N'\
13. Summary: ( Code |~| / I )
{ o i />i ( lo |^» s>£-> ^ i/i Atr i / I otA/t \r\n\tz\ Mtiai-ri^i \&\n~r\^\ I _ I I I I I
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ' — — — ' — — ' — — — — — — — — —
f ^fg-|fl|/g-{ _ _
T / i/ £" 7o T#€ £>#- I i
ri^l | ^ -'{^.f q df / i^tdTt M|*MgT>at I t I I _ I I I I I I I I I I I I t
- - - 1 - 1 - 1 - I - I - 1 t__4 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 I - 1 - i - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 - I {
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: \P\^\w^ \*\z\o\ I I t
Today: |»{Q| \cj\f-\ai \P\*\IJ.\T\ \ L\ \4\o\ _ | C\F \g\ \ ?\*_\^\i'\ \ -\^\ \ \
B.Baseline: I £\ ' \ +1 l^'l^l r\L- 1 A' M\ &\ 1^.° ^ ' , ^ ____ i. ._! ____ - , /^ , ' J ^ ' j u \
Today: i^t ici/M^ IM.|^Q^) | c | . ; .3 ^ ^ \ \ ^\^\^\ &\ M 01 / 1 xt \A f i
CBaseline: I ; ___ „ , I | -, _ ,__, _ _ _ _ <
Today: 1*101 1^1*1 I ?m -l^/m-i/i I I I I i I I I I i I i f ; I
17. Reviever: l£2lJ=Ldj 18. Date of Review Year LUliLcLl Month |_2jjj Day |~l^|
19. Titie of Narrative Report \f \ ' \^\(-\'^\ I'l^l^i \^^\r\ \h\e.\i \L\u\ i\o\*!\ |^|/|S[
20. Lo cation of Narrative Re po rt: ' ' ' I ' ' I I ' I. I .1 . I I I I \ I I I I I I ! !
A-63
-------
Evaluation Form DRAFT
1 Df¥i!«i"t V«m« I/C |AL I ' I - I i. I ; I C II*I I tv-1 ' I •-> I ^ I'3 I w\ "J I '' I'V I I I
i. iTojcci jraamc. r i i i ' ' I I I ' ' ' I I, i i -• i I , \ \. ,\
2. Needs(Facility) No. UJ^JLUIJUI ?! y,l I NPDES No. i—1_I | | .( | | 1 I
Grant No. i-^i -n "I 'f-\ 71 ^ -"~\ •-! '-\~J. I
• 3, Date of Document: Year LJ^JJJJ:! Month l.i.fl.,1 Day LO£J
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
Jlocation: (latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I I I III f I III
I J I .L-LJ-J...-..k-J I I I I I f l—J—l-J I—I—I—.L_LJ__LJ_J ULJ-J | I i.._|_..J
• L.LJ-J. .LJ-ULJNH I I—J-LJ-J-L-LJ¥ LJ-J-LJ—I-LJ-JN~I-J-LJ-I—LJ-LJ-J¥
ULJ-I .1- .I-I-J—IN-I...I. .LJ-ULJ-I-J,..l¥ LJ—I-LJ—I-I-.LJN-I_U_J-I_J_J-LJ-J¥
LJ—j-l—LJ-LJ_JN~LJ_J_J-LJ_j-!_J_J¥ I-J.J-I-J-J-I 1 . .IN-U-LJ-i—LJ-LJ-J¥
6.1ssue: I^I^I-0J°r-| ° I ?\L \ ^\ : \ -'l/| Parameter: I^I^AJ^i^lA|^f_f|^[jp|^|J|"JgJ_/
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year Year \Jj±lJllll
1 / |y\;i 7"
1 V|»i|*>
1 1 L,
1 l L
1 1 1
III
13. Actual
l£ 1 £| c-|G"| r^j T| Of
\*\c\r] |r|! | / i vi /
2 | / | A) | | | | | | | | |
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
' 1 I 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ' 1 1
1 1 1 1 f 1 j 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 -!-- 1 1 1 f II
| »1 A IL [
ffll
fill
(III
III!
fill
1
1 f
1 |
1 j
j
1 |
.--A.L i(f "J
L_l—f_| | I -| | f f || | | | J f || ( | | || f | f | ||
i I i
.
H. Data Base:
13. Summary: ( Code I^LLU )
° * f* T
/ f u 0 ' ^ u' *5 ^^ '
r ' * ^' J VL V
r s iC
0
_ _ _ _
( _e [ __/ _| V) ,g( j| | f
- -
_
I I I I I I I I | L_L_J_J I 1 I I I I I I
l l l l i
...I... I I-J-J—I—LJ—I—LJ-J-J—U-J-
-J-J-J~J-J f I .LJ
LJ ..I..I....I U-J-J
| f | f f
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baselme: l_£j.£-Uii
Today: UJ-U
B.Baseline: \J
Today:
C.Baseline: i
Today:
17. Reviever: |^LUjj 18. Date of Re vie v: Year LJ^ZJJJ^J Month |^2J2j Day
-JUU-J-J— L-LJ—LJ
19. Title of Narrative Report: I— J_LJ__ I_I-J-J
' 20 . Location of Narrative Report: I
_!-J_J_L>I-J_J_J_|.J_J>J_J_J
..._|._.I_L_|_ | | | | | .. f __|_|_J_J_J
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. 1^ I'Ll^l4 Is 1^ |j I 1^'' I"* 1^1° I ^l6!' \^\ \ | | | I I I I I I I I
2. Needs(Facility) No. LJljIJ.lLlJj2J_LLLLlJ NPDES No. LJ-J-J-J.,-.I.,.,I L.U
Grant No. \~-\~\ ' »-*f? | r^iCiH-J
3. Date of Document: Year LLLLLILU Month LlLL! Day I_J^J
4. Type of Document: a. E1S I—I b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan L4 e. Negative Dec. L£J f. FNSI LJ
5-Location: (latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I „ I I I I I—LJ I I—I
LJ—LJ_I_L_LJ-J I I I -I I ••' I -' I I I I I I I I ' I ' I ' II I ' ' I I
r— i \v\ viJijj£H_g_L£jT L±I.±I-LJJLI
iJUJd-LO^W.
LJ-J-LJ—H—L-IN-LJ—LJ-LJ—I-I—LJV LJ-J-ULJ-I I IN-i. J, I—H.. I-J-LJ—IV
6.1$sue: IH^1TIH^I A^ ^1 ' ' I Parameter: Ia I o I u I ^ 1.01 ^l ^-| ^» |£"»M cK.i 3 in IJ.JAI^J
7. Type of Impact: I~J (1 -Quantiatire) (2-Qualitative) ™eN r
S. Prediction:
J-ll I C i.gj 'v I j.» J.I ^.) c | c i TI )i_o i >v'| ) ; \ \
- ' J-l^^ rriA t ^T|A / A/c IDI
oj /.i A/ |/.-.| _ [j |//| -|^| o| A|D| |g.|/ {gjMir i 10 i f\
!— J_I_J_J_J-J_J_J_J_LJ_J_J
— !—!_ I— LJ— LJ— 1—
j_j__l_j i i t | i
i | i |_j_j i i i i | |
LJ | j_j | LJ || | | | | | | |__l_LJ_LJ_LJ | j | | | i | | | | ; j |
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: |Sj-sJAJ^L^L
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear 11 I Sill// 1
I I i i 1 i I ; I i I f I I I I I I I I [• I ! I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I i \ | | i { ) | | | t t I I ! _ I f I I I I I I _ | | | | | | | | I | t I )
.' | i | | | | | | | ; f | | ; } i | \ | | [ _ j _ | _ | _ | { | | _ | | | | | I I { I
I I I I I i I I I i ; I I _ | } | _ | _ | | | _ j _ j _ | _ | _ | _ i _ | | | | I I _ I_J_J_J_J
I j | ) { | || _ | | | | { | | | | | | | _ j _ j_j_j _ | | j | | | | | | | | | |
13. Actual current conditions:
.v 0l' .ut?i A/ gT ^ A L JA ~r cT
A
t-
liotriTj }A;£jgjA{St I I I I I I _ I I I I I LLJ^J ! I I M I I I I I I
"14. Data Base: 1^1 ' |£f- i Dl f !\ ^\ 'J\^\ 3\ T| ' { ^']A I"7" I /-l ° I >v I I J'1 ^-
13. Suinmary: ( Code I . .| lo r/ ACT
o
_ I I t
_ i i ; i i i _ j _ I i I I ! I _ 1 _ i [ [ i _ i _ i _ i i i _ i || _ i _ j _ i _ i _ i
I I I I I I _ I _ I _ I I I I I I I I _ I I t I I I _ I _ I _ I _ j _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I I I I _ I
I i [ i i i i i _ I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I _ | _ | _ | | J _ | _ | I I I I I I 1 I
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: |^|Q| \L\r- \(^ \P\fi\mr\ \L\ \ \'+\Q\ _ jjHJ: jjg-l J^l^l£-f r\ 1^1^ I
Today: \z\A-\fr]£rl I I I I I _ I I I I I _. I I I _ ! _ I _ LJ_!_i_l I IMM
B.Baseline: I a I Q I I H ^ I ^ I _ | c-l . | ^-|o p | 1 C-| • f i|c I -| _ | A [ p| Pt^|A'|^ •' | ^ _ j^j
Today: I^Ml^g"! I | | I I ) | | | _ I | | | _ I I | | | _ I I I I I | | _ |
CBaseline: l±iLQJ_l ..^ ^ I ^ I 31 ?l . -
Today: Ig.lAI^I^I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I | | |
17. Reviewer: l£U-Ll£j 18. Dat« of Review Year LU^lUJ^J Month |_2j2j Day |^I"M
19. Title of Narrative Report I ^1 •• l£"l-f- | IM^'Kl \I*-\P\T\ \ ^1 H A '^ Is 1^ I ^1 laV Is I I
20. Location of Narrative Report: I I I | I | | | | [ I I _ !_j _ I _ I M i I I I _! J_l
A-67
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. i^.|£ji!JA''-'" IM |:n_LLr-i^M"igi i Nei ^iri i7'-^! IAI i i i
Al ^ lr l£l ^^1 A'|^i/-|J/-|y i |Ai) fl f ' | ^jT[^ ;^ [A/
.. I ° I (^1
L l_l II I I I I I LI._!_! _..t_l I J I I I II II III I. | I.I | | |
* | -I- I.. I—L |_L I ._J I I I -I I I _..! I I II | I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | |
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: ^-IP.) 411.114.1 q .\.*>'\o\T] I £|g| £nT"|£ I *l T| ^ ^ \ \ ]
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I
I..J....I—UI^J—LJ—I-.I-I...I-J—I—I^J—J—I—1—I—LJ—LJ—I—LJ-J-J-J-J—I—U.I .1, LJ
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year UaJlCLI
_.. !.£^!_!_LLL!JJ:^1_L£l^.l^i^J-J-Lj£ll£jJ2.1_iJ^i^.!^^J—I_LJ_]
• ,
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear |1 ft
I *ilAP''III] IA I Si
i I f I I f i | | I i | I I | I | f I I I- I _ LJ_J _ | | | | I I I I I I I _ !
I { f | | _ i | | | i i | i | | | | I I I I I I I I I I _ LI I I— I I I ' ' >
•' |,| I I I i i i i i i i i i i i i t i i i i _ i _ i _ i i i i i i _ i f i i \ | }
I - , - - !_! - 1 - 1 - , - 1 - 4 - 1 - 1 - .4 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - I_J__4 •—— .
| | | | | _ !_J_J _ || | { | | f I ||f | _ | | ||J t||| II | I | | I '
) { I I I _ | _ | _ | _ | | | ) f | | | _ I I I I _ ! _ LJ_J _ ! _ I I I I I I I _ 11)11
13. Actual current conditions:
£ fl^^ C o V £T £- CS 0 UAS 6
A.LL' ..c"XP0S g"P .*>QP£.S A£.O
QrJ L
\N]0 (T"|.c]p| | a (A/| \T\ti \£\<,\E\ [£)i.|Q j^|cf|:s'{ \Q\f-\ _ t/AjT) \T\
*Q/4-...c.AI / -S
H. Data Base: !^| ' \* \ L < D| f ' 11 /tg i3 I r> ; I ^i'^l T l'"l ° i I lJ'l^'Kl:^l I2!'1'!
1 " " / •
13. Summary: ( Code |-| ,' I )
V
o rl
I _ | _ | | | { | i ; | | [ | f | ; | | } | [ | | [ _ [ | | _ | I '| I 1 I I I I I
16. Regulations La Effect:
A.BaseUne: |^j°l I ^1
Today: |A|A.|)n|gi | I f | | | | I | | | | | _ I I I I I I _ ! _ I _ I. I ' f I
B.Baseiine: 1^1° I l^t^l^-t \ ^ • ^ 2\° \ ^] I I^-I-I
Today: |.S| A| Aijgl | | [ | ; | | | | | | |
CBaseiine: ULl^J_l..^l ^ I *4 1 3i-s-| . i^i ,\ v i~ i M ' ' ! f I I I I f ' I I I I !
Today: LILAJ m^\ I I I I I I t I I I I I I f I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
17. Reviewer: !^lj±l£j 18. Date of Reriev: Year I >\°i\^\Li\ Month j J. | "? | Day |^|^|
19. Title of Narrative Report |r-j)|>r|H^l | ' rvl ]/| j^-|^ri )^r\N \ ft \ s \^ \ A| ;M,-| / u ; |
20. Location of Narrative Report: I I ' < I I I I M I I I I I I ^ ' ' ' I I I ....!_!
A-69
-------
1. Project Name. 1^1 _=
2. Needs(Faciiity) No.
Grant No. \-'\^\ ' |
Evaluation Form
;| -IQIM^I Ll'v I I I I I I I I I
NPDES No. L.,1 J-J-J.J I LJ-J
~l CJ
3. Date of Document: Tear I— LLLLL2J Month I. - 1 ' I Day
«. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
3 location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I _ I _ I I .1 — I — LJ
I | i i | ill _ | ) | | I _ LJ _ |_j _ LJ_J _ LJ_|
i i ?\ X ui n i H t T- iv
- '- fl-
UI .hi— LJ-l— LJN-l I I H—LJ-LJ— IW l I l-l I J-i I ITSM \ \
6.1ssue: K'-l.g I _rl _H *» "yl gf i I I Parameter: I £\ ^ '* I / | A] A | ^ | iTl I K I A j
7. Type of Impact: b=J (1- Quantiatire) (2- Qualitative)
8. Prediction:
!2\ ' \r'\
T\
'T
-
LLLLul
J I I I—1—1—LJ—1—LJ—1—1—1—LJ—L
U^J-J-^J-^JZJ—LJ-J—J
IA l*mAl I I J 1 1
-J—LJ—LJ—I—I I I-J
J-J
J_J_J j LJ—1—J—I—I—LJ | || | L
j i i i i i
I—LJ—1—1—L-1—1—1 I 1 I—LJ—1—LJ—1—LJ—1—1—LJ-J—I I LJ-J-
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I '1^
l | | |
J I 1 I ! I
^^
-'
LJ_I_J_I_LJ_J_I
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year IJLI-lC-L
A.'
1—1—1
1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—!
!_1_LJ_J_!_!-J_J_ I—!—I—1—!
L- I—I—1_!-J_1_J-J—LI—1—I—l_l_1-J—L_1_IU
—I-J—I—LJ—1—1—J—I-J-J—LJ—1—I—1—1—I—I—1—1—1—1
A-70
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year I M^ ISI^I
I I I I I I I I I I I T I I I I ! I I I I- I I I I I I I I ' I ' I I I I I
I ) i [ I i I I I i I ; i I I I j | | j^j^i- 1 j _ I I I !• I *-i i 'I'M
' | | f | I I II I _ ! _ | t | I t I- | f I It I I _ I _ | | t | | { _ | | I I t f I
I I I { f ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ |__j__| _ | | |
I I I I I { ) I I I ; I I I ; ; I I ) I I _ |_j__ _j_j _ j _ |
13. Actual current conditions:
\uj LV T tp i p, ^ / >,"r, , 3;y ,-,•-,'-' ,^1-, _ , _ , _ i
- *-0 //nrg"i; ^ ^ -
0
''^ ^Q^ 0 ^-' '--^^^^ s:-°pe
14. Data Base: |T; p \^\ ^\ D| f ; ! ^t ^1 ^f0! rl; 1^ IA I rT 1 ° Kl I **!*' i2" ^ I
13- Suaunary: ( Code I" l; I )
.J \O [^ [ | C| .^| A\^'\C' \£'\ \ / |AyJ |AJJ_A JT}1' j^.| Ai|6 { {- |<- '| j | | r }f f \
c <«-- IAI e tA"" i
III; _ j _ | _ | _ ] _ i > f { { j ; | _ | | | _ |_j__j _ J _ | _ \ _ | _ | I I I I 1 ' T I I _ I
I _ i i | _ |_j_j _ | _ I I | | | I | I | _ j | f { f _ J _ | _ | I | I I I I I _ I i I I I
16. Regulations in Effect: (
A.Baseline: j^t^l Ic1^t'g-l l^lAl/e-[rl IJH LJWI^I _ lc ]p\*-\ \^.\A]* \r \ I 3!5'l f
Today: I ^\^\m\^\ I I I I I _ I I I I I ' I _ I _ I _ I _ 1 _ !— 1— I _ I _ I _ I I I t I
B.Baseline: |^M| jcpl^ \ j.\ ,\ 2.\t>\^\ \ |6|.|5|o|^-| \ A[ P\ iy\£\ >| ^| / p< | | A|
Today: | -^ ^< »'| gl | | | I I | I | | | | | | _ | _ I I | I | ! | I I | [ _ | ,
CBaseline: UJ1QJ_J..U f I ^ I 3| ri . TOM LI 1^1 M I I I I I { | | | | | | | | }
Today: l-SJ-^^l^f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I i \ \ \
17. Reviewer: »Jn| .<-\P.\ 18. Date of Reriev: Year I ' lcl^l ^1 Month iJLJlU Day PI a|
19. Title of Narrative Report l^l ' | ^1 H -I \'! \^\v\ \fL\p\~r\ l^l^l^l ^ls 1^ I A| I^MM^f j
20. Location of NarraUve Report: I I I I I | | | | | | | _ |_J _ | _ | \. \ } | | _| _[ J_J
A-71
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. I'" |'~ i;V I A'": i^|A ' l'- I ' I '-\ {" l: l^' l : i IM | | .1 l | LJ l l l | i
2. Needs(Facility) No. LLl£l2l i|U-^FT-'l.ll NPDES No. UL-LJ—UI—LJ-J-J
Grant No. i~m i-~m ^'l s I MJ±J
3. Date of Document: Year l±llllL2J Month I.M M Day LlLLj
4. Type of Document: a. E1S LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
3.Location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: 1 I I [ I—i-,.-.-,J._J I I I
! I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
ULJ-LJ-J-ULJy-t I LJ-ULJ-LJ-JW !_l_l-l—l_!-l_J_JN-!_l_J-J-i—LJ-LJ-JW
6.1ssue: \^\L-\ °!° \r?\*)\(- I Al ' \™'\ Parameter: I ^.1- I AJA-'K- \
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
5 " *
12. Predicted for current year: Tear I M^l^l^l
|S|A}^fc"| |Aj-3 ; j£~|/V|£) |O \?\ \?\L j A | //{//; J_\^]£]^\ Q^I^-M^I- I \ I I I I I
I I I I I I | f | I I | I I I I _ | | III- I _ ! _ I _ I _ |__| ___ | II I I i II I I
M M M M I M M M M M || || | _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I
* I I ! I I I I I I _ I I I I I I I I f I I I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ | | | | j | I | I I j _ |
I | i f I i | | | ; | I [ f | | | | | | _ { | | _ | _ [ | | _ | | | [ | | I | | |
I MM _ M J M M I I f ! _ II M I I I ! ! _ II M I I I II II I
13. Actual current conditions:
^ c '
'l . _(,. -i..y AT c e g -s ktJ r> A
_JLA %.
*> T -S 6 £
£.{0 ; 1/| I ; bj£"^ ; ' |^> p |W | c; ^ |L |O p p (
"14. Data Base: I? t ' \£-\ u'-! f /|A^f '^K I3 t r\ ' K"IA t Tr '1° 1^ I 1^ !v (L I" Vl I7"!4 f M ^1* 1
.^— H___< _. ^ _
13. Summary: ( Code I I Q| )
L'LD A/0T |g ^^ L L'A T |fc C C. . £. fl C v' _ Q p
A Dn / T i o A-
T H f
.|g{ D| i ) \m\P\ft\c fT| _ M M I M I I I I I _ I M t I I f I _ I
{ I [ { j | _ ;;[ [ jf | _ || ; || | | _ |_j_j_] _ i _ | | .._ | _ i _ i _ | |[ M _ ! _ I
Mil _ I _ I _ I _ ' _ M I M I I I _ | || _ | _ I _ | _ ( _ | _ I _ | [| _ j _ | _ M I I I i _ !
I M M M _ I _ | M I M I M I I M I _ I _ ! _ I _ I i I _ LJ _ I I M M I
16. Regulations La Effect:
A.Baseline: M 1° I M^l^l MAI^M | k | | I^Q) _ \^\^\i^\\P\^\^-\~r'] |^l-^| j
Today: M^i^ltri Mil1 _ II I III I _ I _ I— I _ 1__1_!_J _ ! _ III I I I
B.Baseline: Mi^l I^KI^I I '--I • ' ^1 ° I3 I I IH'I^I0'^ _ IA I ? .ll?l(£'l 'vl°l ' lxl I A!
Today: ['a-l ' I^J -J^| _.L. I I I I M M I I M I I
Today: M ^ n^€ M M ' M * I II I I I _ II I II I I I ' ' ' M
17. Reviever: \>~"\- \?\ 18. Data of Review Year LU£LJ_lL±J Month |_^|JU Day ja I '-/I
19. Title of Narrative Report f^l \\£\^-\&} \ J \N\ •/) |J<|^|T; _ \ft\\ c\/\'\fi |Sp-J|/\{ ; ^ / p ;. )
20. Location of Narrative Report M ! M M M I I _ ! _ !— J-J _ I ^ M I I ! _ I _ !_J
A-73
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. Klr'J'-1 Al~ '"' A| I6'1 ' IM~I ll ^1 sr I "I I I I I I LJ I I l | |
2. NeedsCFaciiity) No. L^JJjl^-iJ^G3lJ-Ll NPDES No. LJ-J.
Grant No. Ul_iLLJ^±2JJl£
3. Date of Document: Year UllJllIJJLI Month Kl.^l Day L1LI]
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan L±l e. Negative Dec. EJ f. FNSI LJ
5 Xo cation: (Latitude /Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I _ I I I . ».. | I | I I _ I
I I I I I I I I I
i-L32UW
ULJ-LJ-J-LJ-JN-I L-l I-ULJ-LJ—IV L-LJ-LJ-J-I—1—INH—LJ-J-LJ-J-LJ-JW
6.1ssue: t*"' L'\r \L:\A\_vl °l I I I Parameter I •^t/J>|-^'|.. | I J I I I ) I | |, J I J J
* 7. Type of Impact: l£J (1 • Quaatiative) (2» Qualitative)
8. Prediction:
^ r
?\
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear I I 1^ I^H I
I I I I I I } | j ; { | | j | | | | ) { j. _ | _ j _ | f | | t | | | | | I I f I
| | | | | i | | | | | | | _ I I I I ! I I I I I I || || I I I I I I ! I I
' I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I _!.. i I I I _ t_L_ l_-!_LJ-_J-J_l_I _ I_I_J_-I J I -I I -I. I
I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ |__J_| _ | j I I j I _ | | | | j <
| I i I J 1 | | | I | | | | | I | I | I | I | | _ | _ | _ || I III I I I I \
13. Actual current conditions:
° fLf
7
P<-
I I I J I i I I I I I I I 1 i ) I I I I I i _ I I I I I I I I I { I I f { I
H. Data Base: 1^1' I g! HDI f ; !^t ^l gls I Tl ' i^i I dt ^1 ' '1° 1^1 IJ'IU !c IA/-I-I ?I^I I l I ^-l^'l^i
13. Summarr- ( Code |-| < I )
T o
1
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: |^|-.|4|r^l£'| f | | | j _ l I I
B.Baseiine: |^|o| |C|?|^-{ j H- ! H.°l3 I J I -I • I ri^ 1^1 .-_! A\ /gl^.l.c±lA/ l_^j' l__ I . I A!
Today: I ^M^l^"l f I I I t I I t LI I I LI I I I I I I I I | | | |
CBaseline: LrLQJ_l ^ r | ^ | y yt. |'^| '|l|-j/| | | | I | [ | | | | | |__|_J_]
Today: I
17. Reviewer: !/>-' \t-\P\ 13. Date of Review Year I \\°l \%\li\ Month |jUJ2j Day
19. Title of Narratiye Report 1^1 ' i^l <--\ b\ jM^I^'l lr^^lrl \fa\£\n \ fl| s|^| A( \^\l\Z\ \
20. Location of Narrative Report: I I I I I I I | I I | | | | | | r I I I I _!_JU— I
A-75
-------
1. Project Name.
Evaluation Form
HiJAJ c I" I"' I "I_LJV I I I ! I I I I I I I I !
..I NPDES No.
I I I I I I I I
2.Needs(Faciiity)No.l_LLi
Grant No. in ?1 n^\~> I s^lOl2 i_2l
3. Date of Document: Year LLOLL2I Month
4. Type of Document: a. E1S I—J b. EA LJ c. ETD I-J d. Facilities Plan llj e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
31ocation: (Latitude/Longitude) (deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I I I ! » ' l I I ' !
I__LJ-LJ_J-U— 1N~I_LJ-J-I_J-J-I—1_J¥
— i i z i <*i-i >j '6 j.j C;-TT> iw
6. Issue: l'-cKlr !*- 1 -*LrytP I |
Parameter:
-i | IN-| | | j-i i ui | [w
. ' ' ' '
7. Type of Impact: LU (1-Quaatiatire) (2 -Qualitative)
3. Prediction:
=,
u'| c. T i e ^
I
I
I
I—LJ—LJ—LJ—I—J—LJ—I—I—I—I—J—I—LJ—LJ—I.
I—LJ—1—LJ—LJ—J—J—)—i—I-J—I—J—I—LJ—I—i—I—1—LJ .1 I I—LJ-J—J—I—I—I—J—I
I l III I I l I l l ...-I-I II III I I |-1 | l | i l | | i l | | | | | |
I—LJ 1,1...!_ I... I I 1 . I.., I-J—LJ—LJ—LJ-I—LJ—LJ—1 -L-l Ui J-J—J—1—I ,...,1—I—I
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I • f' \*
T J L-
[ I jjuj O | O
IAI ^i
ll-l
^- ir i M/
,.S|0 I /V{ fi
| Ojo |^
rfib\ i r-|
• I—LJ—LJ—I—I—i—1—I—I—I-J—I—I-J-J—I—i—LJ—I—LJ—I—LJ—I—LJ—I—I—LJ-J-J-J
UI—I—I-J I .UI-J I I ,1—L.i_I—I^J-J^I—LJ—I—LJ_J_LJ-J-J-J-J-J-J—I—LJ-J
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year L^jJ-PT : I
J^L]A!^!^)^!21J^ll.lJlO^U^^JJJLLL!l_!JJJ2Jli!-JjIl^!_L.!_J
JiiLilJOfJ—HJ^J—l£.l£J4l-Jjai^JJ—Ull^Ill£l—I—1—LJ—1^
I—I—LJ—LJ-I—I-J—LJ—l-l—!_!—!—I—L-L_!_J_J_J-J_J—LJ_!_I—J—I_J_1_!_LJ_J
I—I—I—I—I—I—I—1—I—I—LJ—I—IU—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—IU—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I
> I.J .1 LJ—LJ—I—i—LJ-J—I—I—I-J—I—i—LJ—LJ—I—1—i ..I !—IU—I—I—I—I—I—LJU
A-76
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear I \\^\^ \i\
uii A i A" i c"i i A »s i I'E i Mi £ t i c t PI |P|^-|A-|V| (/i /' 1,4
I t I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I
i i I I | | | | | | ) { | | | | | | | | | | | [ | | | | | [ | i i
•' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! f I I I I !_J_J | | | | j | | | | | | |
I | ; | | f j | | | | | | } | | | | | | | | | | | ! | | || | | I I I I i <
| | | | | | | | | f | j } | | | | | | |_J_J_J | | | i | LJ { | | | | | |
13. Actual current conditions:
riAl~"l ic i^ \T\ti\£\
\LC\ 51 "Hi* IA1 M\C,\I \?\d.\e\ ^iMl I/vile"! A I Gi s »*0l iTtH \ Al Tl tMA \L \ (
• ' ' — ' —,_-,—,
- - AL z
gr^ o
\
" 14. Data Base: I'M ' 1^1 '-I °l f '\^\ '"'\ ^]^ ] Tl / 1^ I ^1 Tl ;'| * \ ?J£( tieKerb * \c. oi' g. & r g .^A-t
i i i i i i i i i _
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: 1 4|_fl I
Today: | ^ | A \ m\ e\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ | _ | _ | _ [III
B.Baseline: I ^ <~> I I^-J^I '^ I ^--l* ' 2-\° I ^1 I I ^1 • I z- 1° ' 2I _ I Al^ !^|£f l;''i r\ ' |X! !
Today: | SIAi^l^l I | | f I | | | | | | | f | _ | I | | | | | | I | ;
CBaseiine: t^rUJ_J C^l £\ I -~>\*\ . I'-li / 1 7 \~ \ ' \ I I t
Today: l^lfll^i^i I I I I I I I t I I I I I I i I i I I I i I i , i |
17. Reviever: U21IM^I 18. Date of Review Year | \\c\ \*\*\ Month I^JJJ Day j^f^j
19. Title of Narrative Report \f*M \s\<-\t\ \<\^\^'\ K<| fj\^ \ \^\ £\r<\A I -|^l fi\ |^M"! I
20. Location of Narrative Report I I I 1 | | I I ' ' i I _ I-J _ I I \ • \ I ' I I I J_J
A-77
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name \~ \'^-\r \ ^ I- } • I H1--!^; \rr'\ ; l/v \" \E \^ \° \r IA I ; _ | _ |_j _ | _ ; I I I
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. [£]--] jJ^JJLJ-±l *l? I..M NPDES No. !_J_L_LJ
Grant No. I ^ I "I ' I "~l ^ ' *"! °l
3- Date of Document: Year U_LU_LLiJ Month 1° I rl Day LLLLJ
4. Type of Document: a. E1S LJ b. EA LJ c. HID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
Jlocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I I I ..-L.I I I_L | | J
ULJ-LJ-J-LJ-JNH I LJ-L-UI-LJ-JV L-LJ-LJ-J-I I IM-LJ-J—H-L-.I-ULJW
6.1ssue: I*-1 *n "} H *l *l :| I | | Parameter: I *3i 3 )_u A_ | o)./»|A |: | | ^"|^ Ic .j ^ I' | A| ^ h | ^\c
* 7. Type of Impact: UJ (1 • Quaatiative) (2 • Qualitative)
3. Prediction:
-LLlLlUI-llJil^J '! P l-^i—iJlLU-J : I ^,.I.LI/-I . I.
/-I '
I I I I i i ji i
I I I I I ! I I
III
j | |_J_J_J_J I I
LJ_J__ I_J_LJ__!__UJ_J— 1— !_I__!-J_L__LJ_J_J— I_J_J_ .LJ_J
I I I i I i
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year
I I LJ
r\L\A | A/;
LJ _ !_J_I_J _ !__!
Li-J— l-^l— i-L-J-J ....... LJ—U I— I— I—I— I— I—Li— I— I— I-J— LJ— I— U-J— I—I... I J..J-J
ll ill i ill l l J L I I J I I l_l_l IIJ I I I I I I | II I | |
11 . Predicted for «nd of planning period: Year LLI_2.!£j.l
l— I— l-J—1— LJ— L. I— I-J_J_J— LJ_U I-J-J-J-J— LLJ.J
__LJ_J-J_ I— L. L_I— 1_!->_J_J— L.L
l_J_LJ_!_!_LJ_J-J_i_U!-J_l
1—1—LJ—I—LJ—LJ-J-J—LJ—m-J-J—1—I-J—I-J^J-J—LJ_I^J—LJ..J. I I...LJ-J
A-7 8
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year |.(, I ^ I? |5 I
l5lAlr"t^| I^ISI |^i .Mr) ( |? l* I }P| i-| A-|/v|M i\rf\&\ ' \P \£\£\ >' \ °] 5| Mill _ I
I
I I | I | I | | | | t | | | | | | | } | _ }. | _ ) _ | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | I 1
|. I LI | | | I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I t > I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I
/ | _ ) |_._.| _ |_j__j_j_j _ | | | i | | j I [ ill _ L_LJ _ | _ | | | ____ | || || | J | |
I I j I | I t | I I | I I I I I I I _ | | | _ |__J_J _ | _ | _ I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I [ | I _ I I I I I I I I I I I I _ | _ I _ | _ | _ | _ | | | _ | _ |_ II _ | | I | |
13. Actual current conditions:
|;f/v'f | ^ |A/ | erf |< -| o}jq /vr| lA/l 3 L
j
1 £ I^L| 5 | , * £-, <- 0' £_ 4 T £~ ,
1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
t 1 | | | i | f | | | | | | | | | | |
1 | | | [ | | { | j j | } | j | | |
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
|£-l ' | Cl<"
_j_pj/5L|_eU
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 i 1 1
o \pn\ p\ f) yL | / 1 ,
Dj / | <-|~7~'j / \c \ r
_LJ_J_-L-J_J
1 j | | | j
1 | | | | j
j uXj_j__|
$ \° 1^1 1
v, , , |
, I
MM
1 1 1 1
fill
! M 1
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline:
. _ __
Today: l-f^l^l^l | f | I I _ I I ' I I ' I I _ I _ I _ ! _ I _ |_l_ I I I ! I f I
B.Baseiine: l^-^l^l 1^=1 cl I :l > ^ 1° I C\ I l^l^l^'j |~K'I'I~I I _ I'M!! _ I
Today: \i~\G\ K-l-^l^l | - I • f^-;^ l3l \
CBaseline: LfdjlLJ^^I^ I ^ l-^l . l^?_JJiJ
Today:
17.Reviewer. UU H * \ 18. Data of Reviev: Year » ' »at 'f\~\ Month l^jlj Day
19. Title of Narrative Report \T~ \> \Z\;--\-\ \&.\£ \iJ\c \& F \ |^ |g | ~| °|-;v| V , ? . . , ,- ,. ,
20. LocaUon of Narrative Report I I I M M I ! M I I J I I M M I I J ! I
III ! I I ' '
v" ; L c
A-79
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. I ^.I'f I " I ° I '"V ' ' -L- -»^J-IJ— 1-^4 L I -^|— l-fl _: J _° | "| *- 1 I I | | I
2. Needs(FaciUty) No. LtJ-LLJU-lLJ ?, I ?.,i ! , I NPDES No. LJ ..... |,J_.J I .1 I J...I
Grant No. i-i7! ; i*-l amQ| ^m _ |
3. Date of Document: Tear UL1LJ-1I Month I o\ r\ Day LLLsl
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID I_J d. Faculties Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
Slocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I I I ' ' » ' I ' I I
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
-I ' I *' I-UU3NH
LHJ3-LLL1H ..'.I ,.?1N-I I M LLl-UUJ-LLlJUW L
I— LJ-I— LJ-LJ-JN-I I LJ-ULJ-LJ-JW l_J_!-
6. Issue: j^'i^i r\<-\*\^l '• \ _ | | | Parameter: |<*l oK |*v I °
LLJY
LlLU-l - 1 ; . i-LHU V
_J-J-l_LJN-!-J-LJ-l_J_J-LJ-J¥
'
I ci* I"
7. Type of Impact L5J (l-Quaatiative) (2 -Qualitative)
S. Prediction:
rr N
A|
T,L .
0 c. A T | r Q
|mLJ I I I I I I I I ' II ' -'- ' ' I ' I I I I I ' ' ' I » ' I I I ' I I
LJ _ | _ I i I | I I I I I _ | _ LJ _ LJ _ LJ _ I—I _ I I ' I I I ' _ i i I I | i i i _ |
I _ i _ j _ | _ i | | i i ; \ i _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | |f _ i _ | _ j _ | _ i i i i | ; | | | ; | | _ \
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: | n 6 l^j u |^ | | £ ; i / | c ; L. , u t , / j *} , s f \c\ ^;T \ i ; ^1^1 '- 1 1^!^ J^lA M?l-^Kl-' lgl A1^ h
i i^ieioi^]^! . .i^i=ri-.i j^ira^i^iviii i ./t^i i^ |A i ci -i urFi \r \ \ \ \
i I >t -I ^I^J-Ii— ia— UJ-sUl-J-, I— LJ— LJ-J-J— L-UI-J-J-J-J-J— I., .I- LJ
i I I I I i f i —I —i — t — I— > i I I I I I—I- I I ' i I I I II I I I J
i i
i
J-J-J-J I t I I I I
| _ !_|_J_J _ | _ L—LJ _ i f I I _ I_J _ l_| t I i f |
— LJ— »-J— LI-J— J— LJ-J-J-J— I-J-J— I ,,,,l I-J
-J_LJU I I L- 1 I I . .LJ— LJ-J— I-.I— I— I— LJ— I—I— J .J.-LJ-J-LJ-J-J I I LJ
1 1 . Predicted for end of plannin g period: Year LLLJ.U.1LI
— |-J— I— I— I— I—I— I— I— 1— I— LJ— 1— I-J— l-J-J— LJ— I— J
I ..I-LJ— L...I— !_ I— L l-l— i— I— i— J— 1— I— I— I— I— I— LJ_I_ l_l_L_j
— I— LJ— I— l-J-J— I— I— LJ— I— I-J— I-J— LJ—1— I-J_I_ LJ—
I I L-l—I-J
A-80
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear
t
I
I I
13. Actual current conditions:
' T
r c
"J A, T 3r
01
.'/ -f ii ,H e
>\G r- ^
'
14. Data Base: \t\* \t~.\L-\^\ f ' ]"J\ '" l£ I3 I rl ' 1^ I fl I
J'LJ ^'7
13. Summary: (Code
c
fA| M|.
C l \\
16. Regulations In Effect:
A.Baseline:
C
3 5
Today: I SIH *°\^\ fill! _ I ' I ! I ' ! _ I _ | | | | | _ |_J_J _ I I I I I
B.BaseUne: I^Kl^l \'^\°\ \l V i^l^l^l \ \ \P\e~\^] |"?|c-|~l'-| f I I ' I _ ! _ I
Today: |^|Q I i--i'i^i | --) . t^;o ; "±i | \L~\ . \ B|c |"-| [ A \P f ;g|.-V| 1| ' |V ( ^ |
CBaseline: l£l£JU A-\ * I ^1 K !^l • ri- 'I" I ' I— I I ! I 1— I— LJ-J I I LJ_ LJ_J
Today: LUAK-I = I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j | |
17. Reviever: liUjJOiij 18. Date of Reriev: Year I M ^ ] '* \ 4 | Month i_^J_Ll Day |5|7{
19. Title of Narrative Report \^\\ \^\(-\^\ \ ^|Ci'r io)£,{T| \o\&. \T \ o\ ^\\!\l ]>- \L \c \ \ft\\h\
20 . Lo cation o f Narrative Re po rt: < ' I ! \ ' I | I | | \ \ _ | | | \. \ \ \ \ _\ _ [ _ | _ |
A-ai
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. LI^LLL T ' y I "'L1 r| |A1 1 ' I.NA'lg's |S |T I *' ' ' _ LJ _ ! _ 1 _ I I I
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. LiLJ— LJ-J±J 7 L ! I NPDES No. I. I | | |. I I I t |
Grant No. |~| '' I '-I ^» -^K^ I..-M _ I
3. Date of Document: Tear LLLLLZtil Month I a I 51 Day LLl^J
•t. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. HID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
5 location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: LJ — I_LJ — I — LJ — I — ! — I
i i _ - _ _ I i _ _
-l ? I ~ IN-I
I I H— I— H— I-JN-1 I I— H— LJ-LJ— IV LJ— H— I-J-I I IN-1— IU-JH ...... J.-.I-ULJW
6.1ssue: \i^\^r\ L \A\i^&\ _ | _ | _ | Parameter: | -I M 2LI ^1 \ I | [ J \ _ | I | | _ | _ | _ \ _ |
7. Type of Impact: iJj (1« Qoaatiative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
I j-te. LI 'V...I gli ^IJJAI-^L^ I I fl * I ~l y I *1 JM I ^ O.l_r- 1 A I. Jr 'I 1J ^ ^1 f. 7 I fr.l • * I ^L I A I r I £:l^r
[y/| |V|o|r| _ |6|g-| |P | , | L\ u\ f} D\ \£\ u\&)
> '_[.g.[ / 1 ^ ^ | j ;,• [ r>
I I ! I L LI LI
ULJ—LJ-J— I—LJ-J— LJ— I-J-J— 1-J— I— LJ—LJ-J-J-J«1-J_J-J-J— I-J-J— L_LJ_J
LJ— LJ—LJ-J-J— LJ— LJ— I_LJ-J_1~L_ UL-L. I— I_J_I_L_LJ_JU-. 1-J_J_LJ_J_J
UUI— Ul— IU-J-J-J-.I-J~LJU— LJ^L,t.-.UI ...... J..I ..... -LJ I I I I LJ— LJ-J--LJ-J
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: LI ^.J£J u ( Jl.. | r_\j. \ E\i- \^\ \ i ; A/ | o , P| c| ^- 1 r\ , \# \ /v j | j
10. Baseline Conditions: Year LOlLJU
\l\~\ li-'l ^|T l
I I I J I.
LJ-J-J-J-J^I I I ULJ-J-J.J-J.J..J,J
i—LJ—LJ—I—I—1—I—1—LJ—l-J—1—I—1—1—1—I—J—I—LJ—I I I I—LJ—I—I—I—I—LJ.
L_LJ—l_l—I—I—I—J—1—I—I—I—I—I—1_J_I_ LJ—I—LJ—I—I—LJ—I—LJ—I—1—I—I—LJ.
-J-J-J— LJ—I-J— IU-J— L_l— I_J_ U I-J_J_LJ_J_J-J__I_J_J_LJ_J_J
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year I— I— .1 f-\* \
&«J^J^
_UI-J_J_LJ-J_ I— I— I-J—I— I— LJ— I— I-J-LJ— LJ— L_ I— I— I_J-J__L_I_I_J
I—L_LJ_L_ I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—I—I—I—I-J-J—LJ—I—I—LJ—I—I—LJ—I—I
I—I—I—I— !—!_1—!—J—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—I—I—I—I—LJ—!—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—I—I
» I—1—LJ-J—I—1-J—I—1—LJ—1—I—I-J—1—I—1—I—I—1—1—i-J I I-1—I—I—LJ—1—1—1—1—1
A-82
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear I l*V;'l^|
I I { I } I { f _ { | | } | | } | | | | | ;. { [ [ | _ | | | | [ | | I I I I I
| I I I | I | I I I I I I I I I _ I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
' I I I I I I I I _ I _ L_L_ J_J _ I _ I I I M _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ | | | | | | | I I I I _ I
LJ I I I I— I— I— I— i— LJ—I-, I-. Ul- L.l-l,... ULJ— i— I— 1— LJ— I— I— U Ul— J— 1— I-J— 1
I I i I I I I I I ' I I ! I I I I I I I _ LJ-J _ I _ I _ I _ ! _ mil | I II }
131 Actual current conditions:
! |fl)£j'£~)_A|;; | _ |/ |fc|c|A/{ -\ \ r-\i |€;-| j^!v| | j \
is te |jej-'|g|^> _
U D '' -
I I I I I i I I I M ! I I I I I I I I I I I _ I _ I _ | | | || {Mill!
I I I I I ) _ | _ | i i | | | f | | _ | | | | _ | | | _ | _ | | | | I | | I _ | | | | |
I I I I I I I _ | _ I I | I ! | I | | | | | _ | _ |_|_J _ | _ | | | j j | | | | | | |
H..Data Base: I ^t ' irl L I -I \ / !/vf u I gl ^ I T\ l \c \*\r\! '\c\/(-'\ _ |-""IL'IC- I'V I l^!7 f l; 1^ l^'l^l
/ *~~" ' ' •
15, Summary: ( Code I - I , I )
LJ_LJ_U1— ]-JL- J ..I--LJ— Ul I I-J— LJ— UU UUL-L. I. . I- . .1— LJ, I ..... I-J I I I I
I i i i _ | _ | _ | _ | | | | ; | | | | _ | | [ | | | [ | _ | _ f | | _ | _ |_J__J _ | | | | _ |
I i i I I _ | _ | _ | _ | i | | i i | | _ | I ' | | | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ J _ | _ |_|_.-.|-J I I I I t
I I | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | i | ( | _ i i | | i | _ | _ | [ [ _ | _ | _ | _ j _ | _ | _ | _ | f | | | _ | _ |
[ I ! I I I _ | _ | _ | i | | | j | | _ | | | _ |_J_J _ j _ | _ | _ !_J_I_J_J _ | _ I _ | | | [ |
j _ | | | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | _ j _ | _ | || _ | _ |_j _ | _ I _ | i | | _ }
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.BaseUne: |4|fl| |C-|fi|/g-| |^|A;g-|r| |6| [ l^l^l _ K-Ify* I _ l^l*.! *fn '- ^\ I
Today: l^l^l '^^"1 'III1 _ I I I I I I I I _ I _ I _ I I I I I I I ' ' ' _ !
B.Baseline: \*\'2\ Al I ^1°! I ' I ' ' ''• |C' lc I I _ I l^l^l^'l _ 1-JJU-lJ^J _ I I I I _ ! _ ! _ I
Today: W=\ h'l^Kl I'H-H-^r-l IJ'-I-I^|^P| \^\ ?}? \£\v\^\: \y \ $. \
CBaseline: L5LLHJ_J - 1"" I *q I ?\*\ - \c\\ ' Q J-J^ | I I I | | | | | | | | | [|j
Today: L^lA]»^"l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | I I | | |
17. Reviever: l£jJd±li 18. Date of Review Year I / |c?| '<|V| Month l^jJLj Day M 7|
19. Title of Narrative Report V" ' I -\ '- \ -I I -; |yV| '- | | £\ P\T\ _ |Q ^ iTjo |/\| V\L\L \L \r\ [fo| ^
20 . Lo cation of Narrative Re port: I | | I I I I I T I I I I I I _ I M I I I _ I _ I _ I _ I
A-83
-------
1. Project Name. I- I
\A\
Evaluation Form
t.|i \r y \ iMT\*-\x\(L\f=tar<3/f
2. NeedsCFaciiity) No. \*\l
Grant No. \$\f\/\-n2\
.1 NPDES No. | I
3. Date of Document: Year U1-£1-Z1-H Month U,I£J Pay LJ_J ^ ^
4. Type of Document: a. E1S l±3 b. EA U3 c. EID L. J 4. Faculties Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
3 location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: \Z\1AX. i. A£l£l£l£LJ.±J
/* I I _
L-LJ-LJ-J-UUJN--t I I^I-ULJ-I-J-JV l-l...-M_]_J-i ... I IN~I | I ..)-> I |-l | (W
6. Issue: l^^| r\^<*-\ >>^|«^ | _ | _ | Parameter I £i ' I -a *£f I | _ [III _ | | I { _ | _ | _ \ _ |
7. Type of Impact: !_4 (1- Quantiative) (2-Qualitaliye )
8. Prediction:
S
|_J_J_J _ LJ _ I _ I _
I
II
I I I I I I I ' I ' I I-I..-I-J-. l-1-LI-l-l-J-L.-l I I.I I I I_J_I_1_I_I_I_1
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: U02J-d,..M.,ijilJlULa^Jf 141 M£LJ—J I... I I , ..LJ—LJ—I
10. Baseline Conditions: Year LiL£LLUJ •
/I
\T\O \
I—LJ—I—I—I.
L-ULJ— LJ— I^ULJ-J— LJ-J-J I I LJ-J— LJ-J— I— LJ-J
I I I -I —I ' 1 Li I I -I --I Mil I I I- I I— I I I I I
. ...
LJ I—1—1—1 I LJ LJ—I 1—I—LJ—LJ-J LJ I ! I I I I I
_| | | J
11. Predicted for «nd of planning period: Year LiJ_£L£!.£l
HJ£j^I£J^
*^^
21£^
I—I—J—I—LL_!_J-J-J_J_J.
I—LJ-i—»—LJ—I—i—I—I—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—J—I—l—i—I I I-
A-84
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear I /
S| / \ /g
l i ; | | { || | | | j | | | | | | | | I—1_.|... I I I I I I L I I I I I I I
•' | | i | | I I I I I I I I I I ' I M I I I I 1 I | I I || || | | | I |
i i i I I i | I I I I I I I ; | I I |___| j j_j__| | | | | || | j ; j | | | ,
13. Actual current conditions:
14. Data Base: \^\/\i=\^\^\ f y! M 'yl^ -I7""!'' Kl 'H'T 'l^3 1-*7!—! l^l-^l' \7\-\/a\- \^\<4\ \ _ J
13. Summary: ( Code |_J — I )
jo-r s-
-
I _ i i | _ | i [ | _ | i | | | | | | | j | [ [ | | | _ [ j | | _ | _ | f Mill!
; _ i i | _ | _ | _ | | | \ \ \ \ | | ) _ ; | { | j | _ | _ i _ | _ | . f _ | | | | | f | | j _ j
{_ | || _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | | [ [ | | | | [ | | _ | _ (__]_1 _ | _ | _ | _ | | | _ | i| [ j | __ | _ j
I. I I I_LJ_J-J— I 1 I I Ul I I— I— I— LJ_ I—I-J-J— J— I— UI-J-J— I-J— i I I ,1-J
{III _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | i | | [ _ | i | | | | | _ |_j_j _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ |_j _ I I I ' T I |
16. Regulations in Effect:
A-Baseline: I^I^I^J | r\ v; ? \ •:- \x\f- |Vj |^| o\> \2.\ A\ *. | ^\£ \ _ \^\ *~\/J] o\ \^\ z\^\ l
Today: H^l^l \-\-f\*\ \s\
-------
1. Project Name. t -?l /I yl/-| -H
Evaluation Form
\_z ^ _ ^ , -* 7 £
4. Type of Document: a. EIS L^Tb. EA UrTc. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
3 location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: )£ \o \v \Ate/\* i^rr I***! / rl /
A
I//
_ till!
i i
i
i i
i i i i i i
i
j )
I I ' ' * ' ' M -'- I- 1)111
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: \M f / 1 £- 1 ^.1 a I ^Jj t
LJdl£j£KMX
?!•] ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I II
J I I I I I I I I I III ! ! I
J
J I
-J-J-J
J_!_LJ_!-J_!_J_I_LJ_:
J_J_J_!_I_!_J_!_I_!
11. Predicted for end of plannin g period: Year
2£S^^
I I I | | I I I I I I _!_.._!_ I I I
..-I LI— I-J—
-J-J I I I-J-J—I—I-J^I—!
A-86
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year \/]9 }/? ^ I
4\ J^A / / Mtl rt / 7~G\ \2.
I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) I i i i L_J_J I | i i I I I t I I t I |4
13. Actual current conditions: . .
I/ D t 1*21^' l>
- ' "
'SI i
? A L
iC\/ tvj i/T/yi/^i ^/g- I I |
16. Regulations in Effect:
Today: \^ ^ \
B-Bascline: |^T^A| \^<^Y~\\2>\ \!^\A.\o \7*\&Y-\7~\/ \o\ ^\ _ I ^P Y- \ ' K f
Today: |^-|^| \^/z
I I I I I I I ! I I I L LJ I 1 I I \ I- I I | t t \ I | | [
Today: 11 l^l^l^l I ^ ^ • I ?l /I 7\-M I I I I I I I I I 1 \ I I i i |
17. Reviever: UU'^KI 18. Date of Review Year I /|^|^|'/| Month |>£jJZj Day |/| 9\ ^^ 2o
19. Title of Narrative Report: ic7ivm l^/)^f^pf | /|^/|tX|gp }. I \*\^r\Q\#\T-\ \ \ ;
20. Location of NarraUve Report I I I 1 | | | \ \ \ \ \ \ | | | \ I I I | | | J |
A-87
-------
1. Project Name. \"
2. NeedsOraciiity) No.
S f- ~' °' ^
Evaluation Form
» H* >L ll igtVf t / \rl\-r-eP gte
t/3! f
' NPDES No. I I I I I I I I I I
3. Date of Document Tear I/' ft 7.1*1 Month I /ll Day
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA Lid c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
5 location: (Latitude /Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: \^\v\*J\ *) '\T\ \^\^\^\
\^\u\-/\*\/i-}o\<,\*r\ | -C\o I 6*1 A/I -n/ \^\^\ \0\M\t\o\ | I I I I I I I I _ I I I I _ j
\4\) u
I .1 hLJ-J-l I JN-I I I—1-LJ.J-l—LJV I—I-J-LJ—H- I IN-UULJ-L.I H-J-JW
6.Issue: \A\ ^T\£\A \//\£\-3.\ I I Parameter: I ~ I / l-g I <=1 I I | i i i i | \ \ | | | |
7. Type of Impact: Lai (1 - Quaatiative) (2- Qualitative )
S. Prediction:
/L.\L.
J-\f-\
O
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: \5\?\:>\s\£\e\
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I 7 f ?r '!^0 •
\-r\
I
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear
/t^t^t-Si i 7T/4i/*Wi i\&\£\ \SJ\*T] \7~\M*-Z\ {^rf^t 1X» K |
* I J I j I I I I ? If I ! I t til _ ! _ I _ I _ I _ | I I _ j | f | | f i i _ j
I i i i i i ; I i I [ I I I I | I I _ L_|_J_J_J_J _ LJ _ L-L.I- I i-l I f f I I
I I ' ' I I I I I I f ! I T I I _ i _ i i ii i i I _ I _ i i i .-i— i it i i i _ i _ ;
13. Actual current conditions: . • . , ...
£ £' # 'J? -rS «C
\ c>\y\ '\&\4-\T\^L~\/\ \r^uj\a\ _ \4-\ f^\&\^\ \A\ A\O \ fjyjf> \
. ye~ $&r + / o
/
\T\
-M. Data Base: f^|y } <£f^p| f/ \M\l/\^}$\r-\ /iojA|r-y -|^h/| _ |_£j£!l _ \J\-\ >\^\ -\8\*}\ "\ \
13. SummarT: ( Code
t<
' rr
AfA'-r~s£>
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ i _ | _ _ i _ \ \ i _ } { f \ \ \
| i i i f f t i T I I t I I ! ! I ! I I I ! _ I _ I _ I _ ! _ ! _ ! _ f I I I I ' I I I
16. Regulations in Effect:
A3aseline: \^\^\A] K^K \&\£<\£\£\ '-\ \&\ f-\ ^.PJ^'l ' \. '-\£.\
Today: |^|g| l^-!^1'*'! \P\*i)^\~r\ \f*\ \ H O| _ | ^ f=\ f\ _ \&\f-\'e>_.\'f~\ \~\^\ \ \
B-Baseline: \£\f\£\ \ >-f &\r\ t-\t*\f pi KP 1-1 y I -I7! _ I -'lgl J *=\/?\ \/\°\Q\E'\^\
Today: \^$\ \d\^\^\ \?\- \2\o\2\ \<^-\5\?\-\ \A\£\P \zr\?.\^y \x \ \A\ | f
CBaseiine: | I I _ I I I | | | t ;' | \ \ \ _ ; | I I _ j _ j__j _ j _ | f I | f | | _ |
Today: \r\0\ \Z\P\*\ I *\ ?\- I ^1 / 1 7| -\ /I I I I I I I I t I \ \ \ \ i t
17. Reviewer |^| ^\J= \ 18. Data of Review Year U4_!l£ji£4 Month I^JZJ Day | »9 I
\ ^ ^^^~\ \ \
19. Title of Narrative Report: \d\'AT\ \ ^ > \E~\'-\J.\ \ : \t /\y\*r\si\ .
20. Location of Narrative Report I I I | t I | I I ! I I I _ !_J _ 1 »• I | » » J | | J
,
A-89
-------
1. Project Name.
2. Needs(Facility) No. L^
Grant No. l^
Evaluation Form
'/I \/\A'\r\&\f\c\
NPDES No. LJ-J-J-J-J-.J—I—LI
29 f 2 £, a 7& C
3. Date of Document: Year IZJHZJ-£J Month LJ.2J Day I—]_J
4. Type of Document: a. E1S LJ b. EA U3 c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
3location: (Latitude/Longitude) (deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: l-^l ^fx^i/M xlrt l>^/vL£l
I^J-J-LJ-J-I-J-JN-I ..... I ...... LI-IU-J-I— I— IV I— I—I-LJ-J-I
6.1ssue: l-^fjg|Z3J4J£-h^l^..KSJ_l-J Parameter:
7. Type of Impact: l_±l (!• Quantitatire) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
]^lIl-J I I I J ! I I I ! LI_!_!...-j. II III I II I I
LJ—LJ—I—I—L-LJ ...L. I I-J—1—LJ—I ! .1 LJ.
I i i
LJ-J—LJ-J-J—J-J^I-J-J—I-J—Ul—I I I L-L-LJ-J—LJ—L-LJ
J-J—LJ—I—I-J-J I—I—I—I—I-J-J-. I l....!^IU_J^J-J I I I-J
LJ-J-J-J—I—I—I—I-J—LJ—I—I—I-J-J-J-J-J-J-J—J—LJ—LJ—I-J—I—J-J_I«J-J~J-J
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: I --I .J\'?L\*\ 2\*. \ ...\/J\p \r\ I ~\s\C.\L/\/J\&\ .* \ -lO^l I I |
10. Baseline Conditions: Year
—I I . ULJ—LJ-J ,1.,,-l-J
I-J.
l_J^I^.I_l-J^.i_J-J .1 I „ IU-J-Ul I .1., I LJ—I—LJ—i—i I I—I—I—LJ—I—LJ—LJ
LJ—I—I-J—i-J—I-J—L..LJ-J—I—I—I-J-J-J—LJ-J—I—I-J—I-..I .1—LJ—I—LJ.
I—I—I—I.J-J—I—I—J J J..J—I—I—I—LJ—LJ—I—LJ—I-J—J—I—I—i—I—I—I—I—I.
I—]-J—I-J—I—I—J_J-J I I_I.J_I_J_J_l_LJ—LJ—J^J—I—LJ—I—LJ—I—I—I . ,1... I I-J
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year I ! ^1 '\^\
-J^J— 1-J.J ...1. .1
I— I-J-J— I_IU— J_J_l_LJ__l
1— i^l-J— LJ— I
^.I— l—l-J— I-J-J
I-J-J I . I ,i_LJ
.J-_J__!_J_J_i_J
I.-I-J-J.-J I I LJ
A-90
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear
I-J—I—I—i—I—I—I—I,J J..J—I-J—I—LJ-.,I-I-I—I—I—I—I-J .1.1 I I I .1—J—I—I—I—I—I
I—l—i—i—i—I—l-J—i—LJ- .M-j .-j—|. I... | I | | I I If I I I I-I i-I I IJJ
I I } [ j | j || || j j j_j__j | iii | | | | [ [ j | [ [ [ | [[I [
13. Actual current conditions:
14. Data Base:
I—I-J—I—I I .1—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—J-LJ-J—I.
I I/ I//I i/t^lS |T-| / lcg~l^-Tx \o l^-'t l^l/^l I 71 -I n ^}- \8\4- I I I
13. Summary: ( Code
cl
A^
.! _ L-l
I „ I .LJ-J— LJ-J— L-J -I...J-.I— 1— I-J
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline:
Today:
B.Baseline:
Today:
CBaseline: |_l_J
Today:
17. Reviever: |^JZ3^£l 18. Date of Reviev: Year
19. Title of Narrative Report: U3_:d^U _ |^f /
I— I-J— J— I-J . I ..I
Month L£iZl Day
20. Location of Narrative Report: |_ J_ IU— I— ULJ I . I I— I-J— LJ-J I I I— J-J— LJ-J-J
A-91
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. M '-\ "I ^1 ;?ȣ
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. L3-33JjJU.iL£J-£ULJ NPDES No. I_J_1_J— I— LJ-J—UI
Grant No. l^l Vv t.&J *t o\d\a]Cj ^ ^ A // 3. 6 <> 7
3. Date of Document: Year LJJLZi-21 Month
4. Type of Document: a. EJS LJ b. EA bd~c. EID |_j d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. I_J f. FNSI LJ
5 location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: UX£4^1^I •' \r\
I^-J-LJ_J-ULJN-LJ_J_J-LJ-J-LJ_IV I_J—
6.1ssue: \^^\r\^-\^ V'^ \5 \ _ |_I Parameter: l^|^ \L>\A/
7. Type of Impact: I Jj (1 - Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
S. Prediction:
-J— H— LIN-I^JU-J-t ....... I h
,4-1
^ ( ^P
I y 1 3 ' '
III— L1-J-J-1--UJ .L.J.U-
9. So"urce of NZPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year l^J
I I I I ! I I I I _|._|_| .J I I I
I I.I I I I I
IJ I I I ' I
I,., I- I I-J
sAor \.C\.3\c.v~?
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year \/\?\-
ZVSL4^^
U-LJ— I_J_J—UUULJ-J-J-J_LJ-J—I-J—I-J—I—I—LJ.
I-J—I-J-J-J-J—J-J~LJ_UI-J—J-J-J—LJ-J-J—UI—I-J.
ULJ—t-J—ULJ—Ul-l J—UL-LJ—LJ—I—UUUULJ.
13. Actual current conditions:
14. Data Base: \^/\^T^^\ \ /\/rf /\&]^]r~\.']'Z]A-]T ] Q]'S\ \ ^\-^\ \ 7\ -\ / \ ?\ ~\ ?]•/] \ \
13- Summary: ( Code |,-.|,^ | )
-J— i-J— LJ-J-J-J—UI— LJ—L- I—I— I— I— 1-J— I— ULJ I . I I-J
_UJ— I-J-J— J-J-J— I-J— LJ-J-J— J-J-J— !_ 1— LJ-J-J-J— I-J— I-J-J— I— I— ULJ-J
^I— I— J-J-J-.. I— I-J— 1— LJ— LJ—I. I -I-J— I— i-J-J^i— LJ— LJ— Ul— i I I I— I
J^i— I— 1_ LJ—U UI-J-J-J-J— I— L,I-....UI-O- LJU-J~Ui— Ul— I— I-J-J I I I—J
I _ ( _ |__j _ | | ; | | | [ [ | ; _ | _ i _ | _ |_j _ | _ LJ _ | | | | | | _ |_!_J _ I _ MM _ |
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Bas«line:
Today:
-' V I l/f I I
— J . I I I— I— 1— 1— 1— J— 1— I-J— 1— I— 1— 1
\*\. -]J.] ?]• -I9] ' |.?t— |
Today:
Cfiaseline:
Today:
17. Reviever: U^Lzia 18. Date of Reviev: Year UJ-fl^^J Month |jUZJ Day M~°l
19. Tide of Narrative Report: UJ]-^l^a-J-^J^^J^kl-J-J^J±U^I^J^J \Sr\~^&3^^3^r \ I I
20. Lo cation of Narrative Report I I I I .-{ I I I I I I I -I J_I—I—1- I - I.
A-93
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. \£\0y/\A |X/|£?k?| Al _ \^\ ^\ H -H ^T v-\ I / I^J
^ 'f. I _
2. Needs(Facility) No. lJLfLil-iL3J3-3— I-J NPDES No. LJ-J_LJ_ ULJ—
GrantNo.
3- Date of Document: Year LJ±LLEH Month. LJU Day
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA Ld"c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ a. Negative Dec. LJ f . FNSI LJ
31ocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or PoHtical Jurisdiction: UQ^I^IH / Izd— UH^4£J
..-.I 2-ia |-*.| A4"" M lg|g I \3\-^\-'\°\ _ I _ !_l _ I—I _ LJ _ LI I ! I I !
LJ-J-LJ-J-LJ-jy-LJ-J-J-U-J-LJ-JV !_J_J-f-J_J-l—LJN-LJ—LJ-ULJ-LJ—IW
6.1ssue: UOd rt^U.Lr.teL'LULJ Parameter:
7. Type of Impact: I — I (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
- (2\
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year I /, I ? |/ [/ |
l^-,4[x/[g| ,|^s| _\**\./\/_\ || | | | | |_[,.LI—MI-J.^UUUUUl J J- I I I*
I—I—Ul—j—I—UUU I—UI—I—I—I—I-J—UU!—I—I—I—1—!—UUI—1—I—I—1—I—UUI—*
I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I-J ,|.| .UUUUUI. I J U UI—I—I—UUUI—I—I—I—I.I -I.. I I—J
I—I—UU!—I—I—I—J—I—I—I—1—I—I—I—I—UUI—I—I—I—I—I—UUI—I—I—I—I-J—I—I—I—J<
Ul—I—I—I—I—I—I-J—I. I . UUI—I-J—I—UUI—I—I—I—I—I.. I I—I—I—I—I—I—I.
13. Actual current conditions:
.fc££ik±k£l£Ul^dj£U|-SUtgt^--£&LUlgUa-J<3*rlP \L
UUUUI— J _ I I i I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ | | III || III i I <
UUUUUU I— I— UUUUUUUUUI- UUI— U UU I... I -I -UUUUUI ..I.. I 1—4
14. Data Base: l^l.zJ^^z|/il -\J> \^JA^£\Z!J. \4\fc ^ ' W/\ \ <\^ |^| .- 1 /) 4) -
13. Summary: ( Code \+.\L.\ )
I— I— J—J_I— I-J— UUUU Ul— I— I— Ul I I. UUUUUI. ..I ...... I ...... UUU
UU I-J— I— UUUI-J—U UUUUUU U l--L-Ui—l~UJ~UUUUUUI-J
Ul— I-J-J-J-J-J-J— i— UUUUUUI I i-UUUULJ.-l ...... UUUUUUJ
I-J— I— UU I— I— UU I— Ul— I-J— J— I-J I I I— J— UUI— I— Ul— I— I— I— UU I i,. UUI
Ul— UUUUU UU UU I— I— I— J— Ul— »., I .-U I— UU UUUUUU I— UU! I I I— I
I— J— UU J— J— I-JU.-I.-I— I— J— U UUI I I . UUUU Ul. i -I— I-J— Ul— Ul
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: \^£& I,
Today: l .. £1*5/ \^\^\^\r I 4>_
B.Baseiine:
Today: > Q ^ ^ ^^^^^ x
CBaseline: Ul . I— J— I-J-J-J I I— ULJ— J-J-J— ! I I
Today: M^H-J-^l^l^U^bd^J 9} ' l2lJL| /-I.J-J
17. Reviever: \*Ja=!& 18. Date of Reviev: Year UU^J-£Ud Month
19. Title of Narrative Report:
20. Lo cation of Narrative Report:
1 ..UU UULJ
— I— UUI— I— Ul— J-J
Day L^Lfl
J I I I
I I..LJ— I— I_J i -L J_J I LI |
A-95
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name.
2. Needs(Facility) No. LfLlJ2J_£L£j-£-lLd_J NPDES No. LJ—LJ—I I , I I—I.
Grant No.
3. Date of Document: Year ULZLZJ^ Montn
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA UTc. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
^location: (Latitude /Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: UJ_^^LiL_!^f_J^U^Lj
.i_i i i. i i i ' i ' i
./
|-| Tr\-i,\.\3\o |v
I-J— J-LJ— i-U I— IN-!.. I. I.J-1— LJ-L-LJW L_L_ J-
6.1ssue: I ^ ^T^l H ^-M -^-l I I Parameter:
LJ-J-I— LJN--!— L-LJ-LJ— l-
7. Type of Impact: I_SJ (1- Quantitative) (2 -Qualitative)
8. Prediction:
j >| _/- |tgf
I _ ) I I I
I
Ul.i I^L-ULJ-J,.I, i .1— I-J-J-JU^J~.I~J-J-J-J-J^J-.UUJ-. UIU-J-J , I- 1 LJ
I _ |_j _ LJ_J_J_J_J_J_J_J_J_LJ__I._J_ 1_J«J_J__|__!_J_J«J _ ! I ! I I I I i | I I
_J^_J_J__LJ _ I _ |_J _ III I J T I f II- f
J—LJ-I 1—t
CSource of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I/I?.I ".
.U±!_±f.
-
I I I I LJ II .1... I _ I— I— I-.-LJ— j
I I I— LJ-J-J-J- I. I.. !— I~J— J-J-J— LJ—I— I—LI— LJ— ULJ-J
_U-J_J-J-J-J-J-J-- 1— 1-J— LJ— LJ-J
— LJ I I U_J
i
_J_J _ i i i
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year \
J—1—I—J—I—1—I—I—I—I—I—I
J—1—!_I—I—I-LJ—I—!_I—I
J I I—I—LJ—I-J—I—I..J-.J—I—I—I—J-J—LJ—I—I—I-J-J I I—I—I
I—I—LJ—I—1—LJ.
| | | I
I—LJ—I—I-J—I . J—I—J
A-96
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year
I— LJ-J ...... 1.,.,-l-J— J
ULJ-J—UI.J J-J—U I-J-J-J—ULJ-J ,1 -LJ— i— UU1— ULJ-J— ULJ— I. J..-I-I— j
I _ LJ _ t— I I II II II _ I _ I— J—LJ _ I__LJ_J_J_J _ I _ | | | I I I I I I I I I _ I
LJ—LJ-J— UUI-J— ULJ-J—LJ-J-J-I.. J ,..LJ— UU Ul— I— LJ— UUUUUL .1 J— J
UUU UUU UUU U UUUUUU UL.UUUUUUI ...I -LJ-J— U I J-J.. J-J J-J
i-J-J I ..... I.. I— J
13. Actual current conditions:
ULJ— UU1—UJ— I . I .
-
Ul— ULJ— IU—I—1-LJ—U ULJ-J
I ..!._! ... J I I I
I
I [ I | | | | | | | | |
1-4. Data Base
13. Summary: ( Code l
ULJ-J-J— LJ^i— I-J— I-J-J..I.-L-L-U LJ-J-J— ULJ— LJ-J— LJ .1 ,-L-,i-J
l— i .1 .1— LJ— LJ-J— U-l— I—I— LJ-J— I I I . I-J <
— LJ-J-,1^.1— I— J-J— I -I .|-J^I-J^|-J— L-l—ULJ-J— J-J I .LJ~J
J— LJ-J-J— LJ-J~ I .1 -I -I— I— I— L- 1— J— I—LI— I— UI-J— I— UUI-J
!_J_J_ !_J_J_J-J_J_ UI-J-J-J-J-J— I_J-J_I— I— I-J-J-O-J-J-J
16. Regulations in Effect: \
Today:
RBaaaiina;
Today.
CBaseline: LJ— I
Today:
17. Reviever: I^ITL£J 18. Date of Reviev:
19. Title of Narrative Report:
20. LocaUon of Narrative Report: ULJ— J-J— I— I-J I I
— 1_J_J_ LJ-J-J-J
— LJ I I . I-J
_J— 1_J_LJ_J_J
1— LJ-J-J -. I ....... I..LJ J J-J— J— I
A-97
-------
Evaluation Form
A ^* 7 •*':
1. Project Name. I^M^I^H^ 1° 1^1 Al I nA I M H^l* I I 7I •*'l:n.i Q-gsf=Vr~\°\*\ I I
2. Needsffaciiity) No. L£llLll£UL£J c V Li NPDES No. ULJ—LJ-. I I ..... f— LJ
Grant Vo I ° I gl 1 /| ^ fr ^| 5| gjC| >^U^_^ A ^f//2.^o7O £
3- Date of Document: Year LO^LZgD Month U_L£J Day U&±|
4. Type of Document: a. EIS I _ I b. EA Lfcf c. EID I— 1 d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
5 location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: UlgJ.&lAi.<.i.Zt: I
\<2& \v U£U3gJ^J<*LJ £J Q UOfelgLJjgl.^L,, Ija^iteJ-J— LJ— I— LJ— L-LJ—
LJ— I-LJ-J-LJ-JN-LJ-J_J-UJ— I-L_ LJV I_I_J-L-LJ-LJ— IN-I-J— LJ-I-J— I-LJ—IW
6.1ssue: L^l£gI£]^KI ^I^ULJ Parameter: l-a±Ji£}.4l... ! ...... LJ-J— I— LJ—I— LJ— I— LJ-J
7. Type of Impact: l_lf (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
Le S IS |^^A
I '
I-^L.-LL-U I- I I t | I- I
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: l^=£JiL
10. Baseline Conditions: Year Ul£lZl£l
LJ.. I LJ-J— LJ-J,. I I . LJ-J— LJ-J-J-.IU-J— LJ-J-J....I. .I....I— LJ— LJ-J-J— LJ-J
I— 1— LJ.J— i— i_ LJ ( I. I— LJ-J-J-J I 1 , ..LJ— LJ— I— LJ— I— LJ-J— LJ-J— LJ— 1— J
I _ | [ _ _ _
I _
_ _ i t
| |
I _ I
| _ |
LJ— LJ-J— L- LJ-J I I I— I-J— J-LJ I . I
1 1 . Predicted for end of piannin g period: Year
| _ | _ LJ _ |__J_J_| _ I_J_J_J _ 1_J
-J— LJ-J.J— LJ-J— LJ-J-J
J-J-J-J—I—I—I—I I I I—LJ—L-LJ—!
A-98
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year !^LlXl£_
.
--— _
. i
I _ '<
13. Actual current conditions:
7-1 / |^|
L ^> £ert T
- -- _
_
. Data Base: 1^1 ' -
i A; / ?£~ ' g7^
7- 2 3 -Q4-
13- Sunimary: C Code
/
1r3l&TXZ]
I I I I I I I J J I I I I I I I J I I I I
LJ—LJ—ULJ—LJ-J. J ,LJ—i—LJ-J I .ULJ-J-J—LJ.J-J-J-J
LJ—ULJ-J-J-J Li—I—I—LJ-
J—L-LJ—L.
<
J_LJ_ LJU-4-J-J—Ul—I-J—1—UI-J—1—l—U ULJ—I—UO—LJ-J
J—LJ—JU-J—LJU—LJ-J—LJ—LJ—LJ-J—LJ. I LJ—LJ—I—LJ—I .1 I—I
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: \^
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. '
2. Needs(Facility) No. L£lfLLO^.^-£l-2J.ll-J NPDES No. ULJ— LJ ..... I ULJ-J
L\<3
3. Date of Document: Year UJfj^J^ Mootli LO£J
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA Ud' c. EID LJ d. Faculties Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ (. FNSI LJ
^location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: L£U4 £fl M i
Lg|-J_J_l_L I I II --I— i
-IS F? IW
-I I LJ-UU 1-LJ— IV I— LJ-LJ— 1-L-LJN-U ULJ-I— LJ-L-LJW
6.1ssue: UjH^afeJ^k/i^i^lU-J Parameter: !^I^J^J^LJ_J_J_J-J-J-J— I— I— I— ULJ-J
7. Type of Impact: I — I (1-Quaatitatiye) (2 - Qualitative )
S. Prediction:
/7
"9. Source of NEPA Document Data: I^J^J^-LUja^l _ IJHSJ^U _ PloIPM-'*4«gT/y|'n<£Tg I- LI I
10. Baseline Conditions: Year \ L\ *\ "\ Z\
^^ -- i >i.-Ai ?=-
ifcj
I__J_ I I LI I I I I I I I L II | I I I | I | III I !.._.! _l M I ' I I I
I I ,11 LJ—LJ.J.J .LJ-J—i-J—LJ-J—I—L-LJ—LJ—J.J I-J
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year LJ 9I ~ \£L\
s , i^
u
-J. ...... LJ— LJ— I— I- I..I LJ
.J ! LI I— I—I— L-M I
— J^J-J .,1, I I I
LJ....I. .L-LJ—LJ
LJ— LJ_i—
A-100
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year Ld_£L£lj£l
ua j2i
UU J-J I I U— I ,1-UUUUUU UUUI—UU I— U UUI-J-UU i-J .LI -U.
...-— _ —
I _ !_J_J _ I _ LJ _ LJ— LJ— 1— I _ I _ I I
.
I— I— I
l_l_ LI I II I — I I I N
13. Actual current conditions:
14. Data Base: \fs\' \ <£T'Hg'l V V:\
7 7f "
-
13. Summary: ( Code
s5j i
_
.
J I I I I I I III I j I I (fill I_J_J I III I I I I I I I I I I
J.J J—I—I—i—I—I—I.-.I—UUUUUI.
I-J—J-J II I -UUUI—UUUI—UUUUI_UUULJ-J—UULJ I I I I ,
LJ—UUI-J-J—UUUUUUUJ.... I I I-J—I—J-J—I—I—I—I-J—1—I—I—I—UI-J—4
J I I LJ_J_J_J_J_J I |_| I I i III III LJ_J_J LJ l_l LJ
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline:
Today:
Today:
C.Baseline: I I \-JUULJ-J-JU
Today: |^d^J_lHj£a^)^J^fiJ
17. Reviever: |JOil£I 18. Date of Reviev
19. Title of NarraUve Report:
20. Location of Narrative Report:
-LJ. I I— I— I-J-J-J.. I J J-J— U UJ
)JJU-J— I— J-J— I-J— UI-LJ -..I ,.ULJ
4 Month UL£! Day I,. Ill
Ufl^^3^J-)-Z] J. .LJ
. — — . .
A-101
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name.
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. L
flrant Wn ^ I ?J /I
NPDES No. LJ-J—LJ, I I
3. Date of Document: Year LU-2L2J6J Monti l_£L£J Day
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LdV EA Ul c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan I_J e. Negative Dec. LJ f . FNSI LJ
^location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: U2L£L*t£Ldza ...... I .-£K-U I
-— i— uu LJ— LJ— i
I-J-J-LJ— H-JUN-UULJ-LJ-J-UJ-JV I_J_1-I«J_J
6.1ssue: kOgJ^K k t^i ^LLl-LJ Parameter:
-I— LJN-ULJ-J-LJ-J-LJ-JW
— L-L-ULJ— LJ
7. Type of Impact: ULJ (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
3. Prediction:
> .
LJ... I,
| | I I I
i I I
i | |
, I I LJ-J—LJ— LJ— LJ-.U IU~J— J— I.J-J—ULJ-J I I I LJ
_LJ-J ..... I ....... I ...... I— J— I— I— L- 1-J^J-J-J— L-LJ— J— LJ^I-J— LJ— UJ . ., I I I— I
UUULJ-J-J ...... UULJ— LJ—LJ. ....... L.LJU-JUU~LJ-J-J~LJ-J-J I I LJ
"9. Source of NEPA Document Data: l^^ffJ/^lsUJJU^^llUJgjri-. LJ-J^LJ... I. . I-J ... i-J
10, Baseline Conditions: Year | / | *?}
i-J-J-J I .1. i-J-J-J—LJ I I
— LJ— L-LJ— LJ ,1 i I-J
I-J— J-J I I I I
LJ-J-J—LJ-J.J-J I I I—I—LJ
— I— LJ— . I
-J_I_I— J— LJ
— LJ^LJ
— I— LJ— LJ— I
I_J_J-J_I_I_J—LJ.
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year L_L£l_i
-J— J-J—J— I—I— 1—LJ.J— J
I— J— LJ— 1—LJ-J-L- I
— I.. I ..... J— I— I— I— J— LJ-J— I
U J-J— i-l— LJ-J— I— I— LJ_J_]_!_i
— LJ-J— I— 1— LJ— I
-I ...... I— 1— Ul— J— I ..... . I I I-J
I-J-I-J-J-J_L_J_J
J— I— I— I— I, I I I-J
A-102
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year
LJ_I
I I_J_J_J I I I I I I I II I I I II I I_J_J_J I I I I I II I_J_J_J_J__
I i if I I I I I I II I I I I -I- l-l I I—J-J I I I I II Ml | I | I I
LJ-J-J-J—UUUUl—l-J—I-J-J-J—I.-J—LJ-J—UUUJ—LJ-J-J-J—I—LJ—I J I I
I—j—LJ—LJ-JU-J—UI-JU—LJ-J—UI—UI—LJ—I—I—i—ULJ—LJ—UULJ-J-J-J
I LJ__| f | j | | | [ | | | | | | | | | | j | | [[I || | | | | | [ | •
13. Actual current conditions:
j \tw\'4'\£A7~\s 1^4-^
J^dL4-J.2|gi:J-n-J-J—!
<
I-LJ- I I .1— UUU I-J-J— I— I— LJ— LJ— I— I.J.. ,,.LJ
LJ— LJ— LJ— LJ-J— t— i— I— LJ— I-J-J-J ...... I. J.J— i— LJ— LJ— I— I— LJ— LJ— LJ-LJ—'
14. Data Base: 1^1 ' I ^f L\ ry j / y/\ <^\^ \*?\ -rfj \ £\ •jjjTL'J <2\ * f \^\^\ _ \^\~\ /|9 |" \G\-*-\ \ \
. Summary: ( Code Uzj£_j )
LJ—LJ—LJ—1—J-J—U I—I—LJ—LJ—I—LJ-J
I—I—LJ—LJ—!—LJ-J—LJ—LJ—I—LJ—
J—LJ I. .I-J-J-J.
!—t—I—I—I—1—J—I—L
J—1
_LJ— LJ-J—J-J— ULJ—U I—LJ-J— I— LJ— LJ—ULJ— I— I— J— I_J— I_J— J— LJ_J
I LJ— LJ— LJ-J I I .ULJ-J-J-J-J— LJ-J— LJ— I—
, <
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline :
Today:
Today:
Today: 1&21 ,
17. Reviever: l^l-d^j 18. Date of Reviev: Tear UL£Ulj£l Month
—JU— I— I_U I
Day LO2J
I— J
19. Title of Narrative Report: l^L
20. Lo cation ofNarrative Report:
-I I
A-103
-------
Evaluation Form
I. Project Name. [ C\ u\ Y f A( .4 \ o (gj4-.L_f_vr(A ( c i <- \ er\ V| M^| rTjst/gj <^^ >»| -rl tf K I | |
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. L2l£JU^Ll^i Jl^iJ I . I NPDES No. LJ— I— LJ I I !— LJ
Grant No. |3i?i/i/ | g|&i.g|.3|eL£j vc^*^, / 39;s T-4> &?* c.
3- Date of Document: Year UJ.2J,zUJ Month L2JZJ Day l^d^J
4. Type of Document: a. EIS Ud"b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
5 location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: |.,^
xq ,440 \<£\£_\_\-.q Q.i_6J^,<|.-g^.|-g1^i l^lc-MO I _ I _ I -_-,!-. I— -I _ !_! _ I _ I _ Mil!
LJ— J-LJ— I-U I-JN-ULJ— 1-UU I-I-J—JV I^LJ-ULJ-L-LJN--UU LJH—Lt-LJUV
6.1ssue: |.H gfrt'U^^xvlgp [ _ | _ I Parameter: \s\./\ &•*** \
7. Type of Impact: U=j (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
I
LJ_ LJ _ I _ I _ LJ _ | | | || _ | _ | _ | _ I I ..U..|.__|_LJ _ I _ I I II I I I. I „ I ' I '
I_J_I_I_L_ LL.I.-J II I |LLJ I I I I | | | | f | | | L I | || I | |
I— Ul .1 ..... I,..I-JUU-,UI-JUU-J~J-J-J...I.-I-J-J-J-J-J I I— LJ— LJ i I I i LJ
I \ I I I
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: |'-l° \**\ *^*-\t<^ *:| \^\^\^-\^-\tf^^\ | | | | | | | | | |
10. Baseline Conditions: Year L2L2L2L3'
\jrt c*-**^~\. I ICt " l_HJ.£r_| \A\ *A oJ I A'
Jj0—I
I—I—LJ—LJ
LJ—J—I—I—LJ—LJ—LJ—1—I—I—J.
I I—I I I i i i i i
J—I—LJ—LJ I I I—I—LJ—LJ—I—I—I—LJ—LJ-J—i—I-J—I—I—L
11 "Predicted for end of planning period: Year I /1 c, L
J_I—I—I—LJ—I—LJ—1
J I .1—I—LJ—LJ I LJ—I
-LJ_LJ_LJ-.- I-, J I I I I I J I ' I I—1
I—I_LJ—LJ—LJ-J—LJ—I—I—I—LJ—I—1—LJ—I—I—I—I—I-.I I I-J—J—LJ M i I—I
.] | | | | | | | I {_ | | | | | I M M
J M ,1 I—LJ—I—J I I I-J
A-104
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year LU-fj£ji£l
|4"K^M^T MM-Sl IHVI/4 ! 1 1 -1 I
l_j | | | | | | j | | | | | | i |
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1— J_LJ._J_J. |_j_J LJ-J |_J_J_J_L
1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 i 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 | i . i,, , | , i.
_l j i i | | | [ , i i , | | | , | | , |<
I ! 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 ! f 1 1 1 1 I I
1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I i I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1— I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I f 1 f I 1 |<
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1
13. Actual current conditions:
fl)
/ s i j
/
* /*/LZT/ \c./
I_J_1— I_I_J_J_LJ I >._L|-' I I— I -I I II I III I I I II I II I i I I
1-J-J— LJ-JUU-J..-L-UUI^J— LJU-. 1-I-..LJ— U LJ-J- ..... I -I.- I- ..... I J-J-J-J I I I I
14. Data Base: \r\ >\&\i-\ D( \ '] *>| S\ €\ ^ -rf > \?.\ AJ -g • [ g A.J \o\f=\ \ 7{. -] l \^\- \<*\1J\ \ \
13. Summary: ( Code
I-J—I^J—LJ—J—
I I I I I I I I I I I I
J... I..LJ—UULJ--1—LJ-J-J-J-J-J-J . I ..I—UULJ—LJ I I I I
_|_j_j | | | | | j_j_j_j_|_J | | LJ_J-J_J_LJ | || | |
J.,. I.. LJ—LJ—LJ-J—I—LJ—LJ—I-J—J—I—I-J—I—I—LJ-J I .. I ... I—J
| LJ—1 | I | f | | | | | | | j | LJ | LJ | | [(I || | | III I I I
16. Regulations in Effect:
AJaseline:
Today:
I 1^1 L: l
l'\\ I I
^I . i f] ^_l H -J '\-''\ _ l-^-l -I \^\f\ ''
{.. | | 4- I
I '' KUj£l-J-U-
^J-J— )— LJ— J— I— LJ-J
Today:
17. Reviever: I
18. Date of Review: Year
il Month |£_LZJ Day Ui_a
19. Title of Narrative Report:
20 . Lo cation of Narrative Report:
1 I <
A-105
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA BASE FOR PROTOTYPE REPORT
IMPACTS OF POPULATION PREDICTIONS
-------
TABLE B-1
PLACE ANALYSIS FOR ILLINOIS:
PERCENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTUAL
AND PROJECTED 1980 POPULATION
b«
1
2
T
J
4
s
*
6
'
3
9
• V
i d
12
13
14
» e
16
i:
13
19
20
n «
«.;
~1
±4,
23
24
25
26
27
23
29
STA
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
• T
i 1
1 7
17
17
17
17
17
t •"
i t
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
TC :REAN;.>!£
4L£i;3
AL?KA
AMAHAN
ASSiJtfTICN
sAuIilfi
S''IysEF2RT
3_?EAU JL^CTIGN
Cn*;RII)SE
CCSuEN
EL --;so
"Af*£H CITY
SI SARD
n.SST
LE'fclaTj'iN
r^sFIELD
*."\ «-'!TU
t.WIt «JU I I)
Ira;*: :ASROLL
KwU'ii 'uLASKI
NILkDOD
PANA
PATQKA
PETERSBURS
RuftA
SHEFFIELD
ST. AUSUSTINE
SYCAKORE
TOMER HILL
acSTFia;
«ILLIA«SVILLE
v-t.'iC.-.
RIE5,»AN £~:.'^£Y F^SER i ASsCC
CcvCr,E-53B3 t A33CC
BISS^AK STANLEY FARKER ; ASSCC
tiARREN t VAN PHAA8 INC
KlESERSER ; ASSCC INC -
CONNOR & C:NNOH, INC.
1 iiILLETT HuFKANN i A333C IXC
KIS3KA8 STANLEY FARRER i ASSCC
J T BLANKINSHIF 1- AS32C
FARSSKCRTh V «YLIE
FAS-,S*:?.TR s, «YU:E
eENTCSi 1 AS3DC
R A SACK i AS:C:
A'iuER3Gft I AS3u3
4in>i.Y « AsaUb
ITI3SKAN STANLEY ,-iSREn 4 i^SCC
iA)T£R i isZZI'iiN
DENNIS E RC3Y & A-5CC
K £ CCRLEM i AScCC
JENKINS SERCKANT 1 SASKIVIL
aATsc:; i FI.E ix:
CA3LER HGL3ER i OwTCHISilN INC
K li I N £N3INEE.:.:>io IXC
R:C..?.E-,1A\ihA,\ E"«T"\ i i;;.""
•• T . '
1 ill
1C£9
sl5
9oe
1233
47S
2231
462
2217
1210
2ss4
""C"
21-3
f **
iwS
"---
4>' ^w
C" '
lC7Ci
I'3e
:733
290
6i40
ii3
2343
Io2
1130
;?2
921?
a 79
"1
=ROJ3C
957
790
895
1516
5CC
2545
476
2421
1**.« I
iz<
» f c^
iTOW
I-2S
«"--
:5f4
:s7i
914
117C1
226s
1934
255
a333
559
27ia
164
1102
1E4
1C19
750
7C3
•117
PERS1F
-9.364
-3.067
-1.432
13.161
4.603
11.574
3.030
9.202
1.157
-5.907
7.S15
-D.S46
65.672
4.097
-C.76C
9.574
17.C45
3.4e9
-12.C69
4.934
-15.686
17.200
-37.405
-2.478
-4.167
-6S.947
10.457
-1.S03
'
1
1590 -I.4S7
Note: Till = Actual census count
PROJ80 = NEPA projected population
PERDIF = Percent difference between NEPA prediction
and actual census count
3-1
-------
TABLE B-2
PLACE ANALYSIS FOR INDIANA:
PERCENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTUAL
AND PROJECTED 1980 POPULATION
OBS STATE An£niHnfl£
Till PRCJSC PERZIF
31
32
rfnt
34
35
36
37
33
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
43
49
50
r (
r-
ax
53
54
55
56
57
53
fm
59
6C
6:
6'.
13
15
13
18
18
13
13
IS
13
13
IS
IS
!S
IS
IS
IS
13
13
IS
IS
15
1C
IS
le
IS
IS
18
18
18
• H
IS
* 0
Br.E-'Eft
Svn.INoTuS
CARLISLE
DARLINGTON
2UNKIRK
EARL PARK
ELUuDC
EVANSVILLE
FRAKKrCRT
SALVE5TON
SAS CITY
5F.EENCASTLE
SnEENsCCD
nifllwi wN
ICSP 5K
IN5IANA? 3LI5
J.CSn'-NA
4. A .-CL
i-sS- >CS»
L'SS
I'lN.i.I.LE
"nf.ENuu
N- 1 ^ — —
t,Sn..i
x\-::z;*:
flccsE.-'1.;
fiy.-.A,; .»'(
NEB --"EN
»i .• ^ •> •«.»—
frijrtii" :-_;*
FGSTL.-SL
R. £,-*.'•..
T:-;.N
c E HIUISBS i ASS::
C3L£ AS33C INC
£EA« LCNSEST 1 XEFF INC
C E «ILLIA,1S i AS30C
BUTLER FAIRHAN t SEUFERT
CfflBlCMKALTH ENGINEERS INC
C E KJLLIASS I ASSOC
H. 3. STEES ASSOCIATES
C E KILLIAKS 4 ASSCC
C E KIL.IASS 4 A33CC
A 4 E ENGINEERING INC
C3N50ER TCSNSEN: 4 is=:c
FRANKLIN !»;:;»,;£=;,'.: ;o
C E KILLiMS 4 A333C
COLE ASSCC INC
I «EID 5UESE ALLISCN *ILC3X
CMWSCKEALrB EkcIXEEriE INC
C E KILLIAM 4 A333:
C E KIUIABS 4 ASS3C
H. S. STEES AaSjuIflTES
AMESSCN 4 ASSOC
C:«"3K«fiLTH EKSIKEERS INC
C1",K3NKALTH ENGINEERS INC
h. S. STEES ASSOCIATES
BEAK LCNSE3T 4 NEFF INC
SULLIVAN i FU
KEITH L SurrtSIE-::.N3'JLTIS3
CEEK 4 -iNNiK LS:
H. C> J.CC3 "C-w.-^iCJ
•-w»>"'. i>i£ i. 4 r;;^.
5IEZI INC
H. i. c*EE: -IzIZI-.'EE
3565
666
741
S16
3163
'. 475
10865.
130496
15163
1822
6370
S403
19327
5S8
2696
700719
723
1881
11454
1250
557
S9-2
757
5162
473
969
E?iSl 6714
569
7074
113Z7
615
:;•:*
4157
302
677
842
3594
453
11256
13S890
14966
2249
13231
1C-476
16418
1682
2350
172375
614
1963
10819
1405
733
E56
670
5197
599
966
6319
650
7125
55764
* "iff
- wJ
7Icc
la
20
-8
3
13
_ c
l>
3
6
-1
23
107
24
-15
186
-12
.6Co
.420
.637
.186
.447
.428
.599
.432
.332
.436
.703
.670
.051
.054
.334
-75.400
-15
4
-5
.076
.359
.544
12.400
32.
-4.
-11.
0.
26.
-2.
1.
1*.
0.
T ^
« ' C
i . «.
i'.
496
036
493
678
633
326
5i4
236
721
9T4
• «•?
t*
£*3
B-2
-------
TABLE B-3
PLACE ANALYSIS FOR MICHIGAN:
PERCENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTUAL
AND PROJECTED 1980 POPULATION
a -i
si
e4
65
66
67
aS
69
70
71
72
^~
74
75
76
77
78
79
iv
SI
82
83
54
6:
=6
S
ss
£-
?C
91
TE
La
26
24
26
26
M 1
«.o
2*
26
26
26
26
26
26
2a
2s
26
2s
2o
26
26
26
It
2c
:*
.a
la
It
I;
«M
ASEA.-.ABE CC
A.F&A
CAPftC
CASS CITY
CHARLOTTE
COOPERSVILLE
CRC3KELL
DE TOUR VILLAGE
FIFE LAKE
FOULERVILLE
6RE3W1LLE
HOLLAND
KOUSHTCX
JACKSON
KENT CITY
KINSSLEY
LAINSSSuRB
uESLIE
ill I!«3TSN
llEdLCN
CAKLEY
F::KFORD
:Er-5Li3
S:»E:
SASLiJSKY
;~iRtCAN
STANIISH
w ' Vw." -.". i W wE
JSIJH.LI.E
• *i*E Chi-!.!
l^aJLT
RCHi-lEs FC?.TE.T & SEE^EY
«CNA«EE FCRTEn t SEELEY
HU3BELL ROTH & CLARK INC
CAPITOL CCHSL'LTANTS INC
FREIN 4 NEHKOF
JCHN'aGN & ANDERSON INC
SnANSER ES6INEESIN6 INC
SRANsER ENSINEERIN6 INC
HOLVERINE ENSINEER CO
CAPITOL CCXSULTANTS INC
KiLLIASS i SsORKS
HOiAHEE ?C?7ER t SEELEY '
(ICNAWEE FCRTER i SEELEY
KILLIAKS & WORKS
SRAN3ER EKSINEERIN6 INC
CAPITOL CCNSULTANTS INC
CAP I TO. CONSULTANTS INC
CCLLINS ENSINEERIN6 CO
VALENTINE-TH0.1AS I ASS3C INC
R K KRAFT ENGINEERING
DAVER!MN AS50C
0 F EN61KEERING i ARCH ASEOC
CAFI'SL CONSULTANTS INC
K 3 il-LISKSCN PE
CArlTul. CONSULTANTS If*C
EMAfwS EN6ISESRIS6 INC
*C.',£F::r.E ENGINEER CO
=;^s:3 ENSISEERINS :fc
F, r *--" E'.SIKEERINB
Till
* H"H fl
-*A-t
1377
2259
6251
233?
2073
480
412
2227
8019
'26231
7512
39739
863
i54
1145
2110
765
951
404
.
.
3511
2216
655
2264
1213
575
1101
PR..,:,
*;-•
134C
2220
8745
3373
2054
493
1505
2114
7934
53232
22C5
13023
927
914
1141
2453
1S27
373
485
630
13C3
EC47
3833
S42
1708
1245
736
3047
2 Fir'
-S*
!it-
5Ii
-2.687
0.974
5.9S7
14.
753
-0.917
«
t>.
703
265.291
-5.074
-1.
:o2.
-70.
-67.
7.
39.
-0.
16.
13S.
060
740
594
216
416
755
349
473
824
-60.933
20.
,
.
129
72
2S
35
^
23
176
050
.194
.969
,550
.127
.638
.000
.743
Note: No matching place in census data for Nos. 83 & 84
B-3
-------
TABLE B-4
PLACE ANALYSIS FOR MINNESOTA:
PERCENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTUAL
AND PROJECTED 1980 POPULATION
t;;
52
93
94
55
96
57
93
59
100
101
1C3
104
105
1C6
157
» * *•
.v'a
lit
14 J
Ki
113
114
115
116
117
H8
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
i27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
ii
• «
27
Li
17
11
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
BABBITT
BACKUS
BASNUR
BARRY
BATTLE LAKE
BIRS ISLAND
CAHBRIDSE
CARLOS
CASS LAKE
CnATFIELB
C:L;SNE
CCTTCNMOD
CMNcLL
CiR'JS
in? RIVER
ScNMsSiS
CONNELLY
_!"l!k
;Z3v,":JE
fi.Hni/Ut"i(J
nfii if i Un
HAYFIELJ
HOLLAND
IMA
KETTLE RIVER
LE s-E-R
- v - 3C « • - *r
Lu'>3 rhm.'Ui
C'Xn i wK^in
PE3LCT .Af'ES
tttt -an
ftuwitu wnt\C
t . uwJC. '•
*E:T ;o..o;?,;
S R WALLACE I ASSOC INC
IIDSETH SRITH NGLTIN3 \ AS30C
H A KUUSISTO
UIDSETH 3RITH .N3LTIN3 I A3S3C
RIEXE-CARROLL-PULLER I ASSOC
K B R
RALPH TKCPIAS I ASSOC INC
LARSON-PETERSON t ASSOC
STEMART t WALKER INC
SHORT, ELLIOTT, i HEHBRICKSCM
BCCGXBS-KNUTSCJf ASSDC IXC
«CCC»SS-KKU7S3N ASSOC ISC
CSEN AYRES & flSSOCIATES, INC
SGfiESTROO RCSEXc ASDERLIK
STRAFT i HALXEfi INC
BiMcSTROB RCSENE ANDERLIK
:^2A ; W.FJELL t CO
illSETH S«ITK SCLTIHS i ASSOC
HCUSTDN EKeiNEERIKS
STEiiART i iiALXER ISC
RIEKE-CARROLL-R'JLL£R ; PSS2C
SCHuELL i flADSON INC
IENK K C
DE«LD SRANT RECKERT t, ASSOC
RIEKE-CARRGLL-RULLER i ASSGC
R R WALLACE 5. ASSOC INC
BCLTCN i CIENK
Lnn3uN~rETER3uN i A35QC
r.IEJE-CARrGLL-HULLER i ASSOC
Till
2447
248
439
44
709
1372
3170
351
iOOl
IN 2063
554
924
244
345
907
206
303
1599
12S4
635
209
466
307
1243
233
254
179
3763
2859
18632
CGNSJLTIS3 EN3INEERS DIVERSIFIE 473
f R kALLACE I 6:;OC INC
SCiTriLA.s: E.f.2 i LANESURVEYING,
r li CiPLEY ', fiSEC:
•-EA i l-r-sELL i C2
vr«Y AES:: :NC
393
IN 479
'2943
4699
759
3132
271
464
52
806
1296
3609
364
-1424
2054
73
347
191
334
972
J76
in
1530
1152
651
' 190
468
399
1243
•234
242
182
3745
2859
13490
729
420
607
1865
4510
759
PEftiir
27.993
9.274
5.695
13.182
13.681
-5.539
13.849
3.704
42.258
-0.436
-86.823
-3.333
-21.721
-3.133
7.166
-14.563
3.630
-4.315
-10.2SO
2.520
-9.051
0.429
29.967
0.000
0.429
-4.724
1.676
-0.478
0.000
-0.762
8.321
6.870
26.722
-36.629
-4.022
5.270
B-4
-------
TABLE B-5
PLACE ANALYSIS FOR OHIO:
PERCENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTUAL
AND PROJECTED 1980 POPULATION
Till FROJ3J FEF.2I-
r- 2 r^? .r MLC^ FIfi'I£ £N-S 24315 35648 46.609
U» u9 &.JA. ru^iwJi SKISuES KUNSIMSER 4 HCCVK 3431 '0359 1?7 537
!? :! ???. „ F A 7^fiS l ^ W30 155459 65.372
:: .? 'r^if CH: w ril- INC 573322 5557-2 -2.445
;:: :: ^!::;iuliN s: ««"»^- i ASHCC 2455 6424 i«.;H
i-3 j? tf.f.nt. tKS.rwEnlSS A333C L75 510 ^91 -4.345
134 35 rFEENVILLE SMELL ENVIOKENTAl SRCL'P 12999 15307 17*7"
'::' :! ?::^-£ "E 8L::-'S^-4 -"2c :sc 3S7 125i 4s!974
':! :.T ::•'::: 3-'-"s & '<:FLE LTI 6675 - 7560 13.253
.-/ -T ....-->;, wi.i ;,^3 ,1£C:-iiAn7 h;^3_E7CS' -,rp fsis -,-, —•
---.... . . ji-3 jflllF *v.7Ji
••-' •' ••«•-• '--VcNs i c^sCX -A,-, — ,3 -- -e.
..... . . iCio4 jwiti i/.w^O
JiC.U »?lw CTt IJ-)/ «B- -3.
- - u-r. ,..WC , ,..„- 3/a lfli° iOi.^K*
L c mLnnJ!., i hwuC 9:09 5157 -43.336
SJr=«3 i NIF.E 173 74,4 3477 14<:;2
FIS,:-EI,VER FE77IS i 37F3LTL7D i67 733 17.391
FLur'D 5 E«C*NE i A33CC LT2 729 735 C-;;7
,.„ , 2557 3500 36.575
...v-elltR auNtStHEMS> 443, 53i5 21>,79
-.->..£-)» .bNcS i hENF.Y . S614 5099 5-o3c
^_::NC3fiD C E HLLIASS i AS32C 1Si0 303-33.710
„ :::;;:- BASICS ', hCEFFEL FAF.7NERS 4I20o 17596 -57.251
:ll :l :::-;- SilR3E3s l SI?L£ «-:D t765S 24230 :7-;4:
'^ -T '-IU- S^'T SFL'-riSE EAKER , 20480 "4554, ^ **•>
,ci -« -•- -.-»,, , iV-^OU ^%C70 A.I • wO^
.; :: "-'. -;t:f: fluR;EE5 4 NIF-E LTJ *n 1133 67.352
;-i :; ----' .--TE-.-iF-ECN^-fSSCC., LT; ,7;6 245943.298
:c; :: -;----' ^=HLI I f:.:-" ;==•:: LIT :ii 32i 2C.6767
':! "' >".';.I3li HAvE.NS i E-EF.32-. ;:;;4 liHi 4S.3221?
* E^3LI2!:AL. ', -3323 INC :C95 6C34 1E.42'5
3-n3E33 i filF^E L7C 7;; 5^3 ii,5;?g
L H pC£G£,*E-E:, F E 1708 177E 4.0934
E-NSINEESS A33;::;"2 ;i3: 2512 -5.4"04
i'.'l.rEF, C E iILLIA," I AE32C
3-5
-------
TABLE B-6
PLACE ANALYSIS FOR WISCONSIN:
PERCENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTUAL
AND PROJECTED 1980 POPULATION
.£3 5 in it rtrtth*««Sl
155 55 BAN3CJ
Is; 55 SSILLICS
Isi 55 CA'SF.IA
Is2 52 CASnlCX
163 55 CJIIPFE;A FALLS
164 55 C3LEKAK
:65 55 CRANCON
1:: 55 IICKEYVIJ.E
1.7 35 "EZEFIC
* 2c w2 jt*nr > urt
Ii5 55 e?EE)» LAKE
170 55 H.STLER
17: 55 JCHS'SDN
,'• tf •>•*«
il± M«J W.Wfl
173 55 HELER
174 55 LA C-:.SE
175 ee LA*£ ** ' c
178 55 LENA
177 55 L.;i
173 55 . LL':>.
179 55 SJUfci
130 55 ,1A:,.E*CC
181 55 r,;;:cK
132 55 H;V;EHAN
133 55 JIILAS
134 55 SCN-CE
135 55 "u( *-\-ij
186 55 Cf.7Ar-ID
is? 55 F;F:EEML^E
133 55 PLA77EVILLE
1.9 55 ?::s£77E
150 55 S:?i»
i9i 55 i7;;f.:;:;E
:52 55 57;;;A:.;
153 55 S-LF.7E.AJ.7
154 55 VIRu3.'A
155 55 SH:7Ei^7En
156 55 fcIJ.7ER
197 55 *G,',Ei(GC
KNaJLT
IAVY ENEIMEFINc CD
K:SAK:N AS=:: INC
*«»-s>ri;; f.;SuC
£~P ^ A*3j"
SHCRT, ELLI.7T, 4 HEhXICKSrK
F07H I VAN DYKE t ASEJC
JC-K.HUE i AEECCIATES
3KIVE--A77EKY « A333C
S. A. Eri'H 4 ASrDCS., INC.
»-i -i; t^ t .M-*«rrT— •"
I/."(M*.: • «a3ukin>£3
AS7HUP. i ASE3C INC
VIEHBICHER ASSOCIATES
cuuLI EKsINEERINS IKC
SENERA. ENeiNEEHINS CO
«n«? te^**Xl£^lNw uD
JE.H3EN t JunNsON INC
LAr-'ELAX. EX3R5 IKC
FD7H t VAN DYKE i ASSCC
nitf *H i K ' Cu h35wi*
R £ CCCPER 4 AS5DC
FC7'ri a VAN IVr.E i A33GC
SSNESAu EK5INEERIN8 C3
SKCFT, ELLIC7T, i KEK2RICKSCK
RICE I ::,7H ISC-
I-ZZ.-EF i HCFFE E'.cIKEERS INC
rCN.-wE » A33DC INC
•'JEKERT i ,r:EL.i'E INC
CMEN AYRE3 i AS53C
sEN'cr.AL EN'EIfiEEP.INc CO
yj-il-H.'E i ASrCCJA'ES
L»»-_-Tt t*-cr.i iiVC
KF. »A"-J.!t »HI7E
Rcririis A.S:C :.vc
LA L'JW:; ;Nc;ncHIno Ai>D
;Z'-;EN I JCriSsCX INC
SA.'Y EK=.liEEr.IN3 CO
R. A. .?II7H i -.b:— :., INC.
•.A'Er"1! E'iiI?iEEF.IN3
->-->., . — »« > !•-«,•.»
• Kl>iN Pl^Hi • ^ .* w W W
i.Il Pr...ej FlH.IF
1012 53= -2.372
2507 2673 -S.C5C
6/M 14CE 105.212
546 £54 5.674
IN 122e3 133C3 12.553
396 1137 32.473
1969 1322 -7.466
115ft 1369 13.42a
1C39 U CO 5.373
£321 11C50 31.846
1203 4301 239.437
133 165 -9.336
. 1066
r- 428
475 .
*S347 65500 35.479
3670 4909 33.760
591 624 5.534
1929 2172 10.673
997 901 -9.629
" 1205 1333 15.137
146
IN 1343 1236 -S.309
1446 1456 0.692
. • 266
10027 lOOwO -0.269
4C14 3IC9 -22.546
v 398 425 6.784
1594 1733 9.034
9530 9394 -1.942
1447 1409 -2.626
830 363 -1.932
567 630 13.J11
7A7 0*17 1ft OI^
/O/ Ij,/ ^1'. 00 v
4130 16225 292.357
3716 3670 -1.238
11520 13315 63.355
367 366 -0.272
824 S47 2.751
Note: Mo matching place in census data for Mos. 171, 172,
173, 180, and 183.
-------
TABLE B-7
COMPARISON OF THE CENSUS BUREAU'S 1975 MIDDLE SERIES
ESTIMATES WITH THE ACTUAL 1980 COUNTS FOR REGION V STATES
AND THE NATION AS A WHOLE
(in thousands)
1970 1975 1980 1980 °
Actual Pro- Pro- Census I
State Counts jections jections Figures (
Illinois 11,113 11,198 11,259 11,427
Indiana 5,196 5,313 5,359 5,490
Ohio 10,657 10,735 10,738 10,798
Michigan 8,882 9,111 9,275 9,262
Minnesota 3,806 3,921 4,025 4,076
Wisconsin 4,418 4,589 4,752 4,706
U.S. 203,306 213,032 221,651 226,549
I of Projection
•Irror from 1980
Census Figures
1%
2%
1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
Source: Census Bureau's 1975 Middle Series estimated and 1980 census
characteristics of the population.
B-7
-------
TABLE B-8
OCCUPANCY STATUS OP YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS
FOR AREAS AND PLACES SELECTED IN THE STUDY
Area
Area
Region
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Total Units
Occupied
Vacant
Total Units
Occupied
Vacant
Total Units
Occupied
Vacant
Total Units
Occupied
Vacant
Total Units
Occupied
Vacant
Total Units
Occupied
Vacant
Total Units
Occupied
Vacant
Mean
4,796
4,446
350
833
779
54
12,512
11 ,578
934
1 ,842
1 ,739
103
607
575
32
11 ,655
10,723
932
1 ,560
1 ,495
65
Sum
911 ,328
844,773
66,555
24,989
23,361
1,628
400,379
370,458
29,881
49,735
46,957
2,778
21 ,866
20,709
1,151
361 ,305
332,401
28,904
53,060
50,847
2,213
Place
Min.
19
19
0
87
78
3
182
165
7
141
126
0
19
19
0
81
78
3
62
62
0
Max.
283,156
260,107
23,049
4,243
3,974
269
283,156
260,107
23,049
15,937
15,005
932
7,011
6,746
265
239,433
218,297
21 ,136
18,728
18,085
643
B-8
-------
TABLE B-9
SOURCE OF WATER FOR YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS
Area
Place
Area
Region
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Public system or private co.
Individual well drilled
Individual well dug
Some other source
Public system or private co.
Individual well drilled
Individual well dug
Some other source
Public system or private co.
Individual well drilled
Individual well dug
Some other source
Public system or private co.
Individual well drilled
Individual well dug
Some other source
Public system or private co.
Individual well drilled
Individual well dug
Some other source
Public system or private co.
Individual well drilled
Individual well dug
Some other source
Public system or private co.
Individual well drilled
Individual well dug
Some other source
Mean
4,569.62
205.82
18.62
2.42
820.43
6.3
4.87
1.37
11,400.06
1,026.03
79.38
6.38
1,737.22
97.63
6.63
0.55
562.28
35.08
9.30
0.55
11,602.23
38.52
8.94
5.32
1,529.29
29.12
1.76
0.41
Sum
868,227
39,105
3,537
459
24,613
189
146
41
364,802
32,833
2,540
204
46,905
2,636
179
15
20,242
1,263
335
20
359,669
1,194
277
165
51,996
990
60
14
Min.
0
0
0
0
62
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
Max.
251,524
29,261
2,261
110
4,212
52
32
9
251,524
29,261
2,261
110
15,832
1,060
92
10
6,903
279
100
8
239,397
356
139
82
18,602
172
15
2
B-9
-------
TABLE B-10
SEWAGE DISPOSAL FOR YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS
Area
Area
Region
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Public sewer
Septic tank or cesspool
Some other means
Public sewer
Septic tank or cesspool
Some other means
Public sewer
Septic tank or cesspool
Some other means
Public sewer
Septic tank or cesspool
Some other means
Public sewer
Septic tank or cesspool
Some other means
Public sewer
Septic tank or cesspool
Some other means
Public sewer
Septic tank or cesspool
Some other means
Mean
4,474.24
307.37
14.85
735.77
92.33
4.87
11,085.86
1,388.38
37.91
1,709.78
129.37
6.89
566.22
37.42
3.58
11,446.45
175.32
33.22
1,526.68
30.44
3.47
Sum
850,106
58,400
2.822
22,073
2,770
146
354,738
44,428
1,213
46,164
3,385
186
20,384
1,347
129
394,840
5,435
1,030
51,907
1,035
118
Place
Min.
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
2
0
3
4
0
3
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
Max.
242,909
39,374
873
4,086
386
16
242,909
39,374
873
15,757
984
94
6,921
135
18
238,356
1,347
129
18,648
172
29
B-10
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA BASE FOR PROTOTYPE REPORT
IMPACTS ON LAND USE PLANS
-------
*
I
I I
.io~-e* i- ' oe
> O "rf i^ O ^ O O 9* 9 ^ ^ ^ ^ N«
*• >
r o i
\S .J I/* t
^ — i o O f
w*^ i o
f* ft (
O < I f
< »j r i
^ t_>
^
f j >•
-* «
*• ^j
•Y W
O u. v
(.1 f
OO <•" t,i •-• ^ (^ «» u O >> •-
< W 1 f •* N. k— \J
TZTTTT
• * tJ <" <* "* t" :" tl ' * "* U
(' *Mb>«(MtoH.*di..feHkM ^
»n ^-JJJ-J-JJ-JJ^"*—
<• • rr
o a
C-l
-------
^tr' »- O t/1* O *• «-
t oo^r3
rai <**<«•<«<<*<***
O u. u. O O •" v
u. w o r> -t ;
o >. v » t ^
r? f— 1 ' •* •
O «• f- C J i
1 t-i -ti r
u "3
' T O -J r' " '"" 3i
1 £
— 1 ^
0 •> •» •> r» "»
•>b>Wb»k.tl~k.b.b.*~^>*.. b- b. W. W t— ^ h_ T-*
f ^ ,' ta. to- -to w. b- ta-b*to-b_t— b. fc- ^ w- b- »- ^- *•• b-b-b-t^rr ^
'-
T
^
-i
_i '• -*
.-
-
^
_J 1- 0
i- -» r u-
it, _j r
-j j J r*
-i ^ i
» ^ r*
b-
,-.
_I _J J — 1
«v b* b* *.
t^ t^ /. .t
C-2
-------
,-. ,- -\ --\
•> -)
* y
II
«» IM •* O '
I O — •• — <
I O iff i« «J •
I WOIV«»ON-«*W»«W«'»AJO>^O*"»"*^'
I 4*j<*i*-o*.>»t^«*iu*«iryp*'-'»rt>»^^ o*J**'"M'""l'i''>*'*'>»'»AJ»"'%'*-»r'«
i o^ooooooooorso — aaooaoooo^ooOCTOooooo^oooo — o«-ooa — o o o o
I •o<49O^^n»^«M'O'A^u^^^>^^*^-^MhB^B*^^t^<4^l^^**"O^''^>^u^^O^\nO4)NHt/^^«r4)mf^^o^i«K»
•- I X Z Z i
»oioaoaooooaaoooooooooooooaoooooCToaooaooooooooooooarao
aooooooociooaoocj'
• oaaooaaooorjoaaorsaaooooooc'nocao
N»UJ I •O«*^
< O J
r
»
Tl
UJ
VI
0
p 1 O <3
» 1 ^ i"
VI
J"
*-
=
r
o
7
UJ
u
a. •<
a ~
U
•r
UJ
M
r
N*
3
T
j
f ti
^^ff^ft^*-*
N. ^V./f^WWu*^^
tu QQOOOOOOCi^» *
r « *.
^ in IU IU lit IU UI UJ U' Ui O
ft Ul U' IK UI UJ UI UJ UJ UJ »" '
h. «/» v» * *y '•» v» v» '/» w» r» W
-C *"-j
o nnooi^oooo1" i*/
— UJ UJ IH U,1 UI UJ UJ UJ UJ O ^ U> IA.
e o >. uj o y o o
o r» ui
V ^ U. tk »• _J u.
neu>> »»u^ u ^ 33
"- J
» M 4.
•» n a.
O T
u I.
^
r*1
^
:,
\.
^ '.. u* '*i 111 u- i*j u> r T o u. ••> .j * •»
^
O U'
7 -J
7" ~ -J
O aJ •*
u.rrrrJo-
onnoonn-^o
V
3
A
-1
.J
,"
r
Ci
r^
-,
r* O
a. a. «.
-«-•-.
»'
J
•T
-,
U
j iu n
•^ y v '"^ '»•
,:*,:.
'J < «-^ 3 UJ
» -» t -» t
-i * -/
r^ — ^.
"i •-
L4. iy^
r w.
C-3
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. l^l£|Aj£l£j£J^J-J-/JAJ^J ^^LOLLJ—I—I—LJ-J—LJ-LJ-J—LJ
2. Needs(Facility) No. UJ^L£l^Jj£Ul£l£I/J NPDES No. I—I—I—I—I I I—I—I—I
Grant No. l / | ?V »7|7i4i | I I I
3. Date of Document: Year I—LJ_J_J Montfc LJ—I Day I_J_J
4. Type of Document: a. EIS I—J b. EA LJ c. EID I—I d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI1X1
31ocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: |.£t£J±l£J£J£l—LiI££J
l-Z-Ul£J.£J^G—.LJ_J_J I—I_I_1_J_J_J_J—L_LJ_ I-J—1-I—I—LJ—I— I—I_J_J_I—LJ-J
I—LJ-LJ—1-LJ—1N-I I LJ-LJ—1-LJ—IW I—LJ-LJ—l-l—I—IN-I—LJ-J-I—LJ-I—LJW
I—LJ-1—I—H—I—IN-! I .1—1-1—I—l-l—I—IW I—I—1-l-J—l-l—LJN-I—LJ—J-I—LJ-LJ—IW
I—1—1-LJ—l-l—I—1N--I—I—I—l-l—I—l-l—I—IW I—I—1-LJ—J-l—1—IN--!—LJ—I-LJ—l-l—I—IW
6.Issue: |J"| ff\ C\i \&\/\£\c\
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year U_J-£-l.£L6
-J-J_J-J_J_I— I
— LJ— LJ— LJ— LJ— LJ'
LJ— I— I— !— I— I— LJ— I—,
| _ l
I— !— I_J_LJ~I-J-J_J-J-J
I— I— I— I— J_U!_J-J— LJ-J— Ul— 1-J-J
I— J_l— UJUU—UJ-_LJ_J
13. Actual current conditions:
-J-J-J-J-J— I_LJ_LJ-J_ LJ_ LJ-J-J
-J_J_J— LJ-J— LJ-J-J— LJ-J—LJ-J-J <
--— --—
I— I— !— I— I— !_l— Ul— LJ-J— 1— 1-J-J—J— U LJ-J-J-J— l-J—1— LJ-J-I— I— UU J— LJ— 4
LJ— I— LJ— LJ— LJ— LJ— I—ULJ— J_LJ— LJ— LJ—UJ— I— LJ-J— LJ— I-J-J— J— LJ-J
; _ __ _ _._..... _
l-J-J-J— J— I— ULJ-. I. LJ—LJ
- -L..I-J— LJ-J— J— J— LJ-J— I
I— )^l—l-J-J-.i-J-J-,L-UJ— I-J-J^J-J— I I I— UL- 1— Ul-.l ........ I-J-J— LJ-J— U l-J-J
14. DataBase: | L \ t\ _7| _tf cn ^A *" e "s v
-------
.ivironmental Assessment
Sewer Rehabilitation Project: DeKalb S.D.
C171334-04
A. DeKalb Sanitary District
303 Hollister Avenue
OeKalb, Illinois 60115
OeKalb County
B. Project Description:
1. Abandon Northland Plaza STP and provide gravity sewer to
Sycamore Road trunk sewer when the plant reaches its design
loading at some future date.
2. Relief Sewer Construction:
a. Woodley/Thornbrook Sewer
610 feet of 8 inch sanitary sewer
400 feet of 18 inch sanitary sewer
3) 4 manholes
b. Dodge Addition Sewer
1) 2,665 feet of 15 inch sanitary sewer
2) 700 feet of 10 inch sanitary sewer
3} 14 manholes
c. 13th Street Sewer
1) 1,750 feet of 8 inch sanitary sewer
2) 7 manholes
d. 10th Street Pump Station Abandonment
1) 2,100 feet of 15 inch sanitary sewer
2) 175 feet of 10 inch sanitary sewer
3) 8 manholes
e. Plant Influent Revisions
75 feet of 24 inch sanitary sewer
Plug bypass to river
f. 1st & Sycamore Sewer
1) 800 feet of 24 inch sanitary sewer
2) 4 manholes
3) Repair Gunite 5 manholes
C-6
-------
'age 6
B. Short term problems of traffic control and rerouting and increased
noise, dust, and erosion will be experienced during the construction
phase of the project. These effects can be minimized by the use of
good erosion control practices and setting up detours around the
construction sites. The internal sewer repair work will not
significantly hinder the continuation of normal daily activities.
C. This project will not effect any known Archaeological, Historical or
valuable natural resources. The work is confined to the already
developed areas of the City.
D. No impact on the areas endangered species of flora or fauna will
result.
E. No land currently used for agricultural purposes (Prime Agricultural
land) win be used up by the project.
F. The population projection data used in developing the necessary plant
size was in agreement with the data source used to develop the
Statewide Implementation Plan for Air Quality.
^
6. No Corps of Engineer permits are required for this project.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency contact person for this
Project is:
Richard A. Schultz, Project Manager
Grant Administration Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
T. w. -M /
C-7
-------
1. Project Name. |<*lg.J4..t/
Evaluation Form
jjgi-1 (n Ki \wf\ ' i ' i—1_
2. Needs(Facility) No. !JLlZ)^^Jl£].£L£JJlJ NPDES No. I— LJ-J— J ....... I....I. I I.I
Grant No. LO3JJJLllliLj-J-J-J
3. Date of Documeat: Year Ul±lZi.£! Month UUJ Day |_£i_£l
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI L*J
3-Location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I^^AL
Jj*JAJ^£UAlM^I^L?1-g.KKI. I I -I—I--I—I
LJ—1-1—LJ-LJ—JN-I—I—I—I-LJ—I-LJ-JV LJ—H—I—H—LJN-ULJ-J-LJ-J-L-LJV
ULJ-LJ-J-LJ—IN-I. I ..LJ-LJ—I-LJ—IV I—I—I-LJ—I-LJ—IM-I—LJ-R,, I.,. H—LJV
I—1-J-l—I—l-l—LJN-LJ-J—l-l—I—I-LJ—IV LJ—I-LJ—I-I-J—IN-I—LJ-H . I hi—LJV
6.1ssue: Ull^.l^J_LI^J_^JLl-£J^JAil Parameter: I^-I^I^KI \
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year U_!_£jj£L£j
I—I—I—I—1—LJ—J—I—I—U I—I—I_J—I—I—LJ—I—I—J—I—J—J—J—Ul—I—LJ—LJ—I—I—I—I
I—I—1—I—I—LJ—!—I—I—I—I—I—1—l-J—J—LJ—I—LJ—I—J—J—I—LJ—I—LJ—I—I—I—LJ—J
I—J_ I—I—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—I—I—I—I—LJ—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—L_LJ—I—I—I—I—J—LJ-J—LJ
I—J—I—I—J—J—!—J—I—LJ—I—I—I-J-J—I—I—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—LJ-J—ULJ—LJ—I—LJ-J
LJ—I—I—I—I—I—I—1—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—1—1—1—1-J—J—1—I—I—LJ—I—LJ—I—L
U I-J-J— LJ— I-J-J-J— I-J-J— i— I— Ul— U LJ— I— LJ-J
13. Actual current conditions:
UUUUI-J-.UUJ
J— I ..... I ... U U LJ— LJ-J— LJ— I-J—UUI-I
LJ— U LJ-J— I-J-J-J— LJ— !_J_I-J-J_J— Ul—l—l-J-J—J— LJ~!-J-J_J-J-J_1
I_J-J_J-J_J— J-JU— LJ-J-J— !_J_J_J_J-J_J-J-J— I-JU— I—LJ— LJ— I— I— J-J-J— J-J
LJ.J-J-J— I-J-J-J . ..... LJ-J-.U 1-J— LJ-J-J— UUL, I-J-J .1 ...I-J ..... .Ul— LJU t I LJ
I-JU-J-J-J-J-JU— LJ-J-J— I— I-J-J -.1—1— LJ— L- J-J—I— U UI-U LJ-I ....... l-l , .. LJ-J
LJUUUUULJ-J-JUUUUUUUUl,...\ ...LJ— LJ-LJ ..... -L-LJ— LJ— ULJ.-.LJ— LJ
14. Data Base: LJ— LJ—LJ— I— 1-J— LJ-J-J-J—ULJ— LJ-J— U.LJ— LJ— LJ— I— LJ-J-I -J
13. Summary: ( Code I.2JJM )
LJ—LJ-J—LJ— LJ— I— I-J-J-J— J-J— LJ-J-J-J— i-J-J-J_J_J— J
I-J— LJ— I— I_J— J-J— LJ— LJ-J— LJ_J_i_J__LJ_ L- LJ_J_J— I_J— LJ-J-J-J— !— !«J_J
LJ— LJ— LJ— LJ— L. I-J— !_J_-!-J— I— l-J-J-JU-J-J-J-J-J-J-J-J
J— I— I-J-J— LJ-J_J
!_J_J_l_j__ j_ j_J_J_LJ— !— I_I_I-J-J— LJ
LJ— Ul— I— LJ-J— I-L> I-J-J— I—ULJ_L- 1— I-J-J
16. Regulations in Effect:
—l—J-J—U LJ-J— LJ-J
Today:
^-ULI"1 I *" I I—Ul—I—I—J—J—I—J—1—I—ULJ—LJ—1—I—I.
B.Baseline: I—I—UI.
Today: I—I—J—I—I.
CBaseline: 1—I—I
Today:
17. Reviever: lAZl^l 13. Date Of Reviev: Year \Mll£.\±\ Month U2JZU Day!.
i-LJ-J-J-J-J— I—
U-J. ..... I-J-J—I-J-J— I—L-LJ— 1—1— LJ
19. Title of NarraUve Report: I_J_J.
20. Location of Narrative Report: I—I I | !__! I.
.j | |_J_J |.
J <
C-9
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
irT/Q REGION v
\5 \«3 ' 230 SOUTH DE>P3ORN ST.
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GSDGrS ASD CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environmental impact
statements (EIS), an environmental review has been performed on the proposed
EPA action identified below. A summary of the project and its major impacts
and a location map are attached.
Name of Applicant: (City/County/Statej" City of Moline, Rock Island County,
Til Inn-is
Planning Area: Moline Facilities Planning Area, Rock River Valley Regional
Facilities Plan
Proposed Project(s): The project consists of the preparation of plans and
specifications for enlargement of the Moline South Slope Treatment Plant
along with necessary interceptors to serve as a regional facility.
Estimated Project Cost: $6,735,381
Potential Agency Financial Share: $5,051,536
The.review process has shown that significant environmental impacts which wculd
warrant preparation of an EIS will not result from the proposed action. Any
significant adverse impacts have either teen eliminated by making changes in
the project or resolved through mitigative measures. Consequently, a preli-
minary decision not to prepare an EIS has been race. This action is taken on
the basis of a careful review of the facilities plan, including the environ-
mental assessment, and other supporting data, which are en file in this cffica
with the environmental impact appraisal and are available for public scrutiny
upon request. Copies of the environments! impact appraisal will be sar.c upcn
request.
Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted for
consideration by EPA. After evaluating the comments received, the Agency
will irake a final decision; however, no administrative acticn will be taken
en the facilities plan and/or project fcr at least fifteen (15) working days
from the dace cf this notice.
er.t Fuller
I Chief, Planning Brar.ch
-10
-------
G. Number of stream crossings, if any: 2-—The applicant will apply for
the Army Corps of Engineers "404" permit(s) during the Step 2 process.
. Nature and Extent of Land Use Changes
A. Primary
1) Site: Cftly a small amount of additional land will be required
for the necessary treatment plant expansion. Enlarging one existing
plant will offer increased dependability since it will be replacing
several existing overloaded or substandard treatment plants. Many
individual treatment units such as septic tanks, discharges to
tiles/ and lagoons will be eliminated. The largest amount of land
will be utilized for the stormwater retention facilities. The
stormwater retention lagoon will be constructed adjacent to the
treatment facility and will serve as a buffer between the waste-
water treatment facility and adjacent residential areas. The
proposed acquisition of additional land by the City of Moline
will require the relocation of some families. However, compen-
sation should be received by those being relocated. The relocation
is expected to be completed long before any construction has
started. Mast land is vacant. About one or two acres additional
acres will be needed for the storage lagoon.
2) Sewer Routes: Alternate locations for the interceptor routes
were considered during the layout of the lines. Where possible,
sewers were designed in street rights-of-way? however, due to
topography, this was not always possible. The construction of
the interceptor sewers is planned to be entirely underground.
There is no known geological formations that will be affected
as a result of construction. All approaches to stream banks
will be rip rapped to reduce erosion. This will impact some
streaTibank vegatation. Excavating and backfilling of the
trenches will cause temporary land use disruptions. Some rock
excavation utilizing explosives will be necessary.
B. Secondary: New sewers in this area of rapid growth will induce,
development. The sewage treatment plant will offer sufficient
capacity to support planned development through 1995. Offering
sewer services to presently undeveloped areas will have the affect
of increasing the density of people moving into a new area. This,"
"will offer a wider range of housing alternatives (such as~apartment
buildings), than if the the land was allowed to develop through
the use of individual disposal systems. Increased secondary impacts
due to storm runoff can be anticipated".
The main purpose of the proposed sewer system improvements is to
provide service to developed areas which currently do 'not' have
adequate treatment facilities and to extend interceptor sewer
capacity to areas that are planned to develop in the next fifty
years. A secondary effect resulting from this construction wil1
c-ii
-------
be the possible development along and adjacent to the proposed
sewer sys'tien" ana tne possibility of extensions into areas not,.
currently developed.Current zoning and development plans were
taken into consideration when extending the sewer lines into
presently undeveloped regions of the facilities planning area.
Where sewers pass through private property, easements will have
to be obtained.
Increased densities of development in an area that is largely open
space with sufficient water supply could possibly have an adverse
impact on fish and wildlife, increased land cover with an imper-
vious surface can cause streams to dry up during the summer and
flood during wet seasons.
4. Major Primary and Secondary Impacts of the Project
A. Primary/Construction-Related: Efforts will be made to minimize
the impact to traffic patterns during construction. The small
amount of interceptor construction which wil require the clearing of
vegatation in wooded areas will be restricted to the minimum amount
necessary for construction.
Some wash of silty materials could raise the turbidity of nearby
streams during construction. This includes the Rock River Crossing
and the crossing of a small creek by the Division F interceptor.
The applicant will apply for Array Corps of Engineer dredge and fill
(404) permits for these crossings. It is anticipaed that detailed
plans to mitigate any adverse environmental effects will take
place during this permit process. In other areas, soil erosion
will be held to a minimum by limiting the amount of open excavation
to where installation of the interceptor is taking place and then
quickly restoring surface contours and covers. Some sewers will
be constructed in areas of heavy use, such as commercial or
residential areas. Complaints from residents during construction
will be quickly responded to
The construction of this proposed project should have an overall
beneficial effect on the aquatic and wildlife of the area. The
streams in jc±ie area in which aquatic life live and from which
terrestial wildlife of the area drink will be made cleaner and
safer. Some disruption of the aquatic life and the wildlife during
construction is unavoidable. However, the long term benefits
should be much greater than the short term disruption that occurs.
B. Secondary: The service area is anticipated to receive rapid
growth during the planning period. This project could cause a
'change in the density or distribution of this growth. Proper plan-
ning and enforcement of zoning ordinances must take place to ensure
orderly development of the area. This project will place a moderate
economic burden on existing residents to fund capacity for future r
development. The need,for additional schools and other public f
services will accompany this development.
C-12
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. IJ^jfjAl ( .1 *l £L^LLLOU-£J^J I ' l*UU±JJl£La£J-. LJ— 1— 1— LJ— LJ
2. Needs(Facility) No. LLLll-£J-£J.£J.£J.£!jgLLJ NPDES No. LJ-LJ— L ..... I I -I— LJ
Grant No. LOZLLI ,^l .* I,,7LJ— I— I— I
3. Date of Document: Year I _ LJ_LJ Month I _ LJ Day I-J— I
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI
5-Location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: |_4j.£J£Jl_Lil£UJj£J— I_J
I— LJ-I— I— I-LJ— 1N-LJ— LJ-I— LJ-LJ— IV I— I— l-l— 1— H— I— INH—LJ—J-I— LJ-LJ— IV
I— LJ-LJ— M— LJN-LJ— I— I-LJ— M— I— 1W I— I— I-IU— I-LJ— !N^-I— LJ— l-l— LJ-LJ— IV
I— LJ-LJ— l-l— I— IN-I— J— I— M— I— l-l— I— IV I— I— H— 1— H-J— INH— I— I— H— LJ-LJ— IV
6.1ssue: lZl-£l^J^J.£l/L€l£J^J±U Parameter: * ^
7. Type of Impact: IJU (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
_I_1_1-J_J— I_J_!_J_]_J_ L-LJ-J
f II I II II J I II
I L_l— I I I _..-l._|_J_|_ I I
| | LJ I I-J I I II I
I I I— I-J— j-J— I-J— I— LJ— J
.1. ,1-1— I-J-J-J-J^LJ-J— LJ~L-Ui I I I-J
J— LJ—LJ-J— J-J-J—LJ-J— I-J-LJ-J— LJ-J
_ I— UIU-J— I— LJ— LJ-J— L- J— I— I I ...... I— LJ— I— i— I_J— I— I— ]— U I-J-J ..... I I I-J
(_J-J^.i-J-JU-JU.-.U(.....l-J-J-J— J-J-J-J-J-J^J-J—i— I-J— I—I— L- 1— LJ-J-J-J-J-J
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: I^U^£.Lil_J^J_J-JU^l^.l ...... J._ I— I— I— LJ— 1- „. I.
10. Baseline Conditions: Year
J...J,. , .I-J-J— I-J— I-J-J. . 1-J.U-JU— J—
I-J-J-J-J— L-LJ— I—I^LJ— 1— LJ-J-J-J I I— l^JU-J
I— LJ—LJ-J-J-J-J..LJ ..LJU—LJ-J. ..... I I— I— I— UJ— L
I I-JU— LJ-J— I~J— I-J
-J-J—L- i
1 1 . Predicted for «nd of plannin g period: Year ! — L
I-J—I— l-J—1— 1—l-J-J-J—I.
_l—LJ-J-J-J-J-J—I_L
J—I-J—J—1-1,, I ,J—I—L
J—I—I—I—LJ—LJ-J-J—LJ—J—1—LJ—1
J_J_J-J-J_J_J_J-_U. I—LJ—J—I—LJ.J
J—I—I—I—J—I—1—1—I
J—I—I—I—LJ—I—LJ—I—LJ—1
C-13
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year Uli-£L£L±J
L-L-J—J—U-i-J—J—l-
J-J-J-J-J-J-J-
I I | I I I I I
I-J—J-J—I—I—ULJ—I—UL_LJ—UJ—Ul—Ul—LJ—1-J-J-J-J
I II LI I I I I I I
II I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
i— I—I— i— LJ-J-J— i— I- UUUi-J— I-J II Ul— I— LJ— L. UUUUUUUI . I I.
I— I— I— I— Ul— 1^— I— Ul— UUUI— Ul . I ..I UUU UUUU UUUUUUI -.I....I.J,
| _ | _ UUUUUUUUI— I _ UJ— I _ | _ | || | _ UUI _ | _ | J | ...J— |— I— I _ | _ | | | (
13. Actual current conditions:
UUUULJ— UUUUUUl—UU UI
I ..... UUUUUUUUUI— I— UI—1 -I ..... . I ...I
_ Ul— Ul— I _ | | I I I I I I I I I '
UI— I—I— I— U Ul— Ul— I— U
— —
| _ |
) _ i _ | _ | _ |
UUI— UUUUUUUUUUI— UUUJ,,J ..... UUUUU
14. Data Base: ULlfjZj.,^1
13. Summary: ( Code
ll
I _ I II ! I ! I _ I _ I III! I _ 1 _ I
I I I I
I—J—LJ—J—J—I—UJ—LJ-J—LJ-J^J-J—LJ—I—LJ—ULJ—UUUUUL-LJ , I ,1 L
I_, III || | ...| j J || |_ I |_J I _LI _LI I I I I I I II I I II I I I
!-J—LJ.J—I—LJ-J—LJ-J—UULJ-J—I I I-
J .1 J .I-J—UULJ - f -I—UULJ-J-J I I I-
i-J^LJ-J— LJ~J«J I LJ-J^I-J.
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: I-J I I IU-J— L-LJ^LJ-J-J— LJ.
Today: I_J_J__LJ_J_I— J-J-J— I_I_J— J— J-J—I—J-J,
B.Baseline: I
Today: I_J_J.
CBaseline: LJ__LJ _ ! _ ! _ I _ I _ I _ I. _ l_l_l_J _ I_J_L_L_J
Today: LJ-J-J— I
17. Reviever: l^ljZj^l 18. Data of Reriev: Year UJ±J^I±1 Month LZL3 Day
19. Title of Narrative Report: I I I
20. Location of Narrative Report:
I— ULJ-- LJ-J-J .I
014
-------
Environmental Assessnent
Project Identification:
Springfield Sanitary District - Sugar Creek - Lake Springfield Sub-Facilities
Planning Area
Springfield Sanitary District
3017 North 8th Street
Rural Route * 2
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Project Description:
The proposed project consists of 12,605 lineal feet of gravity interceptor sewer,
5,000 lineal feet of 6 " diameter forcemain and one .16 MGD pumping station, all
located immediately south of Lake Springfield and west of Interstate Highway 55.
The interceptor system will discharge to the recently completed Chatham East
Pumping Station, which is in turn tributary to the Springfield Sanitary District
Spring Creek Treatment Plant.
The interceptor project is intended to eliminate two small treatment facilities
currently discharging directly to Lake Springfield, a public water supply reservoir
and major recreational lake. The two treatment plants serve the Illinois State
Policy Academy and the Chatham Glenwood High School. Neither of these plants
currently meet Illinois effluent limitations for discharges to lakes.
The interceptor systeir will also provide sewer service to the Lake Knolls area,
an older subdivision development west of 1-55 with a long history of problems with
malfunctioning on-site disposal systems. As a condition to this grant funded
project, the Springfield Sanitary District will construct a sanitary collection
syste-T. in this area.
The provision of these interceptors is actually the final extension of the
Westside Interceptor system previously funded as a result of facilities planning
in the Spring Creek Sub-FPA (also under C171807). This interceptor work removed
Chatham as a major point source from Lake Springfield. The project proposed
will remove the two remaining domestic discharges to the lake, while provision
of sewers in the Lake Knolls area will eliminate a prominent non-point source of
domestic contamination.
The scope and routing of the proposed interceptor system has been changed several
times in the course of facilities planning, as reflected in the several addendums
to the facilities plan. The system finally shown in the Fifth Addendum represents
a much less ambitious project than that originally proposed. As originally pro-
,>-«>sert, the interceptor project would have also extended eastward to serve the Ball
Elementary School and proposed developments south of the lake. This subsequently
eliminated from the project because of the lack of need in this area and the
ur.Jesirable secondary impact of extensive interceptor construction through
undeveloped aaricultural land.
C-15
-------
Aside from protecting the Lake, the project enables the construction of collector
sewers in Lake Knolls, where residents have for many years experienced serious
problems with on-site systems. The project will eliminate the ponding of septic
tank effluent in yards and ditches. The extent of the problem in the Lake Knolls
area is demonstrated by the considerable citizen response in favor of this project
at public meetings and hearings held during the planning process, and their
expressed desire to both enter the Springfield Sanitary District and pay the cost
for collector sewers without grant assistance.
No unusual mitigative measures are necessary for erosion or sediment control.
Most construction will occur along grassy, road right of way that will tend to
inhibit movement of sediment. The principle source of sediment will be backfill
temporarily stored alongside an open sewer trench. When in the proximity of
the lake or its tributaries, contractors will be required to remove backfill
to a point where it cannot errode to the body of water. Contractors will be
required to clean up the construction site as work progresses. Sediment impact
will be minimal.
It will be necessary to cross the Sugar Creek Branch of Lake Springfield at
one point. The 128 feet overhead crossing of the waterway will be made on a three
span sewer bridge parallel and north of the existing bridge carrying County
Highway 40 over Sugar Creek. The midstream piers of the sewer bridge will be
aligned with the midstream piers of the highway bridge, and the lowest elevation
on the sewer bridge will be higher than the lowest elevation on the highway bridge.
Consideration was given to tying the sewer to the existing highway bridge, but it
was found to be structurally incapable of handling the additional dead weight. A
permit for the sewer bridge will be obtained from the Illinois Division of Water
Hesources.
There will Se no long-term impact on flora and fauna. The project routing is
primarily through grassy area with a high capacity for recovery.
No particular impacts on employment are anticipated, except for the limited
employment offered by the actual construction work. There are no historical,
cultural or archaelogical sites of significance which would be impacted by
the construction.
The proposed project neither passes throuoh nor directly borders prime agricultural
land. While there is agricultural land within the potential service area of the_
project, it lost much of its agricultural value with the construction of 1-55
and associated interchanges and service roads, and is currently developing to
residential and commercial uses.
As noted earlier, the project has been considerably modified as a result of State
participation. The scope, sizing, and routing have all been altered to tailor the
project to current identified needs and minimize impacts on future development.
No future modifications are anticipated.
C-16
-------
Evaluation Form
', l£J4fUI— ]jU£J.L.UJJ±J.£I.Ll.£j-J— I— I
NPDES No. I— f_l— I— I— !_ !_J— Ul
1. Project Name.
2. Needs(Faciiity) No.
Grant No. l-Ll_a_LJ,O£j£l— i_J— I-J
3. Date of Document: Year LilflZLfj Monti LLJjLl Day
«. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID I_J d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI
31ocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: IXJ^£JlJj£L£J.£J-£.l — I — I
LJ_ LJ— J_J— I— 1_J— LJ_J— I— I— I-J— I— LJ— I— 1— 1— I— J— I— I— I— !— I— I— I— 1— J— I— LJ-J
LJ-J-LJ— H— !_ JN-UI— LJ-LJ— H— J— IV
I— I— H— I— H— I— IN-ULJ— H— I— H— 1— IV
— j
H— LJ-LJ— IV
Parameter
I— I— H— I— H— I— IN-
6-Issue: !^lJ_£
7. Type of Impact: l£j (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
LJ— H-J— H— LJN--I— LJ— H— LJ-LJ— IV
I—I— H_J— H— LJN--I— LJ— H— LJ-LJ— IV
I— I— H— J— H— L_ IN--I— I— 1— H— LJ-I— I— IV
— LJ
l I I ! II II I I— I- !
.J-JU-J-J— UUI— I— UUI— UI-J-J
-J^LJ— LJ^LJ— L. LJ-J-J— LJ-J— 1
-J~J^LJ
LJ-J
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I / l
I__J_J-_
J—I—I—J—i—I—I—I—1—I—I—1—1—I—LJ-J
1—J—l—I—I—LJ—J—1—LJ_
. I I-J— J— i-J-J
LJ-J^L- I-~1-J— LJ
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year
1 1
1 1
1 I
I !
I I 1
|
I
1
1
. 1
-J-J-J— LJ-J— LJ-J-J
— I— I— I— J— LL- I-J— I— I—
i— J_l— I— I-J
I-J-J-J-J-J— I-J-J— I—
I— 1— I— LI— 1— I
— I— !— I— 1— I— I— J— 1—
I— LJ— LI— I— L_ !_J_J_J— I
— I-J—I-J-J— l_l— i-J
I— I— I— J— I— I— LJ.,. I .1—1—1
— I— I— I— 1— I— I— I— I— J— I— I_J— I— I— 1— I
I— LJ— I— J— I— !— J— LJ— I— I
C-17
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year
|^J-Ll_iJJ-£l *q ° I I ^ I *.l£J
|_U LJ— 1— LJ— !— 1— LJ— LJ— I— I
" 1
LJ—
1— I— 1— LJ_i_!_l_J-J_L
J _ II _ LJ _ II _ I _ LJ _ I _ I _ I 1 I _ I _ I
I _ ! I _ L_LJ 1_LJ _ L
1-J—J—LJ—1—LJ—.I—LJ—1
I—I—I—L_ LJ-1—I—!— LJ—1—1—1—1-J-J
13. Actual current conditions:
J_J_ I—J_|_J_L_L_!_L_ Ul—LJ—LJ,
Ji
J—LJ—LJ ...I J—l
J_I_I_I-J-J.
\> \ i \t^\h/\ I \ P-\/ \£\A \tf\T\ \ L \ #\M\0 | | f| _s" | <5~| \C\/y\/?\/^\^\
-------
V_ UNITED STATES -
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY * a /^ <£
REGION v y Hv * • m
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST ** tr -i- 3"
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604 *";~ 1%^
November 23, 1976
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GKCJFS AND CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of envircr-rrentai
isnpact stateirents (EIS), and environmental review has been per formed en
the proposed EPA action identified below. A sumr.ary of the project ar.c
its major irpacts and a location map are attached.
of Applicant: Urbana-Champaign Sanitary District
Planning Area: Champaign-Urbana Facilities Planning Area
Preparation of construction plans & specifications for
Proposed Project(s): the upgrading of existing Northeast and Southwest Scv:a£e
Treatnent Plants to handle design average flow rates of 17.3 MGD and 5.9 MGD
respectively and regional transmission facilities necessary to phase out the
existing Village of Savoy and Villard Treatment Plants.
Estimated Project Ccst: $29)734j955.OQ
Potential Agency Financial Share: $22j301)216.00
The review process has shown that significant environmental i— acts which
wcjlc warrant preparation of an EIS will not result from the proposed
action. Any sigr.ificant adverse in^acts have been either eliminated by
making changes in the project or resolved through mitigative measur=s.
Consequently, a preliminary decision not to prepare an SIS has been mace.
This action is taken on the basis of a careful review of the facilities
plan, including the environmental assessment, and ether supporting c;t=,
which are on file in this office with the environmental impact aptraiac.I
and are available for puoiic scrutiny upon request. Copies of the environ-
mental impact appraisal will be sent upon request.
Comments supporting or disagrseing with this decision may be r-ubmittef fcr
consideration by EPA. After evaluating the comments received, the Agere1/
will make a final decision; however, no administrative action will be tr
on the facilities plan and/or project for at least fifteen (15) wording c
from the date of this notice.
Sincerely yours,
Kent Fuller, Acting Chief
Plannir.a 3 ran en
C-19
-------
i Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. )-^l H g?l/>l/*l/ \v\6-\T\ 0\A/\ 9 \ \/ w \0 \' \t\"\ft\ | l I I I I | | |
2. Needs(Facility) No. 1JJ^1£1£J£1£L£L£JZ! NPDES No. I I I I I I ! I II
Grant No. ! / I ^ *»-H ^l^l I I II
3. Date of Document: Year LLLll£l£l Month |
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year U±2l£&
i A/1 (7 1 |/|/M|/'|/9i£|7| i i | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
LJ LJ. |_j 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 I 1
! 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
! I f i t I I i i I i i i i i t i i i I i I I r t I i I t i I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -M I 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
| f | | | | 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .
i. Actual current
|_|_LJ_J |
conditions:
\J\C\T] | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ) | | | | | |
1 J j 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LJ J | LJ 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 ! 1 1 1 1 ! ! 1 1 1 1 ! 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
III)))
1 1 1 -f 1 1
1 f 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f f 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 f I'
1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I 1
| | | | | | 1 1 ! 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 !
DataBase:) 1
| ) | | | | | | | ) | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13; Summary: (Code
|V[
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
REPLY TO ATTENTION OF
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IrtPACT
TO ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:
1 2 FEB 1S32
3 loonin22
-------
mental Assessment, which is also included,
presents additional information on Che
project, alternatives that were con-
sidered, impacts of the proposed action,
and the basis for our decision. Further
information can be obtained by calling
or writing the contact listed in the
Environmental Assessment.
How do I submit Any comments supporting or disagreeing
comments? with this preliminary decision should
be submitted to me at the letterhead
address. We will not take any action
on this facilities plan for 30 calendar
days from the date of this notice in
order to receive and consider any comments.
What happens next? In the absence of substantive consents
during this period, our preliminary de-
cision will become final. The municipality
will then be eligible to receive grant assist-
ance from this Agency to design and/or con-
struct the proposed project.
Any information you feel should be considered by EPA should be brought
to our attention. Your interest in the NEPA process and the environ-
ment is appreciated.
Eugene I. Chaiken, Chief
Facilities Planning Branch
Attachments
C-23
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL
A. Project Identification
City of Bloomington
City of Bloomington Utilities
P.O. Box 1216
Bloomington, Indiana 47402
Telephone No.: 812/339-2261
3. Project Description and Location (See Maps One and Two)
The project consists of construction of a sludge storage lagoon,
18 sludge drying beds, a sludge landfill, and a maintenance garage. The
maintenance garage will be located on the existing Oillman Road Waste
Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) site, which is just west of State Road 37
and south of Clear Creek. The sludge drying beds will be located just
north of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad tracks, south of Clear
Creek. The sludge storage lagoon and landfill will be located on an
extension of the existing site, north of Clear Creek. A new access road
and bridge will be constructed across Clear Creek. Approximately 12 acres
of land will be used for the drying beds, 4 acres for sludge storage, and
7 acres for landfill.
Total cost of the proposed project is 55,808,050, which includes construc-
tion, contingencies, an allowance for inflation, land, sludge removal
equipment, dump trucks, a front-end loader and a bulldozer. A breakdown
of the total costs is as shown on Exhibit One attached.
It is estimated that the total project cost, with the exception of land
for the storage lagoon, drying beds, and maintenance garage is eligible
for a 75% Federal grant and a 10% State of Indiana grant. Remaining costs
will be funded locally.
Design of the projected project is expected to be completed by August 1,
1982, with construction to commence shortly thereafter. Construction
should be completed by October 1983.
The proposed project is critical to startup of the recently constructed
15 MGD advanced waste treatment plant, as ultimate sludge disposal
facilities were not constructed concurrently. The new WWT? includes
facilities for aerobic digestion and centrifuging of sludge but selection
of ultimate disposal method was deferred in the environmental impact
statement (EIS) filed for the WWTP construction, pending completion of a
sludge management plan. For details associated with the plant construc-
tion, please refer to the final EIS dated August 1976 and distributed
September 1, 1976, entitled "Sewage Treatment Facilities for the South
Bloomington and Lake Monroe Service Areas, Bloomington, Indiana."
C-24
-------
A range of sludge disposal alternatives was analyzed in the sludge man-
agement plan based on the approved construction of aerobic digestion, and
certifugation facilities which could be operated in either a thicJcening
(5% solids) or dewatering (14 - 16% solids) mode. The selected plan uses
a thickening mode with dewatering taking place in the storage lagoon and
on sludge drying beds. Part of the reasons for selection of landfilling
as the ultimate disposal method was the existence of PCB's in the sludge,
which made land application publicly unacceptable. Long-term lagooning
of the sludge at a site near the confluence of Clear and Salt Creeks
was both technically and environmentally unacceptable to the State and EPA.
Likewise, a maintenance building was not constructed concurrent with
the WWTP, as sizing of the facility was dependent upon selection of
ultimate disposal method for sludge. This building is necessary for
storage of equipment and spare parts and for maintenance upkeep of
vehicles.
C. Impact of the Project on the Environment
1. Primary Impacts
The major primary impacts of the proposed construction are those
impacts associated with excavations in and adjacent to Clear Creek.
Those impacts associated with revegetation, pipe crossings in
stream beds (2), pipes laid parallel to stream beds, and channel reloca-
tion have been identified and mitigative measures recommended in
Chapter 4, Task 11 of the Final EIS for the WWTP. As such, they
will not be rediscussed here.
The site itself if relatively isolated, and already devoted to insti-
tutional and right-of-way uses, what with State Route 37, the Illinois
Central Railway, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, and the
plant itself bounding the areas of construction. Visual impacts
from State Route 37 will be screened by trees.
The proposed construction will also require that flood protection benns,
with outside slopes riprapped, be constructed to an elevation of at
least 1 foot above the 100 year flood elevation, which has been identi-
fied to be at elevation 623.2 feet at the downstream face of the
Louisville and Nashville Railroad bridge by the Louisville District,
Corps of Engineers. It is doubtful that this construction will impact
100 year flood elevations upstream since flow is restricted by this
bridge. A permit for construction in a floodway will be required from
the Indiana Department of Natural Resources- Construction of the land-
fill portion will also require a construction and operating permit from
the Environmental Management Board of the Indiana State Board of Health.
A copy of Engineers Section 404 stream crossing permit may also be
required.
Impact on archeological resoures is not expected, as an archeological
survey of the plant site in 1976 uncovered no artifacts. If anything
is unearthed during construction, work will be stopped and the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources notified.
Both long and short tern employment is expected as a result of the
construction and operation of the facilities.
C-25
-------
2. Secondary Impacts
There may be some adverse secondary impacts on air quality in the
vicinity of the plant due to both increased truck and heavy equipment
operation, and possibly a slight musty odor from the stored sludge.
This impact is unavoidable.
The land from the drying beds and storage lagoon will be devoted to
institutional use for the life of the plant. The landfill may be
converted to other use after a number of years if PCS and toxic
levels in the sludge decrease to the point where farmers will accept it<
The sludge drying beds and storage lagoons will be asphalt lined to
prevent leachate from entering Clear Creek. The landfill not only
will be lined, but also will be provided with tiles and a sump to
pump any leachate back to the plant for treatment. Consequently,
adverse impacts are not expected.
D. Public Participation and Hearings
The disposal of sludge in the Bloomington, Indiana area is an extremely
controversial subject due to the existence of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's) in the sludge. Other metals and toxics such as zinc, copper and
cadmium are also present to appreciable concentrations, which may restrict
ultimate use of the sludge.
The initially selected sludge management plan was disposal of stabilized
thickened sludge on Monroe County Airport grounds by land application.
After a public hearing, this plan was rejected due to strong public
opposition.
It was then required that a full-scale program be initiated which would
focus on disposal of old PCS-contaminated stockpiled sludge and the
sludge management options for the new WWTP. A citizens*s advisory com-
mittee was formed and held 3 meetings in August 1980 as revised sludge
management alternatives were being analyzed. An additional public hearing
for informational purposes was also held in August 1980. Twelve final
options were screened and presented to the citizens advisory committee
resulting in selection of long-term (20 year) lagooning at a Salt Creek —
Clear Creek confluence site. An additional public hearing was held in
January 1981 and the revised plan was submitted to the State and EPA. This
plan was rejected on technical and environmental grounds by the regulatory
agencies.
The final alternatives considered were lagoon disposal at the Dillman Road
WWTP site, interim lagoon disposal with land application after several
years, additional mechanical dewatering prior to landfilling, and drying
beds prior to landfilling. A final public hearing was held in September
1981, with drying beds and landfilling selected. This decision was based
upon implententability and a critical need to proceed as the overriding
factors.
It is estimated that the local share of the cost will increase monthly
sewer bills by 68 cents per average user. This would amount to less than
one tenth of one percent of the average family's median income on an
annual basis.
C-26
-------
E. Agencies/Environmental Groups Consulted in Development of the Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Indiana State Board of Health
City of Bloomington Utilities Department
Bloonington Crossroads Community Association
National Speleological Society, Bloomington Grotto
Monroe County Airport Commission
Former Senator Birch Bayh
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Monroe County Health Department
Environmental Quality and Conservation Commission, City of Bloomington
Westinghouse Corporation
League of Women Voters
Indiana Geological Society
Monroe County Plan Commission
Lake Monroe Regional Waste District
Monroe County Board of Commissioners
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Louisville District
F. Reasons for Concluding the Plan will Result in no Significant Adverse
--. Impacts
The proposed project will fill a critical need for ultimate sludge dis-
posal from Bloomington's new IS MGD WWTP.
Use of land adjacent to the existing site will not appreciably alter land
use patterns of the area.
While construction will affect Clear Creek's banks and streacbed,
mitigative measures as proposed in the Final EIS for the WWTP project will
be followed.
Health of the community as a whole will be protected with a safe long-term
sludge disposal method. PCS contamination of the sludge should subside
over the years as a result of ongoing cleanup efforts.
Cost of the project per user on a monthly basis is affordable.
C-27
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. |/^|j^jvj T| ' \*/\£M\ff\^^ I \i\^ff\> \?\^\A\ _.|_.|..— 1-4— I—I— -j— I— I— J
2. Needs(Facility) No. lilfigjliiLfl.*! *l '..I NPDES No. UUU1 I I I I M
Grant No. \l\$\6\3\ ?l /I _l I I I
3. Date of Document: Year LLLUZU3 Monti l£l£i Day 1-£J-£I
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI
^location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: U.KK I' \A\"\#\ I LJ
ULJ— LJ-J-J— U--LJ ....... I-J—LJ— LJ-J-J ..... I— UUULJ I I I I. ..... I I— LJ I ...I LJ
ULJ-LJ— 1-ULJN-l I LJ-I— LJ-L-LJV LJ— I-LJ-J-LJ— IN-L- LJ_I-L_LJ-ULJW
I— LJ-L-LJ-LJ-JN-I I. LJ-ULJ-LJ— iV LJ-J-LJ— !-!_J_JN~LJ_LJ-L_ LJ-ULJW
ULJ-LJ— I-U!_1N-!_LJ_ j-LJ-J-LJ-JW l-J-J-l_J-J-!-J-JN-l_LJ_J-!_J-J-ULJW
6.1ssue: \S\°\c\t \*\S\C\ c \°\"\ Parameter: I L \* \ "\* ' | \£/}-f\£l\_\^^]A/\ \ II- I I
7. Type of Impact: |J=J (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
\e\x\' *\"'f**> e<* ^^ix^y'i/i^ tf1 ^"vT t\t-\ 1^1 %
\A\L\ \/s\^\c\/ 1 L\/ 17! ; i^i^i _ i _ i _ LI i i i_j _ i _ i _ M i i i _ i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: |./j. 24-4l.lt \c.\Q\/n\^\^\s.\^\^-\^J\'^\l \
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year I Jj.llJLj.^1
I _ I I I I I I I ) LJ _ I I I I _ I _ I I I I | I |
I I I | I i I | I I
UUI—LJ-J-J—UU.UUUUUUUI... I J ..UUUUUUUUUI- f I -I -UU f. -i.
I | I I | I | | | | | | | | | | I I I ( | ! | I f I I I I I I I t I I I
I I I I I I I I | I I uuuj | | I I | I I I I I I I I I > I I I I I I
13. Actual current conditions:
|/7|C/| |C. ]rt~\ rv\ >v|.- j-.(—1_i-j. I-I-I I
20. Location of Narrative Report: I I I I ' ' I I I ' ' I I t J- i I I I I I I I I
C-29
-------
. . UNITED STATES
\ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
§ R«GION v
-^ ' 23° SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
> £ CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 50604
'<• PRO''*'
MAY 61977
ID ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environmental impact
statements (EIS), an environmental review has been performed en the proposed
EPA action identified below. A summary of the project and its major impacts
and a location nap are attached.
Name of Applicant: (City/County/State) City of Huntington, Hunting-ton County,
City Building, Kuntir.gton , IH 46750
Planning Area: The planning area encompasses about 70 square miles. The City
of Huntington is located at the center of the planning area, and is approximately
25 miles southwest of Fort Wayne.
Proposed Project (s): To expand and upgrade the existing wastewater treatment
plant by addition of activated sludge and advanced waste treatrent. Corbined
sewer overflows are to be el.iirdr.ated. by the construction of an interceptor
and detention ponds.
Estimated Project Cost: .$19,248,400
Potential Agency Financial Share: $14,052,000
The review process has shown that significant envir oriental impacts which would
warrant preparation of an EIS will not result from the proposed action. Any
significant adverse impacts have either been eliminated by making chances in
the project or resolved through mitigctive measures. Consequently, a preli-
minary decision not to prepare an EIS has been made. This action is taken on
the basis of a careful review of the facilities plan, including the environ-
mental assessment, and other supporting data, which are on file in this office
with the environmental impact appraisal and are available for public scrutiny
upon request. Copies of the environmental impact appraisal will be sent upon
request.
Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted for
consideration by EPA. After evaluating the comments received, the Agency
will make a final decision; however, no administrative action will be taken
on the facilities plan and/or project for at least fifteen (15) working days
from the date of this notice.
Sincerely yours,
Kent Fller
Chief, Planning Branch
C-30
-------
reject Location/Environrjnental Setting: (See attached mao)
planning area enojuaasses about 70 square miles. The City of Huntirrjton
located at the center of the planning area, is approxirately 25 miles scuth-
:jst of Fort Wayne and comprises the only significant population area. The
ccpography is gently rolling glacierally-created upland cut by a wide flat river
valley and many small ditches and streams. A large percentage of the land in
the planning area can be classified as agricultural and woodlands.
2. Purpose of Project: To expand and upgrade the existing wastewater treatment
plant by addition of activated sludge and advanced waste treatment. Cc-bined
sever overflows are to be eliminated by the construction of an interceptor
and detention basins.
A. Present Flow; 3.S *?1D _ B. Present Capacity '•
C. Proposed Design Capacicy; 5 i-y
_
D. Present Population: 22,900 (1975) _ E. Design Population; 27,300 (1000)
F. Length of sewers to oe conscructea, if any; 70,930 lineal ft. collection
G. Number of stream crossings, if any; 3 7,900 lineal ft. intercer:ror
3. Nature and Extent of Land Use Changes
A. Primary
1) Site: Existing wastewater treatment plant site to be utilized for
plant expansion. Additional lands will be required for construction
of detention basins.
2) Sewer Routes: Will be located along existing right-of-ways such
' as streets, roads and alleyways.
B. Secondary: Puring the 20 year planning period cannencing with the
operation of'the new wastewatertreatment plant and sewers, the City
of Huntington is expected, to occupy an increasing percentage of land
within Jfre planning area"! Radical shifts in land use patterns are not
anticipated within the planning area over the considered planning period,
and the City's present land use pattern is well established and basically
sound. Land use chance in the future will include expansion of existing
residential and industrial districts, consolidation of uumercial estab-
lishments and the expansion of parks and..recreational facilities.
4. Major Primary and Secondary Impacts of the Project
A. Primary/Construction-Pelated:
No major impacts are expected to result from the project, and those that
may occur should be limited to the time and area of construction. There
are no known archeolocical, historical or endangered plant or aniiral species
in the planning area.
B. Secondary:
No major secondary impacts are expected to result from the project.
C. Rate of Projected Population Growth: 0.8 (%/yr.)
(PL-2/1-77)
x» i i *Jt I IVJIX I ll<4O I VJIN,
C-31
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. IhLLSjJAfl 14 |Xi JJSJZIU gl^./J4a£i£gJ^AU-J-J--l
2. Needs(Facility) No. \MJftJLLL&£l£&\.l\ NPDES No. LJ-J-J-J.J I I I.I
Grant No. ! _2j_2j.£].^L£j_£! _ LJ _ I _ I
3. Date of Document: Year L£L£LJ_1 Month LJ-J Day L-LJ
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. ED LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FN5I
^location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: L^4&£L£ldl>M4LJ_LJ
| _ [ | | _ |_J_J _ | _ i ii | _ | _ | _ | _ ( _ ; | | | | _ | _ | _ | _ [[I | „_..{„. | _ | _ | _ | | | )
I-J— I-L- LJ-LJ-JN-1_I-J,-H-J— I-LJ— IV LJ— I-UL- H I IN-I—LJ-J-LJ-J-UI— IV
ULJ-LJ-J-ULJNH...I J-J-LJ-J-LJ— IV LJ-J-LJ-J4. J...IM-UL. 1. J-UUH- 1 ..... i¥
ULJ-LJ— H-J-JN-L- 1. -LJ-LJ— H-J-J V LJ-J-U LJ-L-LJM-ULJ-J-L- LJ-LJ-JW
6.1ssue: \*\o\<=>\f \o\£-\t-\Q\f*\ \ parameter: \J=*+.\v\ a I l.g| -?_|.jgj.--i /?-|*M*L^-l— I— I— >— 1
7. Type of Impact: U3* (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
///
\W(I \L-\L\ _ \Q\(C\£'\U\fc\ | _ | _ | _ ( _ i _ i i i | | | [ | _ | | | | _ | _ | ( | _ I | | I I
I _ I I I I I _ I I I II I _ I _ I _ I _ i _ I I I t i i _ i _ i i i | i _ i i i i i i | i j
t«BHM«MM4WM^^H»4M«B4«»^MMW*M«M^«nMBMMBB4«aM4B«"l^«H^«MHM«IBM^«^BM«M^^
| | I I _ j _ | _ [ t | | | | | | | [ _ i i i ; [ [ ( [ _ | ; | i _ | _ | | | _ i i i i i
l_l_ LI _.J,_l I .1 I I I I I I I I I | | | | | | || | | | | I I \ \ I
I— LJ. ...... UI-IU-J-J-.UL-LJ-J-J-J-J LI LJ_L-LJ-J-J . I L-LJ—L-LJ I I I-J
i I i i _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | i i | | | _ | | | | | | | | ; | | | | | | | | | i | i ) )
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: |_J_J_LJ— l_j_U U I I I . I, ....... I I I I.I _..! I ' LJ I I
10. Baseline Conditions: Year \J\Q\.bM
til
-J-J-J— I—LJ-J-J-J, f I ..... I „. t »
I || | |__|_J | | ) ; J |_j I | | || | | LJ | [ [ |L | LJ | | I | f ; |
I—LJ-J-J-J-J-J-J.J—LJ-J-J-J-J-J-J..I ,1-J-J—LJ-J—LJ—LJ-J-J-J-J. l.-l I—J
J-J-J_LJ-J_LJ
I ' ' ' ' 'I I t ' ' LJ^LU^LLJ LJ-J—J-J.U^J_L_I | | II | | | J ! I
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year I—1—I—LJ
J—LJ—LJ-J—LJ-J—I-J_J_J-J_J-J-J_LJ_J-J
ULJ—LJ-J-J—LJ-J- I ..I-J-J-J—LJ—I—I-I-J-J-J-J-J^L-l-J^J^I-1-J^J—L-LJ-J
LJ-J_LJ-J-J-J_LJ.- I.LJ—LJ—LJ—I I .IU^J-J-J—1—I—I—1-LJ-J-J-J.J., I I-J
I—L
C-32
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year
UUULJ i I LJ I I UI—LJ-J-J I I .l^LJLJUULJULMJULJUUUUUL{
I I i I f i I I I | i i I | | ( [ I ! I I I ! I | | } | i | | | | || |
LJ-JUU-JUUUUU_I-J-J-J--UI I LJ-J—ULJ-J.- L. UUUULJ-J-J-J—I-
I | | | [ | (I) j | | | [ i | [ | [ | [ | i i I [ [ | t I-I | | || |
I—I—1_I-.I- LI | | | } III | f | | (I) .i_J_J.J f { I I-I-I--f—I I 'I'
13. Actual current conditions:
|JQ-^J_t-/4^f.^|^f C\T\._j ._| |_j LJ_J_J_J_J_J | | | |._1_|_ III -j I |._-| _!.._!
| I I I I | | | | | | | | | | | | | | [ | | | [ | j LJ-J_J_J | |;|(
ULJ-J—UULJ-J I I UULJ .1 .1 -I J.-LJ-J—LJ-J I , I-UUI—LJ-J—LJ-J-<
I | | | | | | [||)|)| | | f | | I I I | | | | | |.-|—i—| | | | | |
I)) | )[ | J | ) || | | | [ i i ; [ I I I | | I I I -.1—i I I UJ_J_J_
t ..
14. Data Base: \-L\
CaM P/l j£./t£.jU 5 / if£.
<4-*
13. Summary: ( Code lfl.g.1 )
J_L_l_J_J_l_L-J_|_t | J_J
I I I-J— I^J-J^J_LJ— I— J— l-J-J— I.-UI ..I .UULJ-J
l-J-J—
I I \ \ \ \ _ I _ |
| | | |
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: UJ I
Today: UU- 1 I I LJ— 1
B.Baseline: UI-UI^J^^J
Today: I_J_J-J-J_J_J-J-J— J— J
CBaseline: LJ_1_J
.L. LJ_U1_1-J_I . . L..LJ— I <
I-JU-J-J-J-. L I ..... LJ
UI^JU—JU-J.. J. I I.- LJULJ
-J_U-L_l_j
I_J_J 4
Today: I— I-J-I - I^^^-J^^-J-J-J— J-J-J-J-J— L-J-J— J-J-J-J— 1 . I ....... I I— I
17. Reviever: |jf£l^J>fj 18. Date of Review: Year UJ±lZl±J Month !.£JJZ] Day I I I
19. Title of Narrative Report: j-.J_l._l_J— l_J_J— 1 I J_ I— 1_J_J— J— J— 1— 1_J_J_I_J_I I LI
20. Location of Narrative Report: I I ! _ I — I — J _ I —
C-33
-------
•
New Castle, Indiana
Environmental Assessment
for the
Bundy Avenue Interceptor
A. Project Identification:
Project Name and Number: City of New Castle, C180490 01
Adress: City Building, New Castle, Indiana 47362
State Agency Representative:
Oral H. Hert, Technical Secretary
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
•
Authorized Representative's Name and Title:
M. E. Scott
City Engineer
For further information on this project contact:
"' •"- ' Jonathan J. Schweizer, USEPA
230 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604
•
B. Background of this project:
On February 3, 1975 the City of New Castle was awarded a Step 1 wastewater
treatment works grant (C180490 01) to prepare a facilities plan. A facilities
plan segment, which was approved on August 31, 1976, recommended upgrading of
the wastewater treatment plant to include ammonia-nitrogen and phosphorous
removal, and replacement of an undersized interceptor along the Big Blue River.
Also recoismended was the performance of a PRM 75-34 study to address the impact
and needed control of combined sewer overflows. Subsequent Step 2 and Step 3
grants funded only the treatment plant improvements, since sizing of the new
intercepting sewer had to await the results of tha combined sewer overflow
(CSO) study.
A Step 1 grant amendment to cover the cost of the CSO study was awarded to
New Castle on January 3, 1977. The final CSO report recommended construction
of the following facilities:
1. A new interceptor, to be located in the flood plain of the Upper Big Blue
River, extending from Bowery Brook to the wastewater treatment plant, and
ranging in diameter from 24" to 60".
5. An interceptor from the Bundy Avenue overflow to the Bowery Brook inter-
ceptor .
3. A 10 million gallon lagoon immediately north of the treatment plant, on
the plant site.
4. A storm water pump station, also on the plant site.
The Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) issued on August 6, 1976 (at
that time known as a Negative Declaration) addressed the proposed interceptor
in the flood plain of the Upper Big Blue River, as well as the wastewater
treatment plant site. Of the facilities proposed in the CSO report, only
the Bundy Avenue interceptor needs to be addressed by this new FNSI. Since
all the facilities were interrelated in choosing f.hp final alternative,
h'j'.'i'vyv, the <::;• ird p<.o]..o- wiil be i*«.j--<.-ribiv.i.
-------
Project Location and Description:
The project is located in New Castle, Indiana and is northeast of the center
of Henry County in east central Indiana. This project segment involves the
design and construction of 4860 lineal feet of 24" diameter interceptor sewer
frcm the Bundy Avenue overflow to the Bowery Brook interceptor which has already
been approved. The purpose of the project is to convey the first flush flow
from the Bundy Avenue overflow to the Bowery Brook interceptor and eliminate
a portion of the open ditch conveyance of combined sewer discharge through
business and residential areas. Project costs are as follows:
Total Project Costs: ' $6,576,875
*Potential EPA Costs: $4,932,656.
*Potential State Grant: $ 657,687
The implementation schedule for the project is as follows:
Submit Step 2 application 30 days after CSO report approval
Step 2 completion 6 months after Step.2. award
Submit Step 3 application 30 days after Plans & Specifications approval
Commence construction 6 months after Step 3 award
Complete construction 30 months after Step 3 award
The project is necessitated by the presence of combined sewer overflows into
the Big Blue River, which result in severe depletion of dissolved oxygen,
which is detrimental to aquatic life, as well as high bacterial counts which
present a hazard to swimmers and other recreational users of the river.
D. Impacts of the Project on the Environment:
1. Primary impacts:
The new Bundy Avenue interceptor will carry first flush flow to the Bowery
Brook interceptor, thereby capturing 70 - 80% of the pollutant load at a
fraction of the cost of providing either total treatment or complete sewsr
separation. The 10 million gallon lagoon will provide storage for the
2-year 4-hour storm with aeration until it can be bled back to the treat-
ment plant. Therefore, the water quality in the Big Blue River will be
greatly improved, though not improved as much as it would be with total
~~ CSO treatment or sewer separation.
Construction related impacts include erosion, destruction of vegetation,
dust, noise, traffic and inconvenience to local residents. Thssa impacts
b will not be nearly as great as they would tw if total CSC treatment were
__to_be provided for. The project will also involve an irreversible com-
mitment of landTand "c~6~nstructi6n~~materials. The rcute of the Gundy inter-
ceptor parallels that of two existing sewer lines. Therefore, there will
be no effect on any archaeological or historic sites because any sites
would have already been disturbed by previous excavation. A review of
the proposed project by the State Historic Preservation Office - Ir^iana
Department of Natural Resources has confirmed the absence of any archae-
ological sites in the service area.
* Subject to eligibility determination(s) at time of award(s1. Costs which
wr"-ld Lo d:-ala~ved ir.cluda, bu. ^:~- riot liru ".sA to, 1 :c_:l ccs'jr, L-->:iJ coi- :-
rtil, in dv. r "-.:t. c-lfir;:- cu0.i= truer i *"./ ~rvJ CUL c_!".^~o r.jf oci.joi
C-35
-------
2. Secondary Impacts:
Since the number and severity of combined sewer overflow incidents would
only be reduced and not eliminated, areas in close proximity to the over-
flows would still be considered undesirable for development.Therefore,
it is unlikely that the project will bring about any long terra'changes" in
land use patterns. No treatment plant expansion will be required. Sir, ca
increased development is not expected to occur, there should not be any
Increase in automobile traffic/ therefore/ the project should have no
adverse effect on air quality.
A public hearing was held on November 29, 1979 at 6:00 PM EST at the City
Hall Annex, 321 S. Main Street, New Castle, Indiana for discussion of•the
combined sewer overflow control facilities recor~endsd in tl-e CSO report.
Five individuals attended and the results of the study, including costs,
were presented' by i:r. SaT.uc-1 L. Moore of Butler, Fairman & Seufert, Inc.
consulting engineers. Thera weri no questions or comments.
Proposed costs to users are based on the following (assuming S5% EPA and
State funding for the combined sewer overflow control project.)
Average Annual Equivalent Cost S 56,624
Operation S. Maintenance $113,691
$175,315
$175,315 = 25.04/r«si--i=iici/ye&r - 12 months/year
7,OOU residences = 32.09/usftx/mortL
The econo-.lc impact of thu project, to the average ITev Castla resident is
based on infcrrratio/j supj] ied by the U. S. Census Eureau, Department of
Ccir.uercc and is shov;n on tl.2 following t&Lle.
19SG Average per Capita Incon-.c New Castle = $6,344 *
1980 Estimated Population 22,117
Total Estimated Income S14C,310,000
No. of Homes in New Castle 7,000
Median Home Incouie 220,044
Estimated Monthly User Rate $12.59
i S12.59 x 12 = 0.75% of median horns incoma to bo spent Hoi: the project
$20,044 '
According to guidance in Program r ':munts Memorandum (PRT-'i) 79-8 "Small
Wastewater Systems," the project el not constitute an economic hardship.
* 1975 per capita income updated to 1900 using a 7«, annual inflation rate,
C-36
-------
Agencies and environmental groups consulted during facilities planning include
the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board, Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, U. S* Environmental Protection Agency, and the City of New Castle.
It is not expected that the project will have any significant adverse impacts
because the construction of the Eundy interceptor wilJ be along existing rig:,ts-
of-way, and the pump station and lagoon will be built en the existing treatrent
plant site. As discussed under secondary impacts, no significant secondary
impacts arc expected. Any construction related impacts will be minimized during
construction and mitigated upon completion. In addition, the selected alternative
would eliminate 70 -80% of the pollutant loading to the Big Blue River.
The following alternatives were considered in the combined sewer overflow study:
1. Storage and bleed-back of all flows
2. Storage at 3 lagoons and bleed-back of subsystem discharges
3. Some storage, sore screening of subsystem discharges
4.' Some storage, some undsrflcv: clarification of discharges
5. Construction of ne,'/ sanitary severs
6. Construction of new storm sewers
7. Treatment of first flush
8. Bowery Brook and Bundy Avenue interceptors only
/
Final costs calculated for each alternative were as follows:
Alter-
native
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Capital
Cost
$33,929,542
$10,512,675
$20,437,691
$16,315,441
$22,972,643
$33,385,744
S 6,576,875
S 4,656,973
Incremental
0 6
207
203
164
154
32
41
118
4
M
,179
,610
,270
,24G
,4SC
,312
,691
,64S
Salvage
Value
Ib, 401,1^3
7,103,543
4,262,962
4,262,952
13,738,530
20,031,466
2,290,590
2,794,185
Total Pre-
sent
IB,
11,
16,
12,
9,
13,
4,
1,
Worth
528,379
404,132
224, f 29
053,479
109,057
354,298
286,285
362,700
Federal
&
Lo
Ca-l
State Grr.rrc. SVia-e
28,840
15,735
17,414
13,868
19,52o
28,377
5,590
3,953
,111
,774
,527
,975
,747
,S52
,3-14
,423
5,
2,
3,
2,
3,
5,
u,*,
776,
072,
'*-*•/
*---^ w /
CC7,
956,
G>L-3,
t.-_
""» * '
IE 4
4' :•
5: :
*i-
5.11
3 -« C
Alternative *7 was chosan not only for its lot' cost but also becaiiae the pri-.rary
and secondary impacts arc not as severe as they would be for several of the alter
natives. Alternative £1 would provide excellent removal of pathogens, flotablr-?,
CBOD, NEOD, etc., however, sora? development might be induced. Further, the pri-
lmary construction impacts would be severe dua to the huge structures which would
need to be built, e.g. 108" sewers and a 460 MOD lift station. Alternative £2
would have similar, though less severe impacts. In addition the use of; three
storage sites would require a large permanent land commitment. Alternatives
3 and 4, like 7, represent compromises whereby cost savings would be realized an.1
construction impacts would be less but only partial pollution abatement would be
attained. Secondary impacts would not be significant for alternatives 3 or 4.
Alternative #5 would all but eliminate the combined sewage problem and is less
costly then alternatives 1-4. However, it would allot; for increased resi-
dential development in areas where ponds and treatment facilities would other-
wise be needed. Also, construction impacts of building an entire new sanitary
C-37
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year iZl-flLttd
Uj4!i£i£j^iA.aJI D\ i ft UBUA&A&L&& Jg^Zui-j— uuuuuuuuuuuui
I-J— Ul— UUUI-UUULJ-J— I— Ul— UUI— U I— UUUUUUUUUI— J J J ..... Ul
UUUUUI— Ul— I ..... I ....... .1 UUI I.. I II I— UI—UULJ-L-I. .UUUUUI I I I I
I— UUUUUU 1-J— UUUU U ULJ i I, I— I— UU J—UUI—U Ul— Ul— UUI— Ul
I— U I— UUUUUUUI— U 1— UUUI-I . UI-J— Ul— 1— UU.I-J.-J— I— I— I— I— I—I- J-J
I_LJ-J_J-J-J_IU— LJ-J_J-J-J-J— 1— I_J— I«J_1_J-J_J— I— !— UUI— UI-J—LJ— I— I
13. Actual current conditions:
i^^— llj^^l^dIIL-1-UI— UI—I-J—J .1 . J— I— I— Ul— UUUUUI— Ui— I— UI-J-J
Ul— Ui— UUUUU UI-J— I— UU I-J I I UUUUUUt I UUUI— I— I— U UI-J
I— J— Ul— Ul— U Ul ..... I...UUI— I-J-J— UUUUUIU— UUI...I ..... UUUUUUUI-UI
I— UUUi— UUUUUUUUU 1 .. I I I I UL-UUU I— I .1 ...U I-J— I— I-J^I—UI-J
I-J^UUI— UUUI .. I -UUU I-J— l—Ul—l— i— UUUI—U UUUI-J— I-J-J— I ..... -I -..I-J
I-J-J-_I-J— UI-J-J— UI-J-J-J— J-J_J— UUI— I— I— J-J-J-_UI-J_J_J_1-J-J~I— UI«J
I— J-J__ I— UUUJ-J— UUU I— I-J— I—I— UUI-J— I-J— UU UI-J-J-J— I-J-J— ULJ-J
14. Data Base: |/4
13. Summary: ( Code L£L2J )
—UI-J—I—I—I——I
I—I—I—I—I—I—I—^—I
I—I—LJ—I... I I ,.l—I—I-J—I—I
J—I—I—Ul—I-J—LJ—I—I—U I-J—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I-J—Ul—I—I-J—I—I—I I I I—I
I—I—I—I- U I—I—I—I—Ul—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—Ul—J—Ul—I—I—I—UUI ..I-1.. I..J -I....1—1—J
I—I—I—UU I—I—LJ—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—UUI—I—I—Ul—I-J—UUI—Ul—I—I—UUI,. -I—I
J—I—I—I—I—UUI—I—I—I—I—I—I—Ul—I
_J—U I—I—I—I—J—l__l
I—1—J—I—I—I—UUU LJ—I—I-J—Ul—1 I. I .1—I—1—I—I—I I I-J-J—I—I—I-J—I—LJ.
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: Ul—I I.. 1—I—J—I—I—I—I
Today: LJ—J—Ul—I—I—LJ
B.Baseiine: I—ULJ—I—I—J,
Today: I—I—I—I—I—I.
C. Base lice:
Today: I-J-J—I—I,
17. Reviever: Lf£fcLk£j 18. Date of Reviev: Year LUij.Ll-Sd Month l^jJZj Day I—LJ
19. Title of Narrative Report: I—I—LJ—J—Ul—J—I-J—J—J—J—J—J—J—J J, 1—I—J—J—J—Ui
20. Location of Narrative Report: I—LJ I I—I I
C-39
—I-J-J—I I—I—I—I—I
-------
Evaluation Form
|*J£l£J-O£J5 I
1. Project Name.
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. L^Jj2J-lULiJ£J£l/J NPDES No. I I ...J._|.J_ I II I I
Grant No. UIAjJj^lUj£l_J_J_l_J
3. Date of Document: Year LZj_ll_UJZ! Montli !_£l.£l Day l£j_C| <
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan l_l e. Negative Dec. I—I f. FNSI \A
3-Location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction:
J_I_UI_J_LJ_J_J
LJ_J-LJ_H-J_JN-LJ_J-J-I_I_J-LJ-JW LJ_J-UL_l-l—L. IN--I— 1-J—l-l—LJ-ULJW <
UI—l-l—I—l-ULJN-t—l-l—H—LJ-I—LJW LJ-J-ULJ-I—LJN-ULJ—H -.1,.- I-LJ-JW
I—LJ-LJ-J-I—I-JN-LJ-J-J-I—LJ-I—J-JW I—l-J-i-J-J-l—LJN-l-J-J-J-i ,..t .. H-J—IW
6.Issue: \S-\G\Cl_/\O\£*Cp \^\ j Parameter: l^:l^ll^d^L_!^!ljj^_l I I—LJ I_J l_l I
7. Type of Impact: !_£J (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative ) I
S. Prediction:
LJ— LJ-J-J-JU-J I. I ,l—L-LJ-a^.-l— LJ
-J— LJ-J.J
.-L I-J— LJ
-J— Ul— I— I— I— J— I^ULI— I—
LJ—t—I—LJ—LJ-J I ULJ
J-J_J_I-J_J-J—i_J_J-J—I-J-J
J—LJ-J—L- J-J-J—I_!_J
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: LJ_J_LJ_J_J_I_J_J.J_J_J_
10. Baseline Conditions: Year |/ I 7l7i 3[
UiLj-J—I—LJ—LJ—LJ—I—I—LJ—L
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year I—L
J-J-J-J—LJ-J-J—LJ.
J_LJ_LJ—UI.
J_LJ_I—L
J_LJ-J-J—LJ—LJ
_I—I—J_J__I_J__I_I__I-_I_J_J_J_-LJ_J
J—1
J_!_LJ-J_1—
—I—LJ—I—LJ—I.
I—I—LJ—I.
I-J_J_1_1_J_J_J-J.
J—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—L
J^I-J-J—I-J—LJ-J. I,. J—LI
J—LJ-LJ—I—I—J—I—LJ-J
J_1-J-J_J—!_LJ-J_J_!_J_1—1_J_1_J
C-38
-------
i(Y7-T
l97l
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS £0604
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GEQUPS AND CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of -environmental impact
statements (EIS), an environmental review has been performed on the proposed
EPA action identified below. A summary of the project and its major impacts
and a location map are attached.
Name of Applicant: (City/County/State) City of Grand Rapids, Kent County,
Michigan
Planning Area: The Eastsont area of Grand Rapids Township and the Eastmont
and Driftwood areas of Ada Township, Kent County, Michigan C262654
Proposed Project(s): Construction of sanitary collection sewers to serve
the communities of Eastnont and Driftwood. Collection sewers will be
connected to existing trunk sewers in the area.
s
( . .
Estimated Project Cost: $1,100,000
'. Potential Agency Financial Share: $825,000
• The review process has shown that significant environmental impacts which would
\ warrant preparation of an EIS will not result from the proposed action. Any
\ significant adverse impacts have either been eliminated by making chances in
; the project or resolved through mitigative measures. Consequently, a preli-
minary decision not to prepare an EIS has been mace. This action is taken on
" the basis of a careful review of the facilities plan, including the envircn-
j mental assessment, and other supporting data, which are on file in this office
[ with the environmental impact appraisal and are available for public scrutiny
; upon request. Copies of the environmental impact appraisal will be sent upon
j request.
k|
h
,! Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted for
1 consideration by EFA. After evaluating the comments received, the Agency
; will make a final decision; however, no administrative action will be taken
; on the facilities plan and/or project for at least fifteen (15) working days
-, from the date of this notice.
j Sincerely yours,
Kent Ful/er
Chief, Planning Branch
(PL-5/1-77) c-40
-------
PROJECT SUMMARY
1. Project Location/Environn.'nental Setting: (See attached map)
The project is located in the Eastmont area of Grand Rapids Township
and the Eastmont and Driftwood areas of Ada Township in Kent County,
Michigan. . The area is a semi-rural developing suburban area of
Grand Rapids, Michigan.
2. Purpose of Project: The project will eliminate pollution resulting fr a
malfunctioning septic systems.
A. Present Flow: Not applicable B. Present Capacity;Not applicable
C. Proposed Design Capacity: Not applicable
D. Present Population: 1420 ^_ £. Design Population; 1850
F. Length of sewers to oe constructed, if any; 40,000 L.F.
G. Number of stream crossings, if any; None
3. Nature and Extent of Land Use Changes
A. Primary
1) Site: Not applicable - project will discharge into existing
Grand Rapids system,
2} Sewer PvOutes: None - sewers will be constructed along existing
streets and will be connected to existing trunk, sewers.
B. Secondary: The availability of sewers would be expected to encourage
an increase~n residential development in the area.
Major Prirary and Secondary Impacts of the Project
A. Primary/Construction-Related:
The project will eliminate existing malfunction of septic systems in the
area. The project will be disruptive during the period of sewer construction
since streets and rights-of-way will have to be excavated. Dust, noise
and run-off from excavated materials may be a problem during construction
of the sewer system.
B. Secondary: The installation of sewers will control where future resi-
dential development will take place. It will also be possible to develop
denser residential areas since field tile systems will no longer_be required.
C. Rate of Projected Population Growth; 1.5 (%/yr.)
(PL-2/1-77) c_41 .
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name.
2. NeedsCFaciiity) No.
Grant No.
NPDES No. LJ—I— I-J , I I ..I— LJ
— I— I_J
3. Date of Document: Year l_/J±JJZLZl Monta
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI Ld"
31ocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction:
I— I— I— LJ—I— I— I— I ........ I,
I— 1— l-l— LJ-I— I— 1N-1— LJ— 1-1— I— M—LJW
I— I— H— I— 1-LJ— 1N-I , „ 1 I J-|— 1— I-LJ-JV
I— LJ-LJ— l-l— LJN-
6.1$5ue:
—
l-l— LJ-LJ— IV
Parameter:
I— 1— 1-1— LJ-I— I— BM
I— I— I-LJ— 1-LJ— IN-I
LJ— M— 1— H— 1— IN--I
LJ— I— I I I LJ
M— 1— I-LJ—1W
LJ—IW
I—LJW
LJ— H— LJ-
7. Type of Impact:
8. Prediction:
Quantitatiye) (2- Qualitative )
T \
U| | | , | r
J_LJ—LJ—I—J_J_
J—I—1—I—1—1—J-..J.-I—I—LJ—1—I—LJ I I—1—1—1—LJ-
I—J—I—I—i—I-J—I—I_LJ_J_L_J—LJ—I—j—J_J—I-J—J—LJ-
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: I—1—1—1—I—I—1—1—LJ—1—L
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I/ \9\7\0\
l ..... LJ— LJ— LJ— L
1 ...... 1— I— I— I— LJ— I,
— — — --
I I I
t .1 i
I I I
i i i
I ....... ULJ
I I I—I— I— I— I—
\ | I LJ—1—1 I I |...| I
!—LJ-LJ—1—L 1 1-LJ
LJ—LJ—LJ—I—1—1—1—LJ
J—LJ-J—L_I_J_I
J—l—1—1—LJ-J- I LJ—1
I_]-
I-J I I I— I— I-J-J— I— LJ
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year I _ I _ I _ I _ 1
— I—LJ-J— I— LJ
— I— LJ-J—
—LJ— LJ—I— LJ-J .
LJ— I-J-J-J—I— LJ— L
— LJ— LJ— I— I— I...I-I-1— I
| I I . _|_|_ |. I I _|._| I I
LJ— I— I— I— I— 1— J- I I— I— 1
— LJ— I— I— i— J
I I— I— I— I— I .
C-42
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year
^
ULJ— LJ—ULJ— Ul— LJ— I— LJ— UU UUI—I— U U I-J-.I .1—1—1
l— UUU ULJ—I— LJ— UUU UU LJ. ..I.,. I -I J— ULJ— I- ..... I- 1 .I-J
UUUUUUULJ— UU I— I— L-U 1— I— UU I— I— I— LJ— UULJ— !— UULJ— LJ— I— I
I-J— I— I— I— LJ-J-J— 1— I— I— UI—UU I— I— Ul— I— LJ-J-J— I— I— I— 1— I— I— LJ— LJ-J-J
UU I-J— I— UJ— LJ-ULJ—LJ— I—LJ— UUI-J— UU UUULJ—LJ— I—I— ULJ— I— I
13. Actual current conditions:
\M£su£&&M££a^^
Ul— UUUU Ul— I— LJ— I— Ul— UUI—l— I— U UU Ul— U1J-J-J— UU U J-J~f_!_J
I-J_I— U 1—J— 1— LJ— 1— I— I-J— I-J— Ul— LJ-J—U UJU-J—I— !—!-J-J_l-JU-J-J_J-J
J—i_l— I-J-J_IU-J— LJ— I— Ul— I— LJ-. I -I I— I
J_ LJ— I— LJ— 1— I-J— I— I— Ul-J-J-J— I— I—I-J
I_J_ j__!_l_l_!— I-J— ULJ-J— LJ-J-J— 1— LJ— 1-J-J_J-J— L_ I— J-J— !_!— Ul— I-J— I— J
H. Data Base:
13- Summary: ( Code
l^
I—I—UUUUI—LJ—I—I-J—I—1—I—I—UUULJ—3-J-J—I—I—I—I—1—I—Ul J—J—J 4
I—I—LJ—I—I—Ul—I—ULJ—1—1—LJ—LJ I I—I—LJ—I—I-J—LJ—LJ—ULJ .. I J .I-J
I_J_J—1_J_I_ I—UUUUI_!_J_UI-J-J—U I—U I—I—LJ—ULJ—I—I—UJ—l—Ul—I—I
I-J—I—I—UI—I—I—I—ULJ—I—I—I—I-J—I—Ul—U U I—J—UUU I—UULJ—I—UU I-J
i_J—I—UUU I—UI—LJ—UULJ—I—U I—Ul—UUJ—I—J—UU I-J—I—UI—I—LJ—I—I 4
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: Ul—I-.UI—UULJ—I—I—LJ—I—I—I—LJ—I—LJ—LJ—I—LJ—I. I ..Ul—I l
Today: ULJ I, I LJ—I-J—I—I—UUI—I—I—ULJ—ULJ—I—I—LJ—Ul - I ..J—l
B.Baseline: |_J—LJ—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—I—1—I—I—J—I-ULJ—UULJ—Ul ,.L I—LJ—I
CBaseline: ULJ—ULJ—I—1—1—LJ-J—I—I-J—I—I ,1 .ULJ—I—J—I—ULJ-
17. Reviever: l^£h=Ll^ 18. Date of Reviev: Year \L&\££& Month I^JJZj Day ULJ
19. Title of Narrative Report: ULJ—I-J—I—1—1—I—L
20. Lo cation of Narrative Report: I—U I—!—I—1—I—I—I—I I I I-
C-43
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
" REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
SEP 9 1977
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environmental impact
statements (EIS), an environmental review has been performed on the proposed
EPA action identified below. A summary of the project and its major impacts
and a location map are attached.
Name of Applicant: (City/County/State) City of Kalamazoo, 241 West South Street
Kalanazoo, Michigan ^9006 Project Ko. C262583
Planning Area: This segment evaluates advanced wastewater treatment for the
City of Kalamazoo for a 20 year planning period; it is a part of the Kalamazoo
Metropolitan Area facilities plan.
Proposed Project(s): Construction of single-stage biophysical treatment system '
to produce advanced wastewater treatment for the expanded 53.3 MGD Kalaraazoo
sewage treatment plant.
Estimated Project Cost: $65,000,000 design and construction
Potential Agency Financial Share: $48,750,000 Design and Construction
The review process has shown that significant environmental impacts which would
warrant preparation of an EIS will not result from the proposed action. Any
significant adverse impacts have either been eliminated by making changes in
the project or resolved through mitigative measures. Consequently, a preli-
minary decision not to prepare an EIS has been made. This action is taken en
the basis of a careful review of the facilities plan, including the environ-
mental assessment, and other supporting data, which are on file in this office
with the environmental impact appraisal and are available for public scrutiny
upon request. Copies of the environmental impact appraisal will be sent upcn
request.
Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted for
consideration by EPA. After evaluating the comments received, the Agency
will make a final decision; however, no administrative action will be taken
on the facilities plan and/or project for at least fifteen (15) working days
from the date of this notice.
Sincerely yours,
Kent Fu^KLer
Chief, Planning Branch
C-44
-------
PROJECT SUMMARY
1. Project Locaticn/Environninental Setting: (See attached map)
City of Kalamazoo, Michigan, Expanded regional treatment plant will serve
urbanized metropolitan area with surrounding residential and agricultural
communities.
2. Purpose Of Project: Design and construction of advanced wastewater treatment
facilities to service Kalamazoo and surrounding areas for Design Year 2000;
advanced treatment will permit the City to meet its final NPDES effluent
limitations, and correct an existing pollution problem in the Kalamazoo
River.
12 MGD Primary
A. Present Flow; 34 MGD B. Present Capacity; 34 MGD Secondary
C. Proposed Design Capacity: 53.3 MGD (2000)
D. Present Population; 88.700(fi70.000P£g. Design Population; 263,000 (935,000 P.E.
F. Length of sewers to be constructed, if any: 'Aem*
G. Number of stream crossings, if any; jinn<»_ **
3. Nature and Extent of Land Use Changes
A. Primary
1} Site: Minor changes will occur on the existing plant site; these
changes will be in conformance with the designated use of the site. This
project will not require the removal of houses or other buildings.
2) Sewer Routes: None, no sewers proposed in this segment.
B. Secondary: Potential for increased development of outlying portions of
the overall planning area. Some Agricultural and vacant land near the
metropolitan area is expected to change to residential land uses because
of the availability of existing interceptors and additional capacity In the
proposed expanded treatment plant. Impacts of collection sewers have beefty
addressed in previous negative declarations dealing with collection sewers
in the townships. /
Major Priirary and Secondary Impacts of the Project
A. Primary/Construction-Related:
The water quality of the Kalamazoo River will be enhanced by the reduction
of pollutant discharges from the Kalamazoo plant. Odors from the existing
treatment plant will be reduced or eliminated. Temporary impacts will
include noise, dust, erosion and traffic congestion in the construction
area; these effects will be minimized by proper construction techniques.
B. Secondary: The expanded treatment plant capacity can accommodate potential
future growth in the planning area.There will be increased employment in
the construction trades in the planning area during the construction period.
C. Rate of Projected Population Growth; i Q (%/yr.
.__ - ,, 7_> Design population reflects significant increase in service area.
C-45
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. l£|g£j£l^i.SjZl^[^J49 / f^f^l^iJll^jZj-^-J—I—UUULJ—ULJ
2. Needs(Facility) No. LSLlUll5j<<]J&£Lej£l NPDES No. I—I—I—I—I I I I—I—I
Grant No. I ^ 7lQ| 9lfl|Vl_l_l_LJ
3. Date of Document: Year LZj±LZl_£l Montn L/L£l Day \^1^
4, Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA UI c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. I—I f. FNSI
3location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: \*&JL$hMj=&
UI—UI—LJ—UI-J—I—LJ—LJ—UI—LJ—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—LJ—I-J—I—ULJ-J
UUI-ULJ-LJ—IN-UI—I—l-l—I—l-l—I—IV UI—1-1—I—l-l—LJN-UI—I—I-ULJ-UI—IW
LJ—J-UI—1-UUIN-ULJ—1-UUH—I—IV LJ—H—UI-ULJN-LJ-J—I-UUI-UI—IV
UUI-UI—1-1—LJN-UI—I—l-l—UI-LJ—JV I—Ul-UI—M—LJN-UULJH—LJ-UI—IV
6. Issue: \5\o\<^\/ p | £\£-\ 0$J\ I Parameter: l^-|4)x-/|/3| \U\^\£\ |£j£jj£|j^£_| | 1__| |
7. Type of Impact: iJd (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
^j^^^£jj9_jd4^jZui^j^i_i^lZjZi^l^l^i2.i£j^uj_.i^j^jfli
j
I—LJ—I—I—UI I I.
_J_LJ—I—I—LJ—I
J_J_I_J_J_J-J_UL
J—J_J—I-J I i|| I I I if
—LJ-J—I—LJ—I.
J I I I I I I I I
J-J_J_J-J_LJ.
J
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: I—J—UULJ-J—I—LJ—I—ULJ—I—I—I—I—L
10. Baseline Conditions: Year |/i_t.l7|7-l
l l i—,
—I—I—I
|_J_j |_j II l l l
I—I—LJ—I—I—I—I i i i i i
J—LJ—I—LJ—I-J—I—L
j__j__j ( j j | | j L
LJ—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—I
J—I—LJ—J-J—LJ—I—I—LJ—I—UI—LJ
i i i
I—I—J—I—I-J—I—UJ—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—I—I—I—1^—I—LJ—I—LJ—LJ—I—L
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year I I I—I—I
1/VjjTj \^JL\2Ji^l^l^.\U(^J(^\ [£j £\!/\ S\^\ Q\P\4L\f£\SJ\~~\ I I 1 I ! I ! I I I I I
I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—LJ.
I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—J—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I_J—I—UI—I—I—J—I—LJ—I—LJ.
I—1—I—I—I—I—1—I—I—I—LJ—I—LJ—J—J—UI—I—I—I—I—I—J—LJ—1—UI—L
I—I—UI—I—I—I—I-J—I—I—I—I—I—I-JU—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—LJ-,1..,I—LJ.
C-46
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year I
l_5j^.l^a^j_j£j^J^J^.U.|i&^.l^ I^^Jifl£U£j£j^i|^d4.ZuLJ—LJ—UUUl—UUl <
I—1—I—I—ULJ—1—U I—1—I—I—I—I—J—I—LJ—I—I—I—I—I-J—LJ—I—ULJ—1—I—I—I—!—,
I—I—I—I—I-J-J—J—UUUI—I—I—I—J—I—ULJ—I—I—I—J—J—Ul—I—I-J—I-J-J—I—I—I—J
J—Ul—I—I—I—J—J—I—UUI—I—I—I—I—I—Ul—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—J
J—LJ—I—Ul—I—I—I—Ul—I—I—i—I—I—I—Ul—I—Ul—I—J-J—I—I—I—I <
I—I—U Ul—I—I—I—J—LJ—I—I—I—I-J—I—I—UI—I—I—I—J_I—I—I—I—I.
13. Actual current conditions:
.1—I—I—I—I—UU I—I—1—J—LJ—I—Ul—UI—I—I—I—I—J
I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—U I—I—I-J—I—UI—I—I—I—UI—J—LJ—I—I-J—I—LJ—I—I—I—I i
I—I—UUI—J—I—I—I—LJ—I—UI—I—J—I—LJ—I—I—UI-J—J—I-..-UI—I—I—I—I -I—I I -I—I
| UJ LJ UU1 U! | I | U| | | |_J UUULJ | Ul I—LJ 1—1 I Ul I I
I—I—UI—I—I—I—I—J—Ul—J—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—Ul—J-J—UUUI-J—I—I—J—I—Ul—I <
I—I—I—I—I—UI—J—j—UU1—I—I—i-J—I—I. J J—1—1—1—LJ. ,1—1—1—1 UUJ—J—J—Ul—j
14. Data Base: LJj£j2!l
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH UEAROORN ST
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 50C04
2.4QCT 1S7S
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation, of environmental
Impact statements (EIS), an environmental review n,=s been performed
on the prooosed EPA a'ction Identified below. A summary of the project
and its major Impacts and a location map are attached.
Name of Applicant: (City/Co.unty/State) Rochester/Otmsted/Minresota
Planning Are3: The study area is located within the upper Zumbro River
Walfershed of the Mississippi River Basin. The individual cities in the
area are Dcdge Center, Mantorvfile, Kasson, Byron, Pine Island, Ororoco
and Rochester.
Proposed Projcct(s): The project proposes to upgrade the existing
Rochester Sewage-Treatment plant. The existing pi art consists of 2 gri"1
removal !a(,k_, 2 pre -aeration tanks, 2 primary setting tanks, 2 serai io..'
tanks, 2 in+enr.ed iate settling tanks, 4 trickling filters, 3 final sett i ing
tcjfk^, 2 chlorine cc.nl act tanks, 1 sludge thickening tank, 4 anaerobic
dlncrrre-rc; and 1 slu.'Jge drying bed. The r ew sawagc trestrnant plant ,. I I!
include the fo! lo.'I-'c unirs: a nev. I i fr station, 3 ?qua! !zatic>n ciarlf/ers,
covers for the existing g-i r rsmc-vol tar!< and pre-airat!on t^rks, 4 ccvcjr:-d
firir.ory c! " i f icr^ io" in-iTs *•'!!! ue constructed, and a 2 stage pure ox/i ;n
aei~c:tio.n tanic -. i i ! also be corstruci ed. Therp will ba S covered aer ?,~ 1 -.."
tcr.ks in each st.^re. The 2 existing Intermediate set-Mini tu~kc y;!l b1-^
.covsred z"d 2 more covered inter.rod! 2~s ciarifiers w!l! De r-;-strucvu'J.
Four final sc'-'i ! i-3 tan'--.s will be co~siructed. The 3 ex i. ' >•] ftroi ta'/-s
will bs utilized 33 ch I or I ratio-1 ch:rn:c--3. Phospho-us i-:-r,o\j! eq..i ;;>-?, r
will DG consl ri:ctec;. The existing anac-rcpic d ig^r L-."-;3 will be use. ^c~
primary sludcc- digest I on or. ly, while the Gxistirn ^rinary r! ,t" i * icat ;c> i
ur.iti and sLrr^ion tanks would be utilized for cs;-:bic dig-;$-!on of
sere.", dr. f/ s.'udr? 2nd slud;,3 siorag-?. Three cr-ntr-!' ugc units «!!! be ro"-
strurte.::. Following c?rjri'uging o* corbfned pri>. ..•, and cllcsstc'c! wast:- r-.-tl
valc-d sludge, ;T.e sludge I.-OL I d be s+or ed in the e/i.'tlnq siajgs thlr;,e^ino
t = ; !. prior to being hr.iKc? ~o icnd by liquid sledge trucks. The trickl'1.;
filters and the sludge crying be,' •.,;!! L.e abi'-'-cr :-d . A ne./ adni r i ^t: ^, i:
bui'ding, laborul^ry ard c m!" i r> „•;•', rcr for op?:^~im3l ccnt."ui •.-!!! be "^r-
struc~ca. Gaor control will be [.'resided for Csr.jus* gas fro." jfl csvo'V.
tr&a-!--o--L units.
CsTiT;,-ted P.-oJL-cl- Cost: Stjp 2 (design) =• 51,551,300
Step 3 (cc-struct Io-; = J37.000.000
Pole--tic': Ag^cy Financial Sh3~e: Step 2 (a-olcn) = £1,170,97:
Sl-cp 3 (co.'.sT---urJ, !on) = 527,750,OC.O'
C-48
-------
PROJECT SUXMARY
1. Project Location/Environmental Setting: (See attached map)
Rochester is located in southeastern Minnesota within the Upper Zumbro
River Watershed of the Mississippi River Basin. The streams In the area
support a variety of game fish-, rough fishes and forage ffsh. Various
types o* wildlife inhabit the study region, among which are muskrat, mink,
etc. White tail deer also inhabit the study area.
2. Purpose of Project: Presently the Rochester sewage treatment plant
can meet effluent limits of 25 mg/l Biochemical Oxygen Demand (300) and
30 mg/i Suspended Solids (S.S.). However, in order to meet Its more
stringent limits of 14 mg/I BOD, 20 mg/l S.S., 1.5 mg/l NH3-N and 1 .ng/f
phosphorus, the STP must be upgraded. These llmf+s were determined In
a waste load allocation study and a public hearing process. The upgrading
should help improve the water quality of Lake Zumbro and the south *ork
of the Zu.'.ibro River.
A. Present Flow; 9.5 M.G.D. B.Present Capacity; 12.5 M.G.D.
C. Proposed Design Capachy; 19.1 M.G.D. (AvA-a.n; day peek mcnrh)
D. Present Population; 66,332 and 3,CM Transient
E. Design Population; _91,330 and 15,000 transient
F. Length of sewers to be co.nstrucred, If any; none
G. Number o* stream crossings, if any: none
3. Nature ana Extent of Land Use Changes:
A. Primary
1) Site:- Most of the upg'"d!ng will occur on the- si*e of the
existing sew2~s treatment pfant. However, some of the plant ex-
pansion ares lies generally south and west o+ 1he present facilities.
The area east o< the existing road Is already maintained as pert of
the plant site. The area west of the existing i oad consists of agri-
cultural crop land and an area growing young so'twood spec;;-s where
a farmstead existed until 5-3 years ago. Irmedlately west of the
the expansion area, the property Is occupied by an electrical sub-
station.
2) Sewer Routes: None proposed.
B. Secondary: The secondary impacts should not bo extensive. The
sanitary servics area should increase as per the bounds described
In Rochester' z Sanitary Sewrr" and >-'aTor Study. SO.T.G' open spacs
• area i7iay be converted to res IdenTJ e I use during the |jfe of tTie*
project. However, Rcciiesi er hac the necessary infrastructure to
Incorporate the addh Icna! development.
4. Major Primary and Secondary Impacts of the Projoct:
A. Primary/Construction Related: The major Impacts of the proposed
plan will occur in hhe imT.ediale area of tha existing treatmcr-t plant.
Construction reieied impacts include Increased fug!ti\e dust,
erosion and sedlmer.1 at ion, and Increased noise level from con
related equipment. The for;n-.r farmland around the treatment plsrt ^i!l
be lost to the expended sewcge treatment plant.
B. . Secondary:
I) ImprovcBd wolor qua! My In the south ^ork o* the Zumbro River and
Lake Zumjro.
2) Ability to co-ply with tholr NPDCS permit.
C-49
-------
-2-
3) Downstream recreational capabilities will be enhanced due to
reduced pollution in the stream.
4) The irretrievable and Irreversible commitment o* physical and fiscal
resources on the part of the" community.
C. Rate of Projected Population Growth; 2 ($/yr)
5. Discussion of Environmental Imparts: The negative or adverse environ-
ments! impacts o* this project will be minimal. The project proposes the
upgrading of the sewage treatment plant in and around the existing plant
site. Construction related impacts should be temporary and minimal,
Although the increased capacity of the sewage treatment plant may ensure •
the projected growth, Rochester has Ihe necessary infrastructures as wefl
as. a comprehensive land use plan to absorb the additional growth and
adequately protect the ambient environment. •
The project should improve the water quality of Lake Zumbro and the soutn
fork of the Zurr.bro River. Lake Zumbro is In a serious euxrophic condition
and is the only multipurpose rec-eationai lake within a 30 mile radius of
the city.. The STP presently contributes about 71% of the phosphorus to the
lake. The project should improve the condition of the Lake.
C-50
-------
Evaluation Form
LJ—I—LJ—I—LJ
1. Project Name.
2. Needs(Facility) No.
Grant No. LJ_LJ I I..I—J—LJ—J
3. Date of Document: Year ULdLtZL£J Montn LJ—I Day I_J_J
4. Type of Document: a. EIS I-J b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. \At. FNSI LJ
^location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: 1^1 / \M\M\£\<> \o \T\A\—|
I—I-J—I—LJ—LJ-J—I—I-J—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—I—LJ—I—I—I—I—LJ—I—I—LJ-LJ—LJ—I
I—LJ-LJ—l-l—LJN-LJ—I—l-l—1—l-LJ—1¥ LJ—I-I—I—l-l—I—IN-I—LJ—l-l—LJ-LJ—J¥
I—LJ-I—LJ-I—LJN-UI—LJ-I—I—I-l—I—1¥ I—LJ-LJ—l-l—I—IN-I—LJ—l-l LJ-LJ—IV
I— LJ-LJ— I-l— I— IN-LJ— LJ-I— I— l-l— LJV I— I— l-l— I— l-l— LJN-LJ— LJ-LJ— I-LJ— IV
6.1ssue: |±]£.|^JjJP.l£l^.|gJ^j_J Parameter: l^d^J^J^.L-L2|JJ^I-jBAld.l,^^l I I— I— 1
7. Type of Impact: UH (1- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
I—LJ—I—LJ—I—LJ.
| | | | LJ—LJ | I LJ I I I
j i i i
I—I,
LJ
I—I_J—I-J—I—I—I.
I—I—LJ—I—I—I—j—I.
J—I—I—I—1—1—1—I_J—I—LJ—1—I—I
J—I—I—I—J—I—I—I—1—LJ— I—I—I.
J—I—I—I—LJ—I—LJ-J—I.
IJ\*=-
1
1
1
1
1
J-J
u
-J
*=Ud''O^
1 1 LJ
-J-J I— LJ
1 L- 1 -\^
I | |_j_j
1 1 LJ— 1
— 1— 1— LJ— 1
*=•
w\ /
\
L_|
1
| -
1
1
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: I I I
10. Baseline Conditions: Year \-/-tf:]2.\Ol
.1-1—LJ—I—I
LJ_J_!_I_J_J_I
l | |
J—I-J-J-LJ—I—LJ—LJ—I-J—LJ—LJ—I—LJ... I I I LJ—I
J | LJ—I I I I LJ-J I—I_J I I—J-J I I—I—I_J I—I I I-J
L-LJ—I—I—L.I.
I—I—LJ—I—I—LJ—I—I-J.
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year
I—I—LI—LJ-J .1 LJ—i
!—I—I—I—I—I—I-J—J—J I., i—I
IZJ^
I— LJ— I— L- 1— LJ-J— 1— J— I
I— LJ— I— I— I— I-J— LJ— I— LJ.
C-51
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year'
i^£j^^u-^J4=Li^^^^£iM^ <
I_J-J—I—1—I—I—I—UUUUI-J—UUUUUUU Ul—UJ—I—I—ULJ—I—I—I—ULJ_!
1—1—1—1-J-J—Ul—UI—I—UI—I—Ul—I—Ul—LJ—Ul—I-J—LJ—ULJ—I—I—LJ—Ul—I
LJ-J—ULJ—I—I—UUUUI—UI—I—I—Ul—I—UUUI—I—Ul—Ul—I—UI-J—ULJ—1
—I—I—I—I—I—I-J— I—I—I—I—I— I—I—I—1—I—I—L-LJ—I—I—I—Ul—LJ
I-J-J—Ul—I—I—LJ—LJ—I—I—1—I—I—I—U1—I-J—I—I—1—1—1—1—LJ—1—1—I—I—ULJ—1
13. Actual current conditions:
J—I—I—Ul—I-J—I—LJ—I—J
J—Ul—UUI—I—UU I-J—I—U1—UI-J—UUl—I
1—1—1—LJ—I—I—LJ-I—I—LJ-J—UUI—ULJ—1—U—UUUULJ—I—UI—I—UULJ
U I-J-J— I-J_J_LJ-J-J-J— I— I-J-J—L-J—J
UI—L. I_I^1-J— 1— J—LJ-J— 1— I— LJ-J-J— Ul— I—I— I-J—I— LJ-J-J— I— I— I_J_J_J_J-J
H. Data Base: |^-| -^|-Z-jO-|_ \^p- \»\P.\*r-\*r\fc\&-\*J\ _£|/ -\f_\.£\ _ |^flidr£l^/_J-J _ I _ I I | | | _ 1
13. Summary: ( Code Ig.LQ )
&&^^
J—I-J—I—I-J—I—LJ-J—I—I—ULJ.
I—LJ-ULJ—L-ULJ
-J-J—ULJ-J—LJ^LJ-J-J^I-J-J-J—ULJ—LJ^
J-J-J-J—UI-J-J— LJ—UI-J-J.
J-J-J-J— I-J— !—!—!— I-l— I— I—I— L- LJ-J
U-LJ— I— I-J— L-LJ-J-J— I— I-J— I— UJ— J-. I— I— I-J^-I—I— 1-J— I-J— I— 1— I-J— I— I
LJ— 1—ULJ— ULJ— I— J-J_J^J_ I— LJ— I— LJ— I— I-J-J— i— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I I I— I
16. Regulations in Effect:
A. Base line: |_J_
Today:
B. Base line:
Today: !_J_J.
LJ-J—LJ—LJ-J—I—LJ—J-J-J—I—LJ—ULJ—J—LJ-J-J-J
I—LJ-J—1—1—
—L-LJ—1—I—I-J—I—LJ-J—LJ—I
—LJ-J—I—I—
Today: UU— LJ-J-J— IU— I— 1— I-J-JUU-J-JU-J-J-J— I-J— I— I-J— I— I— I_J
17. Reviever: l^i^ij^ 18. Date of Reviev: Year Ul|fj£.|j£j Month |£j.2j Day |_|_l
19. Title of Narrative Report: LJ—I _ I _ I _ I _ I — I _ I _ I — I — I — I— I— 1 — I — I—I—I—I—I— I — I— I _ I— ! _ I
20. Location of Narrative Report: LJ — I_J_!_I-J_J_! — I _ !_I_I-J-J_J_J— J_J_I_J_!_J_J_I
C-52
-------
-.- /
o
1. Project:
2. Purpose of Pr-.'c-
r.corc
'--- tr. -;._..; pla-
C *• T> '-**•-•' •"•"••> **^ (••."^ *- T "
later dst3 st local
ir.tsrcercor ir. the ICIT:: oJ L"ca r—v
4. Major Primary and Secor.clcry Icpr.cts of the Frcj :ct or. th-i Envir:..- -r.t:
Icproved watar quality in ths Mis.-i_.i?pi Uiv-r sr.d red-ccc va?te--r.J.---r cc-<-.t
Trti resiaval alonj the r:-u.i of thi iiit-rcaptcr. This l;r- => ' c.-o.-. :nir.i - i^.o.d
by selecting en oltemazlv ir.;crrc?pcor rout:: -."ith a r.i..'.v-ri./, 01 Ss- ricuu
Elm tre&i vhi-ss longevity is lirc.iC by th-_ D,;tc'r: Ei:a ri-;;:zr... All t.rr-3
reaovad will bs replaced by nir.i.-ua 2 1/2" c!i.::..;L3r sto:1-; cr. a onc-fcr—ons
basis.
C-54
-------
o
:,'ar; cf Aprlic—.t: Ciry of St. Clc-j<-:, Ilir.n.-.aocc;.
Plarr.ir.: -.-az: Corporate lini^.- of the Cities cf St. Ciovd, I.Taite Park, Saul. Re,-l<:
Sr.rL.u..i. St. Jr_-if.:, ^..c! St. «••_., itj. cr.J .si:r::c^.-uii:-~ r.ruas. /."I or pr.rts ^ir St. Clu
St. Josrp'-, St. T.'£r.;U, Ct. A-;,..-;., ::i.-;.-., Ilsvar, Si;:; Rtri^s, nnd Lo Sael: lo'^
sever ovcrr'lu^s to che Ili.ri- :; -,i Il_vir. Locctic^ of s^-.iu-rv i.-..irci-»tc'.- sc;.«--
sl:a:.r: cr. i.^lo-.T.d r.; .
Earirat-d rrrj-.r C:s=: Ste- 2: $IO£?GJ3
Step 2: 4.4 Million
Step 3: 3.3 Million
The r=vir- ?rrc2S3 did r.cc i^dica^s thst cignific.-.r.c envirsrjsr.t^l i_:^a.::3
would r^s.:lr fr::r. tr.a proposed i-ticr.. Ar.y sizr-i" icir.c adverse i.^?scr vera
a lir. -!-•=:-. I ":;.- zakir.s chc.r.--23 i- tr.= prrjscr. Ccr.se-rusr.tl:*, a pr2ld_-_r.2ry
7>is a;:i:r. is cakar. or. the basis cf 3 c^rnful ravis^- cf the facilities pi-",
ircl'.:di:.: t'.u cr.vir cr.r.;-l^l asscs^rcr.t, -r.d cth=r supporting dace., "hi;h irs
01 -ila :.r this cffice vi-h the dr.virc-^vr.ral ijspacc c-pprais-r.I sr.d ire =vail-
abla for p-'lic scrutiny upcn rc^uc-;:. Ccpi=.^ cf thi ir.vircrvner.tc.1 i-pact
cor.sidsrarijr. by ErA. Af: = r i"zl-.:tir.r th= ccrjr^:.ts received, the Ajer.c.
vili -ahi a final decision; hcv;-vr, no «:zi-i3trstiv£ action vill bs cakan
or. the fa:ili:is5 p\z- ar.c, ;r prrject fcr as. least fiftiin (15) vcrLing da;.'3
Sir.csraly ysurs,
C-53
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. il'! lll^l I _ II11 _ I—I-J _ ! _ II I I I _ I I I I ' I
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. &J.&£i£lil£|g.j NPDES No.
Grant No. '3 \°l \l \Q\O\ "H \ I I _ I
3. Date of Document: Year UjfLOlll Month L£j Jj
4. Type of Document- a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID |_J d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. L3 f. FNSI LJ
51ocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction:
\ _ i
ULJ-LJ— I-ULJN-I I LJ-UI— H— I— IV LJ—H-J— H I. IN-UJ— LJ-I I I-ULJV
LJ-J-LJ—H ..... I.JN-1 I LJ-ULJ-LJ— IT ULJ-UJ— H I 1M-LJ—LJ-I I H I IV
I— LJ-ULJ-UU IN-I I I— I-LJ-J-LJ— IV I— LJ-ULJ-J ...... I. ....... IN-U LJ-J-i I H-J—iV
6. Issue: I ^| ^I^K 1° \&C-\o\/J\ \ Parameter: \^^^\^\ \O\S \*3 _ [/^i^/^/Cf ^ j i i i
7. Type of Impact: l2j (1- Quantitative) (2 -Qualitative)
8. Prediction:
_ _
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: I .1,1 I L LL.I. LJ_J I I I I I I I.I ' I I I I I
10. Baseline Conditions: Year
1
1
1
1
1
1
I'll!!!
I | I I 1 I I
I I I I I 1 1
1 I 1 I I I I
I | | | | | |
I 1 1 1 1 ! 1
I 1 1 I I
1 1 | 1 I
! I I I I
I I ' 1 '
'I'll
It'll
| | I | I | I 1 I I I
1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
I l I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 I I I 1 i 1 1 1 1 1
I i | | | i | | | . | |
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ' 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1
1 | | | | | | | | | | |
1 | 1 I 1 1 I 1 t i i t
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1
1 ! I I I 1 1 1 I ' 1 1
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year I — j — I — I — I
.J.J— LJ .1 J_LLJ-J-J_
-J-J— I.J I III .LLJ
I I I i I I I i
II II I
I III I II!
I-J-J_LJ-J.-.I.-.LJ— I I .1 I
_l— LJ— i_l-J-J— J-J.-.I I— LJU— I-J I ,,I..LJ
i I I i i !
I I I ..i | }
t i i i i
C-55
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year
& i i i i t i i | i | n
i-.— 1- .. J __
l_J_l_l_J_J .L LJ I I. I_LJ_I_J_J
I _ I_I_J _ I _ I ... _l_ I I I I -I— I— f I I _ I— I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ I
LJ— LJ— LJ— LJU.J— LJ— ULJ— L- I. ,J— ULJ— UUUI.-..I-I-UUUU I-J .11. LJ
UUUULJ— I-LJ—UUUUU LJ— I— UU UUUULJ. I,,. I.ULJ— ULJ I I I— I <
_ i
13. Actual current conditions:
L
I -I— | I I III I .. ..|_UULJ_UUJ -I I I- 1 I J I i I I
I_J_I_LJ_L.I_J_J_.L
l I | | |
| | | | |
|
L_ -
__
| _ | _ | _ |
14. Data Base:
13. Summary: ( Code
-£C -
'/
— — — -».
| _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ |
I _ ( _ | _ |_J_J_LJ
UULJ—LJ— ULJ. I. I-J— I— I— J— J.J J.,,.1 ..... J-J— ULJ— ULJ— ULJ— ULJ. .,!.. ,.ULJ
UUUU I— LJ-LJ— ULJ— LJ— ULJ— U I— 1_ LJ— U UUI— LJ— UU U UULJ— LJ
UULJ— 1—1— LJ— J— I— LJ— U I— I— I—I— UUI— U LJ— LJ. ... I . I— I-J— UU Ul ,.l ..I I-J
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: I-J. LI ..... I— U 1—1— UU UUUUULJ— I— J— I—I— UUI— UU 1 I I I I
Today: LJ—I I ...... l,.,l— UIU-J— J-I-J-JU— I— l-JU,-.h-l— LJ— LJ-J-J I,,. I. I-J
B.Baseline: |_J-J-J-JU-J-J_ I-J-J— I-J—J— J-J—1— LJ-J— J-JU-J—J—ULJ
Today : I _ I
_ _ _ I _ _ _ II _ _ _ _ | _ I _ I
Today: ULJ- I- LJ— l-IU— I— J-J
17. Reviever: \MM£$ 18. Date of Reviev: Year
19. Title of NarraUve Report:
20. Lo cation of Narrative Report:
I I . UJ— 1— LJ— I— LJ— ]-J-J— ]_ 1
— J— J—UJ— I— UJ-J— J— I— I_LJ-J
Month l£j JLf Day |_|_J
— I-J— i— 1— I—L- 1— LJ , I ,,l I
—
C-56
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
30 1977 CH.CACO. .LUNO.S 60604
3 RESIGN V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
TO AIL DJTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GSDUPS AND CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environmental impact
statements (EIS), an environmental review has been performed on the proposed
EPA action identified below. A summary of the project and its major impacts
and a location map are attached.
Name of Applicant: (City/County/State) Kent, Portage County, Ohio.
Planrir.g Area: The City of Kent is situated in western Portage County with
the Summit/Portage County line constituting its western
boundary. The total service area will be 3260 acres.
Proposed Froject(s): Sent WWTP to be modified to provide improved effluent
quality of discharge to Cuyahoga River to meet NPDES
permit requirements, provide for improved sludge
treatment and disposal.
Esti--=srsc Project Cost: Step 2: 325,500
Step 3: 4,526,400
Pots-rial Agency FLTancial Share: step 2: 244,125
Step 3: 3,394,300
Zhe review process has shown that significant environmental impacts which would
warrarr preparation of an EIS will not result from the proposed action. Any
significant adverse L-rpacts have either been eliminated by making changes in
the ;ro"ect cr resolved through mitigative measures. Consequently, a preli-
r.^ar-.' decision not to prepare an EIS has been made. This action is taken on
the casis of a careful review of the facilities plan, including the environ-
rrercai assessment, arc other supporting data, which are on file in this office
wits cr.e envircnirencai impact appraisal and are available for public scrutiny
cpcr request. Copies of the environmental impact appraisal will be sent upon
recuesz.
Ccnr*-"^s supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted for
ccrs..ieracion by EPA. After evaluating the comments received, the Agency
will -vane a final decision; however, no administrative action will be taken
en tr- facilities plan and/or project for at least fifteen (15) working days
frcir —e data of this nccice.
Sincerely yours,
Ker.t roller
Chief, ?iar_iir.g Branch
c-57
-------
PROJECT S'JMMAPv
Project Locaticn/Environnnental Setting: (See attached na?)
The City of Kent is situated in the west-central region of Portage
County. On the West it is limited by the boundaries of Summit -
Portage County line. The City is moderately industrial but
population is educationally oriented (Kent State).
Purpose of Project:
To upgrade the Kent Wastewater Treatment Plant in order to meet
required NPDES permit limits.
A. Present Flow; 3;° "^ B. Present Capacity; 4 n?d
C. Proposed Design Capacity:; 5"Tagd
0. Present Population; 27,54u g. Design Population;
F. Length of sewers to be constructed", if any:
G, Nunber of stream crossings, if any: N/^
Nature and Extent of Land Use Changes
«. Primary
1) Site:
The proposed treatment plant expansion and modification will
be constructed at the existing plant location.
2) Sewer Routes:
B. Secondary:
S/A
4:~ rajor Primary and Secondary Lspacts of the Project
^- Prisary/Constructicn-?.elated:
1. Teaporary increase in suspended solids in the river due to
runoff from excavated areas.
2. Although noise and dust will be generated by standard
construction equipment, it will not be detrimental to humans
or wildlife. *
B. Secondary:
1. IJoise levels increased during operation (Jul - Oct) when
additional ccnprassed air is recuired for nitrification.
2. Improve the quality of the effluent entering Cuyahoga River. 4
3. Will allow increased development of the planning area.
4. Additional amounts of chemical and electrical energy required
for plant operation.
C. Hate of Projected Peculation Growth: 1-9% (%/yr.)
4
(PL-2/1-77) . - I
C-58
-------
Evaluation Form
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. \2jllM2&l2&£jh NPDES No. 1—1—I—J—1 I I LJ—1
Grant No. !_lLflj£jj£dJi2!_J_l_-I—I
3. Date of Document: Year tZlljU-Zl Month L£_2 Day GjJ-j
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. t3Y FNSI LJ
3Xocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I^K^V 1^1—I—I—I—I—1—I
I—1—1-1—I—1-1—LJN-LJ—1—1-1—1—1-1—LJ¥ LJ—1-LJ—1-L. L JIM—1—1—1-LJ—H—LJ¥
I—LJ-LJ—H—LJN-1 1 1—1-1—LJ-LJ—1¥ LJ—1-1—1—1-1 I BM-J-LJ-ULJ-l—LJ¥
6.Issue: |5|° \£-\s \ oi^^|_o|X^_ ...| Parameter: |/-[4j/^^| ]O\£j^ \^.\^J^.\^LJLj 1 I_J
7. Type of Impact: L3~tl" Quaatitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
l^utOifiu£jSjBjfcd!ii^^
&&SJ&LJ-JLJ-J-J ,1 .1^1—i—LJ^I, I J—I—LJ-J—LJ-J,,,.., I LJ—LJ-J-J-
I—I—I—I—LJ—I—LJ—LJ-J—I—LJ-J-J ..! .LJ-J—I—LJ—I—LJ.
I_1_J_>I_J_]_J_I_J—LJ--—!_J-J__J_--__-—__—_.
LJ
J—LJ—l—LJ—LJ-J—1—1—UJ—LJ—1—1—1—LJ—1—1-1—1—1—1—I.
LJ—1—I-J—1—I-J—1—LJ—1—1—1—LJ—LJ—1—1—LJ—1—1—I—LJ—LJ—1—LJ
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: LJ—1—LJ—1—1—1—1—1—1..-I—1—I—1—LJ—1—I—1 1—1—1—1—1
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I
LJ—1—1—1—1—1—1
LJ—LJ—I—I.I,, .LJ—I
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year I—1—1—I.
I _ I _ I _ !__LJ—
—1— I—I— I— LJ— LJ— LJ— I— 1—1— I— I— LJ
I_1_J-J_J_J _!_!
C-59
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year lZjil£.L_f
<
I— I— Ul— UUI— 1— I— LJ— UUUUU I— UULJ— Ul— J-J—UUU Ul—i— 1— LJ— LJ—I
I—1—I—I—J—I—I—I—J—UUU Ul—J—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—J—UUUUI—I—I—J—J—Ul—1
I—1—Ul—I—UI-J—I—UUU I—I—UJ—I—UUUI—I—I-J—J—Ul—I—Ul—I—1—U I—ULJ <
I—UUI—I—1—1—I—J—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—I—Ul—I—Ul—I—I—I—Ul—J—U Ul—1—J—I—1—I—I
13. Actual current conditions:
Ul—I—I—I—I—I—I—J—LJ—Ul—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—UUI—J—I—UUI—I—Ul—1—J—LJ—I—1 <
I—I—UUI—I—I-J-J—Ul—I—UUI—I—1—UUUUI—1—1—1—Ul—UUUI—I.. J -I—I—I—J
I—I—UUI—I—I—I—J—LJ—J—1—1—I—J—I—I—I—UI—I—1-J—J—Ul—I—I—Ul—1—I—LJ—J—I
I-J—1—UU 1—I—1—I—LJ—U Ul—I—J—1—Ul—1—UU I—I—I—UUI—I—1-J—I—I—LJ—1—I
I—I—U I—I—J—j—UI—LJ—J—I—I—I—1—I—I—I—I—1—I—1—I—1—Ul—I—I—Ul—I—ULJ—I—I <
I—I—I-1—I—I—I—UJ—U1—1—1—I—I—1—I—ULJ—I—I—1—J—I—Ul—1,-J—I-J—I—I—LJ—I—I
1.4. Data Base: \Jj3jl£j2l-
13. Summary: (Code
.1^1-I-J^JjLei^l^jlj^l^l^J^I-J-Z.I^I-ldl^l a |0 l^i^JZl
J—Ul—1—Ul—I—J—I—I—I—U Ul—I—I—UI—UUI—1-J—I—ULJ—I—J
.UUUI—J—I—Ul—UUUI—I—I—J—1—I—J
I—I—I—Ul—I—I—I—I—LJ_ 1—I—Ul—J—1—UUI—J—I—I—J—U I—UUUUUI—I—Ul—J—I
I—UUI—I—I—I—1—J—Ul—I—1—I—I—I—I—I—Ul—I—Ul—I—I—Ul—I—UUI—1—j—LJ—I—I
I—I—U I—I—I—I_J—J—LJ—I—UUI-J—1—UU UUI—I—I—I—UUUUI.
I—I—I—Ul—J—J—I—J. I. I—I—Ul—I—J—I—UUl—I—I—J—J—J—UUUUI.
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: |_I—L
Today: UI—I—UUI—I—I—I.
B.Baseline: I I.
Today: UULJ.
CBaseiinerULJ—I—I—I—I—I—1—1—1_J—I—I—1—J—I—I—I—I_J—I—I—J—UUI—j_UI_J
Today: I—I—ULJ—I—I—I—I—I—J—I—I—I—I—I—1—I—I—UI—UUUI—I—1—1—Ul—J
17. Reviever: \M*ll£l 18. Data of Reviev: Year ULl±l£|^J Month |_£jJZj Day UUI
19. Title of Narrative Report: UUI—J—1—1—1-J—1-J—1—1-J—I—I—J—UUUUU1—1—I—UUI
20. Lo cation of Narrative Re port: I—J—I—I—J—I—1—J—ULJ—1—I—I—I—I—I-J—Ul—I—I—I_U I
C-60
-------
UNITED STATES
** fit 3 "0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
< - ' I • I r _ Z
a REGION V
„„ nriQ77 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
JUL/C'J Ij/Y CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60601
p
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environmental impact
statements (EIS), an environmental review has been performed on the proposed
EPA action identified below. A summary of the project and its major impacts
and a location map are attached.
Name of Applicant: (City/County/State) Canton, Stark County, Ohio.
Planning Area: The planning area includes the City of Canton, North Canton
Louisville and portions of Stark County.
•
Proposed Project(s) : The project consists of improvements at the existing
Canton Water Pollution Control Facility and a new
intercepting sewer paralleling the general route of
existing sewers along the Nimishillen Creek and West
Branch of Vimishillen Creek.
Estimated Project Cost: step: 3 512,900,000
Potential Agency Financial Share: Step: 3 $9)675 >000
The review process has shewn that significant environmental impacts which would
warrant preparation of an EIS will not result from the proposed action. Any
sign if leant adverse impacts have either teen eliminated by making changes in
the project or resolved through mitigative measures. Consequently, a preli-
minary decision not to prepare an EIS has been trade. This action is taken on
the basis of a careful review cf the facilities plan, including the environ-
mental assessment, and other supporting dsta, which are on file in this office
with the environmental impact appraisal and are available for public scrutiny
upon request. Copies of the environmental impact appraisal will be sent upon
request.
Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted for
consideration by EPA. After evaluating the comments received, the Agency
will rra'
-------
* ,
1. Project Location/Environnmental Setting: (See attached map)
This project, serving approximately 18,645 acres, includes
Canton, North Canton, Louisville and portions of Stark County
which lie within the Facilities Planning Area for the Nimishillen
Basin.
2. Purpose of Project:
For improvements to the Canton's sewerage system such as; advance
secondary treatment process and modification of existing main and
West side intercepting sewers in order to meet final effluent limitat
ions as set forth in the NPDES permit of 9 mg/1 BOD and 6mg/l SS.
A. Present Flow; 28 MGD _ B. Present Capacity; 33 MGD
C. Proposed Design Capacity; 44
•D. Present Population; 150.500 _ E. Design Population;. 254,430
F. Length of sewers to be constructed, if any; 21 .'700 IF _
G. Number of stream crossings, if any ; N/A _
3. Nature and Extent of Land Use Changes
A. Primary
1) Site:
N/A
2) Sewer Routes:
The sewer will either be replaced or parallel to the existing
sewer in the right-of-way thus causing no additional Land Use
cnanges.
Secondary:
N'/A
4.' Kaicr Primary and Secondary Iirracts of the Project
A. Prinary/Ccnstruction-Related:
Primary impact includes the disruption of traffic, noise, dust,
land erosion, and siltation.
B. Secondary:
The quality of groundwater will be improved by alleviating the
polluting effect of leaching of raw sewage from surcharged sewers.
The rate of future land development in Stark County planning area
will increase as a result of the proposed intercepting sewer and
JVPCC improvements.
C. Pate of Projected Population Growth: 2.0 (%/yr,
(PL-2/1-77)"
C-62
-------
Evaluation Form
l: Project Name, £j £j^j2jj2lA]^jXl_J^J^jZ]^LJ-J-JU-J-J-J-. LJ— LJ— 1-LJ— I—I
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. LllJlZj^jSigJ?.!' I NPDES No. ULJ— J-J— l-l— I— Ul
Grant No. l3|?l/|/ |/l.7| I |_|_|
3. Date of Document: Year UHl2_l.£J Montlx iZfcll Day l£j£j
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. L±*T. FNSI LJ
31ocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: \£\£\L\&\ LJ — I — LJ — I
l_l_LUI^UUU^^^_J_!-J-J-J_L-J-J_J«-l-J_l_J-J--UJ_UUI-J-J_i_!_J-J
I— LJ-I—I— I-LJ— IN-I— LJ— H— I— !-!—!— IV I— LJ-LJ— J-L- 1— JNH— I— I— H— I— l-l— I— 1¥
I— I— H— I— H— I— IN-I .1 LJ-I— I— H— I— IV I_J_JH-J-J-I-J-JN-UI-J_J-!_J_J-I— J—IW
I-J-J-LJ-J-I-J— 1N-LJ_J-J-I_1_J-I_J_|V I_!_H_J_H_LJN--L_ULJ-L- LJ-I-J.JW
6.1ssue: fiJj2J^l/Uflj^^LfijX>Lj Parameter:
7. Type of Impact: iJd" (1- Quantitatiye) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
c
Ul— I— I— L- 1 I-J.-I..J ....... LJ
-J-J-J-J— UU-J-J-J-^-J-J-J. . I J-I.-LJ— J
— LJ— I— I— LJ— J-L- 1— LJ— I—I— I I I I I,- 1— I
_J-J_J_J_I-J_J_J_J— I-J— LJ—L. J— LJ-J
J-J-J— J_J_J
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: |_ I— 1_ I— I— I _i_ j_ I I 4 — .1 I —I I I I— 'I I < —I I J I
10. Baseline Conditions: Year |_/-ll \3-\-L\
— I— LJL- J— J— I— I
I— J.U— I— IU^I-JU I I I— LJ— LJ— 1
— I—I— J— m_J_ L-LJ_]_ 1
1 1 . Predicted for end of plannin g period: Year I — J _ I — I
—I_LJ—LJ—LJ—I—LJ—I—1—I—1—I—I—
-J-J-J-J-J— LJ— LJ—
— LJ— I— I— I— LJ
— I— I— I_J— 1
_ I— I— I— 1—
— I— ]— J— J
C-63
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year
^^
—UUUI-J_J-J._UUUUUUUUUULJ—I—I—I—UUUI—1—J
UUUUUUIUU-UUI—UJ-J—ULJ—UUULJ—UUUUULJ—I—ULJ—ULJ
!—I—UUUUULJ—Ul—UI_J_I—J-J_J-J_I_I-J—I-JU—UI-J—J-I—J_!_U ULJ—I
ULJ—UUUULJ—UUULJ—LJ—UULJ—I-J—I—UUULJ—UUULJ—ULJ—I
UUUULJ—UULJ I UUUULJ—ULJ—I—I—UUUULJ—LJ—UULJ—ULJ
13. Actual current conditions:
L-LJ—I—I—I—JU—1—I-J-J—I-J-J-J-J—ULJ
I I
I-J—UUULJ-J-J—Ui.
I—UUUUUUUU UL
14. DataBase: llf|7|/| \£f>
13. Summary: (Code
J—LJ—I—I—UUI—I—I-J-J—I—UUUUUI-J-J—I-J—I—I «
J—LJ-J-J-J—LJ—I—I—I—I—J—LJ—I—I—I—LJ—I—LJ—I—I
J—LJ—J—LJ—LJ—LJ—LJ-J—LJ—ULJ—LJ—I—I—Ul—I
J_UULJ—LJ—I—I—I-J-J—LJ—LJ—LJ-J—LJ—I—I—I—I
J—I—I—LJ—LJ-J—LJ—I—I—LJ—LJ—I
j£|^—L^LAdLuI—LJ—UUULJ
I—UU
I—I—I—Ul—I—ULJ—L
I-J-J—I—UI—I-J—I—L
I—I—Ul—I—I—I-J-J—L
UUI.
J—UL-UJ—U
LJ—I—I—I-LJ—LJ—Ul—I—1—1—I—LJ—LJ
LJ—I—I—I—J—LJ—I—I—LJ—LJ—I—L
J— UUUJ— I—
J— I— I— UI-J
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: I—J I I, UUI—UUI—ULJ
Today: I I III I I
Today:
C.Baseiine:
Today: I—I—I—LJ—LJ
17. Reviever: \^\J W-\ 18. Date of Reviev: Year
19. Title of Narrative Report:
20. Location of Narrative Report I I I—I—! L
'—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—UI-J—LJ—I—I
I—J—LJ—Ul—I—I-J—I—ULJ
!_l_l_l_l_J_UUL_LJ_l_LJ_J_!_|_J_j
—UUI-J
i_l_J_J_J_J_J—LJ-J—Ul—I—I—I—LJ—I—I
ULJ—I—I—I—I—UUI—I—LJ
_ULJ_J
'_UI—I—I—I—LJ—LJ—I—I—I—LJ
J—I—I—LJ—I—I—I—I—LJ—I—I—J—I—I—1—I
J—LJ—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—J—ULJ—I—I—I—I
'—I—LJ—I
Month l£j_J Day |
I—ULJ—I
J—I—UI-J—I—I
C-64
-------
UN, TED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY $ f
REGION v y '
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST ^ (,
CH.CAGO. ,U.,NO,S .060.
g
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environmental
impact statements, an environmental review has been performed on the proposed
EPA action identified below. A summary of the project and its major impacts
and a location map are attached.
Name of Applicant: City of Sandusky, Ohio
Planning Area: City of Sandusky, Ohio and adjoining areas in Erie County, south
to the Ohio Turnpike, including parts of Margretta, Perkins, Huron,
Oxford, and Groton Townships.
Proposed Project(s): Construction of new sludge handling facilities and appurtei
acquisition of equipment needed for land application of digested sludge, facilit
include sludge concentrators, anaerobic digestors, dewatering and lime storage
Estimated Project Cost: equipment, and hauling equipment.
Step 2 $168,000 Step 3 $2,926,000
Potential Agency Financial Sharar-
Step 2 $126,000 Step 3 $2,194,000
The review process did not indicate that significant environmental impacts
would result from the proposed action or significant adverse impacts have
been eliminated by making changes in the project. Consequently, a prelimi-
nary decision not to prepare an EIS has been made.
This action is taken on the basis of a careful review of the facilities plan,
including the environmental assessment, and other supporting data, which are
on file in this office with the environmental inpact appraisal and are avail,."'j
for public scrutiny upon request. Copies of che environmental impact apprai^-I
will be sent upon request.
Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted for
consideration by EPA. After evaluating the comments received, the Agency w:l".
make a final decision; however, no administrative action will be taken on th.
facilities plan and/or project for at least fifteen (15) working days from ir_
date of this notice.
Sincerely yours,
Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch
C-65
-------
1. Project Location - See attached nap
City of Sandusky, Ohio and surrounding portions of Erie County.
2. Purpose of Project:
Preparation of sludge handling and treatment facilities for the applic-iti-
of liquid sludge on farmlands.' The project includes expansion of existi-.
sludge treatment facilities at the Sandusky wastewater treatment plant.
New equipment will include sludge concentrators, anaerobic dif;cstor3,
sludge dewatering and lime storage equipment, and hauling equipment and
appurtenances.
3. Nature and Extent of Land Use Changes:
t
Sewage treatment plant expansion will be at the site of the existing tres!
ment plant. No additional land will be acquired. Land application of
sludge will utilize existing cultivated land; and will not change its
agricultural function.
/
The improvement in sewerage service and thus water quality may result
indirectly in encouraging further residential and commercial development
in the Sandusky service area.
Major Primary and Secondary lapacts of the Project ca the Enviror.-enr:
The primary impacts of the project include the adverse short term
construction effects at the sewage treatment plant site, such as ne:'se.
dust, and minor siltation. In addition, there will he increased truck
traffic due to sludge hauling for the duration of treatment plant lifet'-
(estimated 16 trucks trips per day). Farmland fertility should be enh^.u
by the project. Water quality improvement is the ultimate in.pact.
Secondary impacts will include the encouragement of further development
in the service are,improvement of wildlife habitat, and protection 01
contact uses of water.
C-66
-------
Increased capacity and degree of treatment must be provided to
handle the increased total waste load and thus prevent any public
health problems and ensure the integrity of the Rock River.
C. Rate of Projected Population Growth: 3 (%/yr,)
C-67
-------
Evaluation Form
/ 5 aJ .I*LI *^_ 1— I— 1-1— I— 1—1—1—1
J— I
Month
NPDES No. I_J_J— I— L- 1— J-J— 1—1
1. Project Name.
2. Needs(Facility) No.
Grant No. 1^1
3. Date of Document: Year
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan I—1 e. Negative Dec. IJ^Tf. FNSI LJ
5Xocation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I ^Llil.EQ^J.^LlZjda—I
I—LJ-LJ—H—!_1N-LJ_I—H—LJ-LJ—IV
I—1—1-1—I—H—1—IN-l—J—1—1-1—1—1-1—1—1*
LJ-J-I—1—M—I—IN-I—LJ—l-LJ—l-l—I—I*
6.Issue: |^lS.I^Jjlj^L^^J^I^d_J Parameter
7. Type of Impact: L3~(l- Quantitative) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
I—I—H—I—H—I— IN--LJ—I—H—LJ-LJ—IW
L-LJ-LJ—j-i-J-JN-UI-l-J-l... I,, I-LJ-JW
LJ—H-J_J-I-J-JN-I_I-J-J-ULJ-I-J—IW
j'gLgi i -
J—I—LJ—LJ—I
LJ—I—1—I—1—I—L
J_l,
J—1—I—1—1—LJ—LJ-J—J-J.
I— I— I—LJ
I— I
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: I _ I _ I
10. Baseline Conditions: Year
^i-j£izi£i£i£j-ija
I—1—LJ—I—LJ—l-.l....1—1
| II | i | l
J—LJ-J—LJ—1
J 1 l_|__l_l._LJ_..l | |
I—I—LJ—I—1—1—1—LJ—I
J—I—1—1
—I—1—I—LJ—1—1—1—I
J—LJ—I—LJ.
I—1—1—J—I—I—I—J—I.
j
I—1—LJ—I-J—1—I—L
J—I...J.-J—I—LJ.
J—1—1—LJ—I—I—I—1—1—1—1.
J—LJ—J—J—1—L
J—1—1—1.
J—I—1-L
_J_I_J—J_l_!
J .
J_J—I—I—I—I—LJ—I-J
J—LJ—1—LJ—LJ—1—1—LJ—I
J—I—1—L
J—I-J—I—J_l—I_J_1_J_ LJ—I
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year I—I—I—I I
I-J—I—I—1—I.
I—I—I-J—I-J—1—1—I—1_
I—1—1—1—I—I-J—I—1—1
J_J_J—!_J_J_L_LJ.
;—l—i—i-j—j—i—i—i—i
j—i—i—i—i—l—i—i—i—i
LJ_I_J_1-J_I_J_J—l_i_ I
C-68
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year I
iZUlZlWk&jQJIU—UULJ—I—I—I—I-J—I—LJ—I—I <
I—I—I—Ul—UUI—J—ULJ—UUUUI-J—ULJ—I—ULJ—UU I—I—UJ—1—I—UI—I—<
I—I—Ul—I—UUI-J—ULJ—I—UUUUUU UUI—I—I—I-J—I—I—Ul—ULJ—ULJ—I
I—I.J—I—I—UUJ—ULJ—I—I—UUUJ-J—UU I-J—I-J—ULJ—I—I—I—UI—U ULJ—I
I-J—Ul—UUI—J—ULJ—UUI—UJ—UUI—UUI—I—I—I—ULJ—I_J—UI-J—ULJ—I <
I-J—I—UUI—UUU ULJ—I—I—I—I—I—ULJ—1—I—I—I—J-J—I—LJ—I—I—I—1—1—1—1-4
13. Actual current conditions:
LJ-J—I—I—I—I—LJ-J—I—I—I—ULJ—I—LJ—I—I_J—I—I—ULJ—I—I—I—I—I—I—I-J—I-J <
J—Ul—U Ul—1—I-J—I—I—I—I—Ul—1—J-J—I—I—UUI—J-J—UUI—I
UULJ—LJ—ULJ—LJ—LJ—I.... I -LJ—UULJ—I—LJ—ULJ—I—I—I—I—LJ-J
-UUU I-J—I—I—I—Ul—I—UUI—I—J—LJ—UUU I-J—I-J—LJ—J
J—UUUI—I—I-J-J—Ul—I—UUI—I—I-J-J—I—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—I-J «
I—I—I—I-J—I—I—I—I—Ul—I—I—I—I—J-J—UUI—I—I—I—I—I—LJ—I-J—I—I—I—I—I J -J—J
13. Summary: ( Code l_2j_9l)
" ' ' " <3_l_J_j-J I I I-J
J—I—I—I—I—Ul—Ul—I—I-J—LJ—I-J—Ul—I—LJ—J—I-J-J—LJ—I.
U Ul—U UUI—I—I—I—I—I—U Ul—I—I—Ul—I—I—I—I—UI—UU I_J—U I—I-J—I—LJ—I
UUU I-J—U I—I—J—UI—I—U U I—I—I—LJ—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—U I—I—1—I—UL-LJ \
I_J—I—UUI—I-J—ULJ—ULJ—J—I-J—UUI—LJ—I—I—I—UU I—I—Ul—I-J—I-J—Ul
UUUU UUI—J_J-_UI—UUI—I—J-J—Ul—I—U I—I—J—l_l—I—I—UUI—J—J—I—I—l_l
I-J—I—I—I—LJ—LJ—Ul—ULJ—I—J-J-J—I—I—Ul—I—I—J—Ul—UULJ—1—1—I .J I—I
16. Regulations in Effect: j
A.Baseline: I—I—UUI—I-J—I—I—I—I—LJ-J—I—I—J—I—I—I-J—I-J—I—I—I—LJ—J—I—I
Today: |_J—ULJ—I—Ul—LJ—I—Ul—I—I-J—I—J—I—LJ—LJ-J—ULJ—ULJ—J
Today: |_l—UI-J—I—I—I—1—1—i—LJ—i—I—I—I—I-J—LJ—1—I—I—1—1—1—I I.. .1—1 4
CBaseiine: I J—I I I 1 I—I I I I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—J—I—I—I—I—I—1—I—I—I—I—I—I
Today: I-J-J—ULJ-J-J-J—UUUI—I—I-J—J—JU-J-J—I—I—I-J-J-J—LJ—IU
17. Reviever: \J&L\M\ 18. Date of Reviev: Year UU-fj£l^ Month I^Jj2 Day ULJ
19. Title of Narrative Report: UUI—]—J_j_|—j—I—I—J_J—J—I—I—I_J—I—I—I—I—I—I—L
20. Lo cation of Narrative Re port: I—LJ I I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I-J—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I-
C-69
-------
P UNITED STATES
\ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
<^ CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
ID ALL INTERESTED XVEFNMENT AGENCIES AND PUBLIC GSCUPS AND CITIZENS:
In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environmental
impact statements (EIS), and environmental review has been performed on
the proposed EPA action identified below. A summary of the project and
its major iirpacts and a location map are attached.
Mane of Applicant: City of Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Planning Area: Cities of Eau Claire, Altoona, and Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
Proposed Project(s): Intercepting sewer and a secondary sewage treatment
plant.
Estimated Project Cost: step 2 - $1,000,000
step 3 - $12,000,000
Potential Agency Financial Share: step 2 - $75CL,Q0Q.-. :.-. . -
step 3 - $9,000,000
:rfThsr:zgy±ew--prrgess has shown that 'significant' s-.vtrcraran-tarr-Ercscts lanrch - - =:
would warrant preparation of an EIS will not result from tne proposed
action. Any significant adverse iinracts have been either eii.nir.ated by
making changes in the project or resolved through -itigative measures.
Consequently, a preliminary decision not to prepare an EIS has been rrace.
z^Siis.acsi-ci£:is.taken on the basis of :s. careful review c£ tasifscilitresi:-:- :
plan, including the envircnirental assessment/ and other supporting data,
which are on file in this office with the environmental impact appraisal
and are available for public scrutiny upon request. Copies of the environ-
mental impact appraisal will se sent upon request.
Garments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted for
consideration by EPA. After evaluating the comments received, tne Agency
will make a final decision; however, no administrative action will be taken
on the facilities plan and/or project for at least fifteen (15) working days
from the date of this notice.
Sincerely yours,
x &^>"-7 x
Kent FuHer, Chief
Planning Branch
C-70
-------
PROJECT SUMMARY
1. Project Location - See attached map
2. Purpose of Project:
The construction of a new secondary treatment plant, intercepting
sever, and appurtenances in order to eliminate the existing primary
plant and bypassing of raw sewage.-
3. Nature and Extant of Land Use Changes:
• - Land-use changes vill not be significantly affected by the construction
of this project since development in the area will be dictated by other
constraints.
A. Major Primary and Secondary Impacts of the Project on the Environment:
Primary impacts are those normally related to construction such as traffic .
disruption. Secondary impacts should be minimal because development should
not be accelerated by the project.
C-71
-------
APPENDIX D
DATA BASE FOR PROTOTYPE REPORT
EVALUATION FOR TWO COMPLETED NEPA DOCUMENTS
-------
APPENDIX D-1
ST. CLOUD CASE STUDY
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. |J^JD_|^l_^Lgl°lQl \P\A^ I /lx/l T\e^\ ^\^\p\ ~\° \*\ \
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. L=J_LJ— LJ— I— LJ—I NPDES No. I— LJ-J-J , , J , „ I I— LJ
Grant No. I "2-1 7l Q|?|Q|'7 \&\ / I _ | _ |
3. Date of Document: Year UjJj JJ^l Month L&L& Day l£-l3
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Faculties Plan l±fe. Negative Dec. L^Jf . FNSI LJ
3Xo cation: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political jurisdiction: I5JJU I
-------
Evaluation Form
Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear 1 /1 1 1 ? I
ITM£|£j-O2j£j£JiKl£l iJJ^I
I I I I I I I I- UUULJ— U i-J-U 1— !— I .. I I I— I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ I
' I— ULJ—UL-UL-. I— LJ— I— I— I I Ul— L-UI— UU LJ— I— I— I—I— J-J— I-J-J— LJ-J-J
L I I I I L-UI-J ..... I. Ul— I—I r I— UUUI— I— I— I— LJ— I— I— LJ— I— LJ-J— i— 1— I— I <
j _ I I I | I | _ | | | | || | || ||1| || | | _ j _ |_LJ_J_J_J_J_J— !— I _ l_l
13. Actual current conditions:
6 Q ' \
__
_
_ <
I 1 ) t I I I ! I I t i I I _ ! _ I— LJ _ I _ I _ 1 _ I— 1— 1— LJ _ I I I I _ I
i
i
_ I I f I I I
I I f I I I i t I f I I I
i
i
__ _ J— _ I I II _ I _ I I I I
"M. Data Base: I I I I ' I f I I t I I I I I I _ I 1 I I I _ I _ I _ |; III I ' I I I I
13. Summary: ( Code I ' I )
g " /» T/ D *J | Cc /flP \ L S ~ s D .
LJ_LJ— I-J— L. I— I I I I— }— I I .....
— I— 1-J— I—I— I-J-J-J-J^J^I I I
__
i I LJ I I I I I I i— I-J-..I ..... .L-LJ— UJ— I— I— UJ—I— UJ— .1— I— I
LJ... t. I— L-LJ— J-J I 1 I I I
U U I~J— I
. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: \^\c '
Today: I
**=) I ' I I l I _ I I I I I _ LJ__I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I I I I I I
(l\ _ I _ _ I _ I _ I _ |_J _ I _ II II t I
B.Baseline: ! I I I I I I I _ I ' I ' I I I I _ I _ 1 _ I _ I _ ! _ I _ I _ ! _ III! _ I _ ! _ I
Today: I _ ] _ I _ i I f | ) | i ) i { [ _ | | | | _ | _ | ) | _ \ _ | ) ) _ i ... ) \ \ _ j \
CBaseline: I_LJ_I I I I I I I I I i_l_LJ I I LJ— fc-LJ-J -1 ..1. -I— I— L-J— I
Today: I. I _l_..l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | I f | i \ \ \
17. Reviewer: I4».^l P\ 18. Data of Review: Year I/|^|^|V| Month L2J _2l- Day I I
19. Title of Narrative Report: I I I | | | I I I I I I I I I _ I ' I I I I I I I I I I <
20. Location of Narrative Report: I I I | I I | | ' ' I I I _ I _ ! _ I Ml I I J _ I _ |_J
D-2
-------
12. Predicted for Current Year:
EVALUATION FORM
Year I
Page 2
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
at-S l I
13. Actual Current Conditions:
Year | | |7| ?"••*£* ~j- ?+-+*-
14. Data Base:
15. Summary: (Code O\b ) (limited to 360 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
.- !*£*-* ft ^~~t
16. Regulations in Effect:
A. Baseline: | [ [ [
Today: | I | |
B. Baseline: [ [ | j
Today: | | | |
C. Baseline: I I I I
Today:
17. Reviewer: \^\c M 18. Date of Review: Year h
Month
03 Day
19. Title of Narrative Report:
20. Location of Narrative Report:
D-4
-------
EVALUATION FORM Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year i ^/fr.£ (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
l«^~*<.<» ~*) _ . _ _ _
13. Actual Current Conditions: Year 1 &J (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
t\J ^" <#**'l
DataBase:
15. Summary: (Code | t\Q | ) (limited to 360 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
XX <
•*>» t
16. Regulations in Effect:
A. Baseline: [ | [ |
Today: [ | | |
B. Baseline: [ | ( (
Today: | | | |
C. Baseline: | | | [
Today: Ml!
17. Reviewer: J7|l|u[ 18. Date of Review: Year | tfel.^?! Month |g[3| Day
19. Title of Narrative Report: I I I I I I I I I I I I | I I | | I I I I I
20. Location of Narrative Report: [ | | [ | |
D-6
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear I / I f I ? \ I
LJ-J-LJ-J—ULJ ! I t I I—LJ—I t I I I- I—UU—ULJ—LJ—LJ-J I I I I
I—LJ-l-LJ—I-J I I I I I-J I I-J I I LJ-J—I—I-J—l-LJ—LJ—1-J-J—l—1—LJ
-' UUJ^U-IUU—1—ULJ-J-I—LJ-J r I I UI-J-J-J—I-J-J-J-J-J-J-J-J—l—l_l
l-.LJ_J-J-J_l_J—I—J_l_J_J-J_LJ_J—UUUI-J-J—I.J—L-I-J-J—U LJU-J—LJ-J
Ul ..I .1—l-J-J-J-J-.L-t—1-J-J—l-J-J—I—UUI-J-J-J-J—I—LJ-JU—LJ-J—LJ—LJ
13. Actual current conditions:
\7\£\£-\£.\ T\^\/\£\U\ &(B\ |^|^ ^| \& \01 T\ 71>g|^J_Jl_l^y__I^J
\z\j\i\a\iL\ \ c |C ;/U; 0 1 / 1 n i \o\v\ i T]_M\A. \y\_.\?\ _gje_|* \o_\u \
\A\ \ | _ | _ I _ | } { j | I | | | | { I I | _ J _ | _ | _ | _ j _ | _ J _ | _ | _ | | | | | j | {
I I (' I | | _ j j | .. } { { | | {[ || j _ |_j_j _ j _ | _ | _ || j | | || _ | | | | j
I _ I _ I _ I _ I t I I I f I I I I I I I I I I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I I I _ I _ I _ I I I I I I I
I i I I _ | _ | _ | | | [ | | | | | [ _ | | ; _ | _ |_j__| _ | _ |_J_J _ |_J_J_l_! _ | | | | |
| i | [ _ | _ | _ | | | | ; | | | | | _ | [ | | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ j _ | [ | ; | _ ( | j I |
14. Data Base: [5 ;/ |T;
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. LsJJQ _ l^fH?l^l-'°-l---i-^l.'^l-^l--l.-/ \*'\^\£\*Z-\<\Q/a\ ~\c\/Z\ ( _ | _ | [ |
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. Lli_|_J_ L- J— J-J—LJ NPDES No. I_J_ !-J_J__L-J_J_J_l
Grant No. I 2|"7|| 7| o\ J\ _ | _ |
3. Dat« of Document: Year Lllll Jj-£l Montn L£!±I Day l2J_Zl
4. Type of Document: a. EIS LJ b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan \A e. Negative Dec. \A f. FNSI LJ
Slocation: (Latitude /Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: PIT» Yz.\t-\o\o\b\ _ \/£
J-J—LJ-J- ..... I-..! -.ULJ— LJ-J— LJ— UULJ-J— I— L-L.I-J. -I— J— I— I— I.-I- LJ
LJ-J-ULJNH I I-J-LJ-J-LJ~JV I— !_J-I-J-J-I— LJN--LJ-LJ-L-LJ-I— LJV
I— LJ-L. LJ-I-J— 1N-LJ—LJ-LJ-J-I— LJW LJ_ l-l-J_J-l-J-JN~LJ_J-J-!-J-J-LJ_JW
LJ-J-L-LJ-LJ-JN-I I .LJ-LJ.J-LJ-JW I —I _M-J_ l-l I .IN~.| | | |-l I H | |W
6.1ssue: \-L\& |T| £\&\&-\ e\t-\Afr\ Parameter l^.liLJ5J^.LL£J _ 1^ I *\ ^ I ^ J^_l7 I Tt/ >g I Jl _ I
7. Type of Impact: l-r^Tl • Quantiative ) (2 • Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
r
L..I-I .-LJ-J-J-J-J ........ I ..... I-..J— U
-J— I-J^I— I— I— I
— U.I.-J—
J-J—LJ—LJ— LJ— LJ
— 1^1— I— LJ— L- 1— 1-J
LJ-J-J_J
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: l-Lj-Zl-,LI— I-J— U LJ-J— LL-.LJ-J-J.. I I . -I ,, I I— L-LJ
10. Baseline Conditions: Year |/|?.I7.|5| .
I I I I I J 4- I I I I
_!_J_l— L-LJ— L_L_L_LJ_]-J-J._!-_I_L-LJ_J
LJ— LJ— I— LJ— LJ^J . I LJ— LJ— LJ— LJ-J-J-J-J— L-. UL. ,.l .-I^I-J—I-J-J-. LJ -I-J
l_m_LI-J— I—I— I-ULJ-J-J-J-J— LJ-J-J-J—LJ— I ..... I J. UUUi— 1-J— i— LJ-J
L-LJ— LJ-J-J-LJ— UL- 1— I—I— I-J-J-J—LJ-J— I—I-J— I—I— I-J-J-I—I-. I— LJ— LJ-J
Ul— I— I— I-J-J_LJ_) .,1 ..... l_l— LJ— LJ— LJ— LJ— U.LJ—ULJ— I— U— I—LJ- L. I..J-J
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year
2±2^^
I-J— LJ_!_1_ I— I— I— 1— 1— LJ_LJ— !-J-J—L.I-J_ !_ I^J-J—LJ-J— 1— !_ !_!_!— 1_ L. !_J
I—L.LJ_!__I-!«J_J— U I— !-!— I-I-J— I— LI_I_!-I-I-J-J_LJ— I-LU!— J— I— l_!_l_l
I— I_LJ_-U1U— !-J_J— LJ— I-J—I— I— I— J—L-I-J-J— I— J-l— LJ— LJ-J-J-J— I— L-LJ— I
I— LJ_J_J_!_L- I—I-J— L. I— I— I— I— 1— I— U!_l— !_!_I_J-J_L- 1_ I_LJ_I— LJ— L_ I— I-J
J
D-7
-------
-r i,.•_'
-,TO ALL :N:z:£sr;r c-;;"~r,:"-:'": Acm;ciE3 ATD PUBLIC GT.CVT: AKD cinri' -•;
iapact s:aZi=en~3, az cr.-"ir~r.z£-ril revisv hi3 bee- ;-•'.• rfor— _>i an -i-.; t,rc-
pcsad I?A scries idc.-.rifiad bslov. A suxr^ry cf the pr:;-i:r and its ^^.j.r
inpacrs -ir.d a ioc^ri^r. 3cp are attached.
r,a=z cf Apriicar.t: City of St. Cloud, M±r.nc?.sota
Planning Area: Corporate linits of ths Cities cf St. Cloud, I'nite Park, Sank Rapids,
Sarcali, St. Joseph, and St. Aujrusta and surroun.dii-,3 arias. i-IL or pr.rti cJ St. Cloud.
St. Josepr, St. Wer.ddl, St. Ai-uct^, ^LLr.d;.-., l!.-.v-3r., Savic ac-ids, ar,d Le Sael: Tovnshi;
?rsoc5=d ?rcject(s): Constru'_tlcv. of i sanilary interceptor sar. ri- relieve cocbir
sewer cvcr'loxvs to the ILL. £i=-ri;-pi ~_vir. Locaticn of sar.it^ry i.-.:i-.:ctrtor se%-er if-
shavii cr. inclosed rtj-.
Estl-ated rrrject Ccsz: Step 2: $106,000
Step 2: 4.4 Millior.
?37ar.ri.-l :.?sr.i:.* 7i.-sn-iil ihars: Step 2: ^0,CtJ
S£it-. 3: 3.3 llillica
The -~-:i.~" process did r.ot ir.dica.a that significant er-viro.-j^ental 11-7acts
would rr=ul; frcn ths proposed scticn. Ar.y siznifitint advarss ir.ract v=ra
eli-ir.3.z-.l by ra'
-------
1. Project Location - Sas attached cap
2. Purpose of Project: Construction of a scsltary Interc&rCor sever that \:i:1
relieve raw savage discharges to the Mississippi River and will reduce to tl: .
anauat of clear water conveyed and treated at the vastevater treat^r.t pla^...
Se.parat.ion. of cc^ined sanitary and stora severs will be undertaken, ar a -
later date at local expenses.
Nature and Extent of Lsnc Use Changes: xhe project is ejected to only
slightly stimulate land duvelopseat ir. ths service area. This will occur
through the provision of adaqiiate intsrceptor and truah capacity to sparsely
developed areas. Land use changer, vill also occur along the route of the
interceptor in the fora of tree ruayval.
4. Major Prinary and Secondary impacts of the Project on the
Icproved water quality in the Mississippi River arid'reduce vastevat^.r cocts.
Tree removal along the route of the interceptor. This hns been mini-ized
by selecting an altemativa interceptor routa with a. majority of An-?.rican
Elm trees whose longevity is limited by the Dutch Elm Di^aisc. All tress
removed will be replaced by niniium 2 1/2" dianetar stock on a one-for-one
basis.
D-10
-------
j --^,
' '
;• ~ir
H; «
RECOMMENDGD ROUTE
•».
.-:--.. t'--.
. 't-lt *- ?' •
»••
' ji
i I.
.p.i vis i ON
-7..
1ST.
I STT
.. -. .. . -5
•: ' I ' •'• •'\ ,
' ^1 f • "i '
"-..::•- /f* '' '. •'
. * V+ I ~*
*-:.., :rte-
...
J
. « I I •'• I5 i
•.^ : { I V: ; J' "J • !
; s L J \> .1. •-• i I • :
- j ... / § \-. «[LeW i-j i
" ' • C.IT § \",. ' - r -j - - ---.--,
. )
i: i
I I S_J
i. a:.
•' •
X
D-n
-------
**v^ W^-iv&K
J&fy&^£ -^Wl
f\\A<:;: • • ^ i, * \v\O:
-------
APPENDIX D-2
BLOOMINGTON EIS CASE STUDY
-------
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
EVALUATION FOR.M
Project Name ISMuHHl loklolol^i Mdltlo kl/IUftlKJ €J
Needs (Facility No.)
NPDES No.
Grant No. |c|t |&|p|r|fe|o| | | | |
Date of Document: Year [ (|f["?|fc| Month \b\f\ Day | j |
Type of Document: a. EIS |*| b. EA |_j c. EID |_J d- Facilities Plan |_|
e. Negative Dec. |_J f. FNSI |_J
Location: (Latitude/LongitudeXdegree/minute/second) or Political Jurisdiction:
o
t
N-
N-
N-
*l
••
-
-
— ,
-
-
Pa
ra
W
W
W
meter:
Tl
••
-
-
c
*l
-------
EVALUATION FORM 'Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year / 9.T (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
13. Actual Current Conditions: Year [ lfo|j*|w} (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
._ character spaces)
ft* v t a •a.Jxt>'o«, Ce^af-^'fg f^-.'ts i^>-«»«»g *•£& i ~t«. L fo V r?A:JTe*(
16. Regulations in Effect:
A. Baseline:
Today:
B. Baseline:
Today:
C. Baseline:
Today:
17. Reviewer: [j|c|vj| 18. Date of Review: Year | ([flflSl Month |fl |l| Day | | |
19. Title of Narrative Report: I II I I I I I I I I I I I I II | | [ | | I I |
20. Location of Narrative Report: [^
D-14
-------
1
2.
3,
4.
6.
7.
8.
EVALUATION FORM
Project Name |&[C|O|TJM| |ojUo|oH I HcHok|/|l|fl H€| H°
Needs (Facility No.) | I | ! I | I M M I NPDES No. | | I I
Grant Ne. [ t \\ fe lot JJ4 [ol | I [ [
i i i i i i
Day
Month
ft S
Date of Document: Year I ([?["? |^
Type of Document: a. EIS [___] b. EA j [ c. EID j | d. Facilities Plan | |
e. Negative Dec. [_J f. FNSI |_j
Location: (Latitude/Longitude)(degree/minute/second) or Political Jurisdiction:
[m|o|«[«|a|ft| [«|o[t/[K|T|y[ IrNI i | [ [ [ [ | | | | | | | | | [ I I
^
"•
N-
N-
-
I
*m
|kl|£JTJldf*| Ifilfk
C
-
V
W
u
Parameter:
-
Irli
u
T|
j
-
d
T ' i
N-
N-
N-
0 \AI
\
-
W
V
w
1
Type of Impact: [gj (1 - Quantitative) (2 » Qualitative)
Prediction: (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
/"r
r f
1^. /» ^ ^
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year l|_
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
X . . -A. . /
or ^i/ggs (+1-* 4 /if I'r^
D-15
-------
EVALUATION FORM . Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year ( ^^^ (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
(+ r**-0^LZT
13. Actual Current Conditions: Year ( I \1\f\<4\ (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
f\J 0 rr><» *< *, s*,bfm fl f O^i^^^^jf £
•fa
a >»» >^r •» /W^» >- c. t~jf?t£ **
IM*J r* frts '. ^"^ * v ___ ^*-i-'*^' --
14. DataBase: |^[l|c|HH^| [/[fifr |^|L [r|C| |~| fj)
15. Summary: (Code \+\ \ | ) (limited to 360 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
16. Regulations in Effect:
A. Baseline: I M
Today: | I | M | | I I I M | I I I I I I ! I I I M I I I M
B. Baseline:
Today: | | | | [ | | | | | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
C. Baseline: | | [ | | [ | | | [ | | [ | | | | | | I I | I I | | | | I M
Today: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 | | | | || | I I I I I I I
17. Reviewer: {^JCJ^ 18. Date of Review: Year | l|*)«ffcl Month J£J3J Day | [ }
19. Title of Narrative Report: | | I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I
20. Location of Narrative Report: I
D-16
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. |5 JCJU |Ti )4| fg) Ljg|.O|M| _J |A/|6 |T \o j*jj/ \ i_| 4(]gL|
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. UJJ£L3USJJUJSJ2J£liJ NPDES No. l=| • U 1 J I ,J— I— I— I
Grant No. I ! l?l° l^l^
3. Date of Document: Year LUlQj£j Month iai.£j Day L=O=J
4. Type of Docuioent: a. EIS U3"b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
3.Location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: I.Bj^P tt*M' l
LJ L i i i _
N-i I I^J-LJ-J-LJ-JIT I^LJ-LJ-J-i I . . IN-
I— LJ-LJ—I-L-LJN-LJ—LJ-UI-J-I-J— 1¥ I— LJ-LJ—H .I-JN-
U LJ-I— I— I-I-J— IN-UL-LJ-LJ-J-I-J—IV I— I-J-I-J— l-l— LJN-
6.1ssue: |P|M-)yi |g|/.J_J— !_J-J— I— LJ-J
U LJ— I-J-J— LJ-J-J— LJ—1— I— !—!_!_!— I—I— !_I_!-J-J— LJ— l_l— I— I—I— I— L-L_IU
U—LJ-J-J—LJ—I-J-J— I-J— UI-J-J-J-J— I-J— I-J-J-J-J-J— I—I—I—I— I—I— !
I— L-LJ—I—I-J^J-J— I-J-J— I— I— I_J_!-J— LJ-J-J—I-J-J— L_!__ !_I_J_I_!__!— I_LJ_J
UULJ— LI-JU-J^LJ-J-J— I— I— J~J— UL- I—I— I— 1— 1~J~ I I— I-J-J^J-J— I-J— LJ-J
D-17
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear \l\q\*\l*\
\
I i i I M I M I i I I I I I I I ! ! M _ ! _ I _ ! _ t I I _ I I I \ -. I I I \ \
I i i I ; I [ I ; i f ( i i i | I I I i i I | I I I I I [ | | I | i i i |
' || | | || || | | | T || | | | \ || | || _ | _ || | | _ |_J _ I ' I I I T I
II i | | | ill || f i } | | |_| |_|__| _ | _ | _ j_|_|._| _ |_ | I 111 I ..I I I
I I i I i i I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I I I | I _ | | | | | | 4 _ | | | t I
13. Actual current conditions:
T
J_J__I_J
- I » \ I I I I f I I I t I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I f I ' I ' ' ' I
I t T I I I | I | I | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I I |
| | | | | | | | | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | | | | | j { | | | | | | | t {
| I | | I | | | | | | I | t \ | | | f | | [ ) _ | _ | { | | | | | | | | | \ |
{ \ \ | ; _ | || | f | f || | ) _ | | | | | | | | _ | | | | | | | t | | | | |
14. Data Base: 1^1 ^ 1^1 H^l \T\G-\1\P\ I I I I I I 1 I 1 I ) _ I I I 1 .1 I I I I I I
13. Summary: ( Code I I I )
Vf
)T)A |T| / )g|A/| | | i | i | i I I I | i ) i | | | ) | | || i . f j j | j |
II | LJ | | | ; i | t f t | | | | | | I I I | | | | | [ | | | | ; t |
I I I I I I | | | i i f [ i t t | | j LJ_J | j | | | | i | || t || t
I I I I I | | | | i [ | | i | j | | | [ | | | | | [ | | LJ Ml1!!
[_j__l | |_J_LJ ; j | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | '[ ; t | t | |
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: \4-\°}c \F]f2-\ ^1 I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f f I I I I I
Today: l
-------
1,
2.
3.
4.
project Name
EVALUATION FORM
bit. lola Iml .' Idla-Ha kl/k |A|K|& I
Needs (Facility No.) | [
Grant No. Id »Mo|?U|0|
NPDES No.
Date of Document: Year l
Month |o)S| Day [ ) |
Type of Document: a. EIS [Xj b. EA |_] c. EID j_j d. Facilities Plan j_J
e. Negative Dec. |_J f. FNSI j_|
Location: (Latitude/LongitudeXdegree/minute/second) or Political Jurisdiction:
lc|o|oNr|y| UN
-\ -j N-
N-
N-
6. Issue: |ui|ATff* '|0|<>AL
7. Type of Impact: [2J (1 » C
8. Prediction: (limited to 288
(*/(C*»f 'jiJau. J r*
-j W -1 -I N-
W N-
W N-
Parameter: f F \/F \^\V JE^A^jr|
luantitative) (2 - Qualitative)
alpha-numeric and blank characte
t.e-'t *&(M.t»'t l"*n/ii
-I -j w
w
w
L / *\t TS |
r spaces)
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year I
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
11.
Predicted for end of planning period: Year || [f [f \Q | (limited to 288 alpha-numeric
and blank character spaces)
r r - r ~-
3. O -*, /i ijj'i-.-Tt.^
D-19
-------
EVALUATION FORM
Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year (
* J"
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
13. Actual Current Conditions: Year
g" FF<~ev*- f.«W/'n
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
cs. -
f« ~
TP -
- 3 ~*«
r.o
- Q.I
14. Data Base:
y ggopc
15. Summary: (Code «H I ) (limited to 360 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
~t*o
16. Regulations in Effect:
A- Baseline:
B. Baseline: |_ I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I
Today: [_
C. Baseline:
Today:
.1
MM
1
k)j 18. Date of Review:
|
Year I/I
1
*\*\*
|
Month
0 [3
| |
Day i
19. Title of Narrative Report:
20. Location of Narrative Report:
D-20
-------
3,
4.
6,
7,
8.
Project Name .So
EVALUATION FORM
gl I* \0\ I /V &TJ3 k/LftK>lf
Needs (Facility No.)
Grant No. |d( UH
NFDES No.
Date of Document: Year | ( |^|^U | Month Q|£ Day
Type of Document: a. EIS \£\ b. EA j j c. EID j | d. Facilities Plan | |
e. Negative Dec. [_J f. FNSI |_J
Location: (Latitude/Longitude)(degree/minute/second) or Political Jurisdiction:
IcIolul/vlTM lltrtl I I I I I I M I I I I I I I III
-
N-
N-
N-
-
MAlT|e>| laM/a
-
W
W
W
Parameter:
-
-
N-
N-
N-
-
/vbkld i|r|£|c|/|r(/
eH
-
w
w
w
1
Type of Impact: j^J (1 - Quantitative) (2 » Qualitative)
Prediction: (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
^» ff v^4 ^. T^;tf /• xvf ~^»t ^y x Q y^ ^» ^>^ » ^f^" / ** ^xj a ^"r* x' ^ &•** I. *•?
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year 11
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
..-to.' J.-tt
I* * •£
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year
-f*
+ //f*
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric
and blank character spaces)
D-21
-------
EVALUATION FORM
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year [
«f__M
Page 2
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
13. Actual Current Conditions: Year
* » («»
t. r*> •* «i T
(United to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
r
*V*« *'
-t
l^O.M^^V "^r *"""
14. Data Base: kllk|ri|p)<|H JHg<0
15. Summary: (Code •f'l I ) (limited to 360 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
t/t., ^i s *"t* t -
16.
17.
19.
20.
Regulations in Effect:
A. Baseline:
Today:
B. Baseline:
Today:
C. Baseline:
Today:
Reviewer:
18. Date of Review: Year
Title of Narrative Report: I I I I I I I I I
Month
QJ Day
Location of Narrative Report:
D-22
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. Plgjjj IT l^f | BiLi OioiWj / )Aj]&]~T\O]kJ\/\L\A \ iqE.| \M\0 \*>\&\G
2. Needs(Faciiity) No. LLLiJJll0 lll°!° |O' * I NPDES No. I I I I J-.j | I I..-I
Grant No.
3. Date of Document: Year 1 ,1.1.3, 1. 7, 1 fa. I Month iPltl Day L^J-U
4. Type of Document: a. EIS Ud b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
^.Location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: |jaSd^J£JJ£JJJj£LUZJ£J
II II LI
l_LJ-LJ_J-LJ_JN~l_LJ-J-l— LJ-I- 1_JW L-LJ-J-J-J-I-J— JN-I-J-J-J-LJ_I-LJ— j¥
L-LJ-LJ— I-U LJN-I I I hU LJ-LJ-Jtr L.I ,.I-LJ-J-I I ....... IN-LJ-J-J-L- I— I-UI— IV
I ' l-i ' H ' |*M i I u I 1-1 I |W LJ-J-L-LJ-L-LJN--LJ-J«I-LJ_ 1-U-LJW
6.1ssue: |W|A.|T ) £| g-f iai u|A|t-| Parameter: l^ioiPi i | I I | _ i i | I _ \ _ | | | _ | _ |
7. Type of Impact: t^J (l»Quaatiative) (2» Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
t3i i tu i f ^^L r
•
I I I I I _l ...
I ; I I I I _ iji _ | | i | i _ | i || | | | | _ | ; ii | i _ |_j _ | _ | _ | _ f | ; _ (
ill
J__|.-J:J_-|-.J_|-,.I I— I J -I I UJ, I I II I I I I
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: 1^1 JLJ Jll__ I^.IJUJ£J^^!-J— LJ_J_J_J— LJ— J
10. Baseline Conditions: Year UillZl&J
! I ^t ^LgLJJkl-fj^J^lLJ / -I ^1
\ l • I I I I I .J_l I I I I I I II I I I \ )_l I J _ L-L-I-J-J-J _ U.LJ_.J-_J_J
I— LJ— ULJ-J-J— I^L_LJ-J— LJ_J-J_U LJ— I— !— I-J-J—L-LJ— U-J— I— I— I— LJ— I
UUL-ULJ— LJ-J I I.-IU— LJ— I—I— U I-J-J— I— I— IU .. I.-L.I— I-IU-U— I— I—LJ-J
1 1 . Predicted for end of planning period: Year
\£\^
L. LJ_J— I— LJ-J— LJ— I— 1— I— LJ-J— LJ— I—!—!— 1-J-J— LJ—I— I— !_I_J>J_L-.I— I-J
LJ_J_!-_UIU_J_I__U UU1— I— LJ— I— LJ-J-J-I-J-J-J-J— LJ_I— LJ-J_J_J_LJ
— LJ-J-J— I— LJ-I-J— I— I-J-J—LJ-J— 1-l-J-J— L.I— I-J— I— I— I—I— L-LJ-J
J— l_l— I— 1— I— I-J— I-J— I— I— I—I-J— I— I- 1 LJ— I— LJ-J— L.LJ—LJ
D-23
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year I1 ft |3 |^|
/S '-^-8 9g •••
/ | ) til I II I I It I -»- I II \ lit II I _ | | | | I I I \ I It 1 I
I _ I | i | I | _ j _ | || | | I I I I I I I I _ |_J_J _ ! _ ! _ I _ L t I I I i I I I I
| I I [ I I _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | I I _ | _ j _ J _ I _ I _ t I I I I i I I
13. Actual current conditions:
0 / /V ST £
\A-\8\o \t/\tt \f-\- 6
H. Data Bas«: \P\<-\A-\*-> \T\ \&\ ^^-l^j^-t^l^l | | I "t I I I I I I" ' I I ! I I ! I I
13. Summary: ( Code I I I )
t
i » i
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: I _ I ' I I 1 I I ' I ' I I I I I I ! _ I_J_J__J_J _ I _ I f t I I ! I
_ I _ _. — _ _ | | | | | 111 I _ I
B.Baseline: i I I ' I I I I I ' I I I ' I I I ' * I _ 1 | I _ 111)' _ ! _ ! _ I
Today: I _ I _ ' l[l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | | _ |
CBaseline: L_ LJ_J_ I I I I I I T I I I I I t I I I I | | I | | I I L I I *
Today: I _ I _ I I | | I I I | | | I I | | | I ) I I | | | | | | i ; | [
17. Reviever: ' I ' I 18. Date of Review Year I I I I I Month LJ-J Day I I I
19. Title of Narrative Report * ' ' ' ' I I I I M I ! I M ' I I t I I I t I I I
20. Location of Narrative Report I I I | f I I | I I f | _ I_J _ I I M M I I J _LI *
D-24
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Tear 1 1. ft I
•
in
•' UUL-UL- L-LJ-J— I— L4_l-,'l I..LJ r I • UUUU Ul— i I Ui-J— ULJ— I— LJ-J
UUL-UUL-LJ-J I I t— Ul i I I I I UI-JU-J-J~UI~I~I-JU~I-J— U— LJ
I | | | | | | { | | | ; | 11)111 | | } | | _ I _ | | f | | | | I i I I i
13. Actual current conditions:
ST £
f-\> 5 l/3
" 14. Data Base: I PlHA \/J\T\ f^l ^t^l0^!^!^! I I I '\ I I I I \ \ I I I I ' \ I I I
13. Summary: ( Code I I I )
I i I I I I { I I I I I _ I I I I I _ I I I I I [ I I I ' f f f
II ij i i i _ j _ i i i j _ j _ i i i _ i i i _ i _ i _ i _ i _ i _ i i i i i i i i I i i i i
I _ | \ | _ | i | _ | _ | i i { f | | | | | f | | | | f _ I I ! I _ I I f I i ' I I !
I_J_LJ_J_J _ | | | t | | | | | | _ | | j | | | _ i _ | _ | | } j || j i _ | I | | I
i ii _ _
16. Regulations in Effect:
A.Baseline: | _ ' ' I ' I I I ' ' ' I ' I I I I I _ L_LJ_J_J_I _ | | _ | | II I
Today: I _ ! _ I I I I I I ! I _ I I ! I 1 I I I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ ! _ I _J. I I I L I I
B.Baseline: I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I f I I ! t 1 I I I _ I _ | II I I _ !_J
Today: LJ_I I I f i I f I I I I LJ I i l_l I I I I . l. I I I I [ [ |
CBaseline: 1— LJ-J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | | | | |
Today: I— l_l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | I I ( | \ i | ; ;
17. Reviewer: I^J I I 18. Date of Review Year MM _ | Month ! _ | _ 1 Day |_ l |
19. Title of Narrative Report I II II t I I I I I I I I ( I I t ( I t f f ( ( ; j
20. Location of Narrative Report: I I I t I I t I M_ I . I I II I *• M I I I J_|_J
D-24
-------
Evaluation Form
1. Project Name. is;oiu |Ti#| 1 13|L|O|Q|jH| / i/Ql6lTiOi/l/|/iLi/Q i )C|£| \M\o \b\&\c
2. Needs(Facility) No. ' -' \3\i\o\i\O\o\o\\\ NPDES No. I I _..|_J J I | | | |
3. Date of Document: Year lLlll?lfel Month I.O.IJ1I Day LILLJ
4. Type of Document: a. EIS Ld b. EA LJ c. EID LJ d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
5. Location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: l?lc I ° 1° -»*-M -l.^.|* |T-Jg I
'**!./ l^l^l^l^l0 .!-*•< _.|g|0|-^M/i .li^L lx 1^1 II I If I Mill11 _ | | III
LJ-J-LJ-J-UUIN-I ,1 ,LH-J_H— LJV LJ-J-LJ-J-I I IN-L. LJ-J-LJ— 1-UI-JV
U LJ-L_L-I-|— 1— IN~l_LJ_i-l-J-J-l-J_IV L.,L.,.hL-LJ-»- I. JN-L-L-LJ-i.J-.i-ULJV
I— LJ-LJ-J-LJ-JNH I |_J-I— I-J-I^I-JW ULJ-L_L- H_LJN~LJ_J— H_ LJ-UI-JV
6.1ssue: 1^1 AH I £j *-l \&] u{A'H Parameter: ISI^J^I < III J^J_i_l_L»l-J|^l_l_J|mJ
7. Type of Impact- L2J (1-Quantiatiye) (2- Qualitative )
8. Prediction:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 L— LJ L±J_J_L
1 1 1 1 1 i 1 J 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
III I 1 1 1
| 1 | | | | |
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1
J 1 I I I 1 I l i l l l l l l l l l t l l
| | | | 1 | | I I I l l l l i i f l l l l i i i i i t i
!_.!._.!, .1,. 1 J 1.,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9. Source of NEPA Document Data: 1^1 JU JJ__ lAl JJJil^lj^LJ— LJ-J-J-J— J_J-J— 1—l—l-J— LJ
J—U1—!-J_J_LJ—I—1-J-J-J-J-J—LJ_LJ_LJ-_LJ—L-I—LJ—I—1—LJ-J—LJ
J-J—I-J—L. LJ-J—L_LJ_I_I__I—I—I—I—I—UI_U!-J-J_L_I_I_U—I—I—!_J—LJ.
_I_LJ_I-J—1_J_J-J_J-J_I—I—I—J_J—I—LJ-J—I—I—I—I—LJ_J_J_J_J_J-J_L_LJ-J
1 1 . Predicted for end of plannin g period: Year lZ.L£l£_l.£l
[&&&&^^
|-1-LJ_J-J-J— IU-J—LJ— LJ— LJ— I— I— I— LJ— I-J-J— 1-J— I— J-J_J— I— J— I— L_L-1_J
|_J_J_J_ LJ— I«LJ— I— I.J-1— I-J-J-J— I__1_I>_!_J_1_J-J-L_I— I-J-J— !_J— LJ_ULJ
I—LJ—L. I-J-J-J-J-J-J— I— I— I_I_J—I_I— L.I-.I— I— 1-J-J— !— I— I_J^I_!__I_I_I— L.I-J
I_L-LJ_J_!_!_I-J— LJ_J— I—I—I-J-J— LJ-J— I— I— I_I_J_LJ_-I— I_J— J-J-J— L-LJ-J
D-23
-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
EVALUATION FORK
Project Name LsloMrUI \6 k Irtlo \t4 i Mfetr |o
lKJg| Ufol/vklo Ifi!
Needs (Facility No.)
NPDES No.
Grant No. |c| | |s|QJ5|6 |p|
Date of Document: Year I
Month \O\f\ Day
Type of Document: a. EIS j^CJ b. EA |__| c. EID j_| d. Facilities Plan j_j
e. Negative Dec. |_| f . FNSI |_|
Location: (Latitude/Longitude) (degree/minute/second) or Political Jurisdiction:
ldolj»A/lT|y|
Issue:
-
-
0(rUg-
N-
N-
N-
'< i-*mt*
11.
Predicted for end of planning period: Year [/ |f[?\(| (limited to 288 alpha-numeric
and blank character spaces)
D-25
-------
EVALUATION FORM .- Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year ( (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
C^^wx -f /( _
13P. Actual Current Conditions: Year 1 ^^r (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
j.'ii** f .'-r««»> <^.fft-.t l**-j*ic»»*J
L4. DataBase:
15. Summary: (Code -^ ( ) (limited to 360 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
r +
1'6. Regulations in Effect:
A. Baseline: | M I ! ! I I I ! | ! | ! I I I ! | ! M I I I I I I I I i j I j
Today :
B. Baseline:
Today:
C. Baseline:
Today:
17. Reviewer: |jjc|u| 18. Date of Review: Year \\ |^|^|d Month [o[3| Day
19. Title of Narrative Report: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20. Location of Narrative Report: | | j [ [ [ [
D-26
-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Project Name loor
EVALUATION FOR.V
o ' 6 ^ la 1- *
Needs (Facility No.)
NFDES No.
Grant No. |c| f \g \0 |r[4 | Q|
Date of Document: Year
Month |a|j?) Day [ | |
Type of Document: a. EIS [xj b. EA [_[ c. EID j_j d. Facilities Plan j_j
e. Negative Dec. |_j f. FNSI J_J
Location: (Latltude/Longitude)(degree/minute/second) or Political Jurisdiction
i
o\
T
*kl
N-
N-
N-
«l |
f Impact: 1*2,
1
<•<
-
-
W
W
w
-
-
Parameter: |T|^|^jP|p
(1 - Quantitative) (2
f
C
N-
N-
N-
I
-
-
W
W
W
I
- Qualitative)
Issue:
Prediction: (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
LO. Baseline Conditions: Year |_[_
/Vfc
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric
and blank character spaces)
D-27
-------
EVALUATION FORM
Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year:
_ A/«> S.
Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
13. Actual Current Conditions: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
14. Data Base: Ml Ic.
15. Summary: (Code p-| t | ) (limited to 360 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
<. c ~* s aT>_/ ^
16. Regulations in Effect:
A. Baseline:
Today:
B. Baseline:
Today:
C. Baseline:
Today:
17. Reviewer: \~T\C \ fc| 18. Date of Review: Year |/ |f|f |5l Month |lf?| Day | | |
19. Title of Narrative Report: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20. Location of Narrative Report:
D-28
-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
Project Name
EVALUATION FORM
gJo d/ / 6 °
Needs (Facility No.)
NFDES No.
Grant No. |c| ( \X\ O|Y| 6|o| | | | I
Date of Document: Year [ i)?}"?^ ) Month |of?| Day
Type of Document: a. EIS [)<| b. EA ) [ c. EID | j d. Facilities Plan | j
e. Negative Dec. [_| f. FNSI [_|
5. Location: (Latitude/Longitude)(degree/minute/second) or Political Jurisdiction:
—
-
-
6. Issue:
-| N-
N-
N-
f\ \^*\^T$^\&.
-j W -1 -1 N
W N
W N
Parameter: Kfek K 6 Idlrl/
-j -j W
W
W
Olrfl
7. Type of Impact: |2LJ (1 - Quantitative) (2 - Qualitative)
8. Prediction: (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
t'n*'* -e. J s-ec..
/• T»~!" .'O^ a ( e A~ 0 •*?<"*., '~F* 4
9r> dl?A,~ C*e.ek.
• ' f
9. Source of NEPA Document Data
: M I
! i
10. Baseline Conditions: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
etr* *?&•
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year
i a
"
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric
and blank character spaces)
,^f -t
D-29
-------
EVALUATION FORM Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year [( |9|?)5"l (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
5*. ~* f * f II
13. Actual Current Conditions: Year [ ( |9|?|^"| (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
P*le><-jS f« tr^gfc, f e^l &*'•+ e ~
16. Regulations in Effect:
A. Baseline: I I I I
Today:
B. Baseline:
Today:
C. Baseline:
Today:
17. Reviewer: |nJ6|^| 18. Date of Review: Year |( |? [/{5"| Month |<3 \* \ Day | | |
19. Title of Narrative Report: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20. Location of Narrative Report:
D-30
-------
1
2.
3,
4.
EVALUATION FORM
Project Name $outH| ff\L JVp M /
Needs (Facility No.)
Grant *No. Id
NPDES No.
Date of Document: Year {( |«»|? [fe | Month [p|gj Day | | |
Type of Document: a. EIS [^j b. EA [_J c. EID |_J d. Facilities Plan | j
e. Negative Dec. |_j f. FNSI [_j
Location: (Latitude/Longitude)(degree/minute/second) or Political Jurisdiction:
M
—
-
-
6. Issue:
7. Type of
8. Predict!
-I N-
N-
I - N-
<5irlwld^J
-j W -j -j N-
- W N-
1 - W N-
Parameter: i£lf?lA>|rt|rl CO i
-j -j W
W
W
v*/ r,-ts\ £*s*~rL /l.^^.Vfc flkr't"*f« ^.'o.-v . ^. T'nCt.'a^ S»**,'s*Ji
Hr Co^t^^T'-^^ r •*.*•<. -«e«P feJ#-«.t a^ ^1-*T*
' t 4-*-Jf*-Jt*
9. Source of NEPA Document Data
: 1 1 II i
10. Baseline Conditions: Year \\ \*l [7 |T| (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
II. Predicted for end of planning period: Year
_ fy/ A
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric
and blank character spaces)
D-31
-------
EVALUATION FORM . Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year | | [ | | (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank (
character spaces)
13. Actual Current Conditions: Year \\ |^|?|S| (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
_ r »« .'a «-.'ty * //^ t"»m~ft.. £C.*»-sf mf** Jig-* + . Via ~S>~t'4*\m~t
o t*_
14. Data Base:
15. Summary: (Code "H ( ) (limited to 360 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
•—(—-»
.-T (La^^i"r,e>^ -t «. 1±,']/* Jf
16. Regulations in Effect:
A- Baseline: | | M I I I ! | M I j ! M I I I i M I | I I i I I I I j I
Today: | | M | I I ! | I I I I I I I I I I M I I M I I I M I I [
B- Baseline: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I I M I I I I I I I I I
Today: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | [ | | | | | | | | [ | [ [ | | [ | |
C. Baseline: M M M M M M M M M M' M M M M M M I
Today: | [ [ [ | | I [ | [ | M
17. Reviewer: ^j& |K/| 18. Date of Review: Year |j |l|f Ifl Month \Q\3\ Day | | |
19. Title of Narrative Report: | | | | | M M | [ M M M | I | [ M M
20. Location of Narrative Report: I M M M M M I I I | I I I I I | M I
D-32
-------
1.
2.
3.
A.
5.
6.
7.
8.
EVALUATION FORM
Project Name |£|O|U|T[H| |g| L|O | o\a\ /I/VJ6 \T\Q \A^/\L\t\\ E| c|
Needs (Facility No.) | | | | | | | | | | | | NPDES No. |_
Grant No. |c[l [f |QJ5^4|c>) | | | I
Day | | |
Date of Document: Year [ (\"?\~7\ 6| Month
Type of Document: a. EIS |£J b. EA j_j c. EID J_| d. Facilities Plan j_|
e. Negative Dec. |___| f. FNSI [_|
Location: (Latitude/LongitudeXdegree/mlnute/second) or Political Jurisdiction:
9
—
-
-
1
u
e
N
N
N
^
«•
-
-
— ,
-
-
—
-
-
Pa
ra
W
W
W
meter:
f!
—
-
-
R
p
W
«•
-
-
T
C
N-
N-
N-
0!/H
P
,
—
-
-
r
y
O
—
-
-
^
W
W
W
1
Type of Impact: J2J (1 - Quantitative) (2 - Qualitative)
Prediction: (limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
'im-fcv't' kg. t I .rf ,»v e./ • » £ I-Ajtj t
-------
EVALUATION FORM
Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
13. Actual Current Conditions: Year I!
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
"*! iff
14. Data Base:
1**0
15. Summary: (Code -H ^ ) (limited to 360 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
16. Regulations in Effect:
A. Baseline:
Today:
B. Baseline:
Today:
C. Baseline:
Today:
17. Reviewer: ul
J_L
18. Date of Review: Year
Month
o3
Day
19. Title of Narrative Report:
20. Location of Narrative Report:
D-34
-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Project Name
EVALUATION FORM
|oM ' Mdrjo I/VJA
Needs (Facility No.)
Grant No,
NPDES No.
Date of Document: Year
Month
ff|y) Day | | |
Type of Document: a. EIS |*J b. EA |_J c. EID |_j d. Facilities Plan j_J
.e. Negative Dec. |_| f. FNSI |_|
Location: (Latitude/Longitude)(degree/minute/second) or Political Jurisdiction:
Issue:
4
—
-
-
T
H
€
N-
N-
N-
^
—
-
-
—
-
-
Pa
ra
W
W
W
meter:
c;
4BI
-
-
/v
A
(^
^^
-
-
M
i
c
N
N
N
1
lir
-
-
'
^
•d
—
-
-
c|
f
^
1
-
W
W
W
Type of Impact: | ( (1 - Quantitative) (2 - Qualitative)
Prediction: .(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank character spaces)
£r
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric
and blank character spaces)
D-35
-------
EVALUATION FORM
Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
13.
Actual Current Conditions: Year } I ["
18. Date of Review: Year J
Month 03 Day
19. Title of Narrative Report:
20. Location of .Narrative Report:
D-36
-------
3.
4.
5.
Project Name
EVALUATION FORM
ol o^ ( cro /v/C as
2. Needs (Facility No.)
NPDES No.
Grant No. \C\( |? |e?|$-|G|o|
Date of Document: Year
Month [o|g[ Day
Type of Document: a. EIS |£J b. EA |_[ c. EID [_| d. Facilities Plan |_J
e. Negative Dec. (__] f. FNSI [_|
Location: (Latitude/Longitude)(degree/minute/second) or Political Jurisdiction:
H H N~
N-
N-
6. Issue: |^|T|ri|c|^|
7. Type of Impact: J3j (1 - <
8. - Prediction: (limited to 28!
/ / ^
\1 / P
-I W -| -I N-
W N-
W N-
Parameter: |l/|w|A|/v|r 1 |c|l |
5uantitative) (2 - Qualitative)
3 alpha-numeric and blank characte
:
-| -| w
w
w
'\*\T\g\0\ \ |
r spaces)
9. Source of NEPA Document Data:
10. Baseline Conditions: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
11. Predicted for end of planning period: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric
and blank character spaces)
D-37
-------
EVALUATION FORM
Page 2
12. Predicted for Current Year: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
13. Actual Current Conditions: Year
(limited to 288 alpha-numeric and blank
character spaces)
a** re (
-------
sTA *'
1. Project Name.
2. NeedsCFaciiity) No. UlX
Grant No. iA Si Jil'ifcl
Evaluation Form
/ M\6\
\-\4-
NPDES No.
' ' '
3. Date of Document: Tear iLili 1,1.^1 Month |£|?.l Day L=HU
4. Type of Document- a. E1S LdV EA LJ c. £!D I_J d. Facilities Plan LJ e. Negative Dec. LJ f. FNSI LJ
^location: (Latitude/Longitude) ( deg-min-sec ) or Political Jurisdiction: l
° e M f-
I— LJ-LJ_J-U LJN-U L-LJ-ULJ-I— LJV
LJ— H I I-ULJNH , I LJ-U I-J-LJ-JV
I— i_J-LJ-J-l_lUN-UL-LJ-!-J-J-l_J-JV
6.1«ue: l±l£j^JUAlJ&£fiJ^I-J Parameter: \
7. Type of Impact:
S. Prediction:
I-J-JN-UL_UJ-L- LJ-L-LJW
1.. I ..... IN-I. I I .H.-L-H—LJW
I ,,IN~LJ-LJ-I I ....... I-ULJW
-------
Evaluation Form Page 2
12. Predicted for current year: Year 1
\%\| ; i i\ c\ <-\f=\£\ 'y?\o \ o\ \ \ ] ] _ ( [ | | | I I ' I I
EBaseline: I I I ' ! I I I I ' I ' I I ' _ I _ I _ I II _ L_J_J _ ! _ I I I I I _ ! _ |
Today: I I I I I I i I I I 1 1 I l_J I I LI I I I I | I f I I | I | ,
CBaseiine: L_LJ_ J....I...I I I t t I I 1 I I I t I I I I I I | I | | \ [ | ;
Today: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | i | | j
17. Reviever: kil
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL- 12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
-------
------- |