EIS-76-4918D
                 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
                 PROTECTION AGENCY
                 REGION V
         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                 DRAFT
                 Sewage Treatment Facilities
                 for the South Bloomington
                 and Lake Monroe Service Areas
                 Bloomington, Indiana
                 March 1976

-------

-------
                 Project No. C180560  01






         DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT


                           Foe


               SEWAGE TREATMENT  FACILITIES


 FOR THE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON AND LAKE MONROE SERVICE AREAS,


                   BLOOMINGTON,  INDIANA
                       Prepared  By  The


       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


                          REGION V


                    Chicago,  Illinois







                  With The  Assistance of


                 GILBERT  ASSOCIATES,  INC.


                  READING,  PENNSYLVANIA
                                   AP
CtaRO  L 60604-3590
VniCB&u,                             REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

                                   MARCH 1976

-------
                   SUMMARY SHEET



(X)  Draft



(  )  Final



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V, Chicago



1.  (X)  Administrative Action




    (  )  Legislative Action



2.  Descr iption of the Action



    Tne analysis of alternatives indicates that the needs of



the South Bloomington Service Area would most adequately be



served by a 15 MGD two-stage activated sludge sewage treatment



plant (STP) with sand filters located at the Dillman Road site.



(The present flow diversion of 2 MGD to the north STP will



continue.) Sludge treatment recommended is aerobic digestion,



concentration by centrifugation followed by composting,  agro-



nomic land spreading and/or landfilling of the processed sludge.



Discharge of the treated effluent will be to Clear Creek.



    Constructing a new sewage treatment plant at the Dillman



Road site will result in abandonment of the existing Winston



Thomas STP and will require the construction of a connecting



sewer  approximately 2 miles long paralleling Clear Creek from



the Winston Thomas plant site to the Dillman Road site.  The



South Bloomington Service Area is located in Monroe County,



Indiana.



3.  Environmental Impact



    Water



    Tne present waste load allocation on Clear Creek will be



met by the proposed project.  This will result in a significant



improvement in the existing water quality in Clear Creek.



                             i

-------
Increased siltation and temporary flow interruption may occur



during construction of the connecting sewer along Clear Creek.



and also from relocation and channelization of Clear Creek at



the Dillman Road site.



    Air Quality



    Dust generated from construction activities may temporarily



change ambient conditions.  No significant change in air quality



is anticipated from implementation of this project.



    Land Use



    Implementation of the project provides the opportunity for



growth to occur in the South Bloomington Service Area while



retaining centralization of sewer service consistent with the



geographic drainage area and the 20 year population projections.



    Biology



    Terrestrial plants and animals will be displaced by con-



struction activities.  Revegetation after construction will



provide some biological recovery.



4.  Alternatives Considered



    a)  Regionalization of the South Bloomington Service Area



    and the Lake Monroe Regional Waste District.



    b)  Continuing diversion of approximately 2 MGD to the



    North Bloomington Service Area STP for treatment.



    c)  Site Locations



        1)  4 sites on Clear Creek



        2)  1 site on Salt Creek



    d)  Treatment Processes



        1)  Activated Sludge



        2)  Pure Oxygen



                            ii

-------
    e)   Sludge Processing and Disposal - 9 alternative com-



    binations examined.



    f)   Discharge points



        1)   Clear Creek



        2)   Salt Creek



    g)   No  Action.



5.  Irreversibleand Irretrievable Commitment of Resources



    Capital, labor and energy expended in construction of the



proposed facilities.  Land use of the Dillman Road site (in-



cluding relocation of Clear Creek) for a sewage treatment



plant over  the useful  life of the proposed facilities and



associated  operation and maintenance costs.



6.  Feder al, State and Local^ Agenc ies Not if ied of this Action



    Federal



       Senator Birch Bayh



       Senator Vance Hartke



       Representative Lee Hamilton



       Representative John Myers



       Council on Environmental Quality



       Environmental Protection Agency



       Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky



       Department of the Interior



       Geological Survey



       Fish & Wildlife Service



       Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare



       Farmers Home Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana



       Forest Service



       National Park Service



                             iii

-------
    State



       Honorable Otis R. Bowen, M.D.



       Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board



       Indiana Highway Planning Commission



       Indiana Legislative Council



       Department of Natural Resources



       Planning, Service Agency, Department of Commerce




       Indiana Geological Survey




    Lqca.^



       Francis McCloskey, Mayor, City of Bloomington



       Monroe County Planning Commission



       City Environmental Control Commission



       City of Bloomington Utilities



       School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana



       University



       Chamber of Commerce



       Environmental Quality and Conservation Commission



       Lake Monroe Regional Waste District



6.   Dates



    Draft statement made available to :



The Council on Environmental Quality          March 1976



The Public                                    March 1976



Acknowledgements




    This document was prepared with the assistance of Gilbert



Associates, Inc. of Reading Pennsylvania.



    Portions of this Environmental Impact study were taken



directly from Gilbert Associates final report to USEPA.



11 Investigations of Key Issues ... for Sewage Treatment



                            iv

-------
 Facilities for the South Bloomington and Lake Monroe Service



Area, "(December 1975), the Facilities Plan  (December 1974)



and First Amendment (December 1975) for the Bloomington, Indiana -



Lake Monroe Area prepared by Black & Veatch, Kansas City, Missouri



and the "Lake Monroe Regional Waste District's Facilities Plan"



(October 1974) prepared by Beam, Longest & Neff, Inc., Indianapolis,



Indiana.
                              v

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary

Sheet
Acknowledgements
Chapter
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Chapter
A.
B.









Chapter
1 Background
Identification of Grant Applicants and Consultants
Desciption of the Applicants' Proposed Action
General and Specific Location of the Proposed Action
Water Quality and Water Quantity Problems in the Area
Other Water Quality and Quantity Objectives
Cost and Financing
History of Application
Issues Evaluated
2 The Environment Without the Proposed Action.
General
Detailed Description
1 . Climate
2 . Topography
3. Geology
4. Soils
5. Water Resources
6. Parks and Historical Sites
7 . Cemetary
8. Environmental Constraints
9. Air Quality
3 Issues and Alternatives
Page
i
iv

1-1
1-1
1-1
1-5
1-7
1-8
1-8
1-10

2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-2'
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-4

Task 1 Evaluation of Regionalization/Projected Population and

1
1


1









Land Use Patterns
.1 Issues, Basic Assumptions and Findings
.2 Population and Flow Projections
1.2.1 Summary of Findings
1.2.2 Flow Variations
.3 Population Projections/Demand Calculations
1.3.1 Introduction
1.3.2 Alternate Projections/Bloomington 201 Plan
1.3.3 Adjustments to Projections/1970 Under Reporting
1.3.4 Projected Population Distribution
1.3.5 Population Distribution and Sewer Service Areas
1.3.6 Variances with Bloomington 201 Plan Projections
1.3.7 Alternate Projections/Lake Monroe Regional Waste
District
1.3.8 The Seasonal and Second Home Market
3-1-1
3-1-1
3-1-3
3-1-3
3-1-4
3-1-6
3-1-6
3-1-6
3-1-8
3-1-8
3-1-9
3-1-10

3-1-12
3-1-19

-------
                            —2—
  1.4  Systems /Coordination and Compatibility with Projected
       Land Use Parterns                                       3-1-21
    1.4.1   Summary                                            3-1-21
    1.4.2   Coordination with City Land Use Plans              3-1-23
    1.4.3   Coordination with County Land Use Plans            3-1-24
    1.4.4   Plant Site and Environs/Land Use Compatibility     3-1-24

Task 2  Evaluation of Pure Oxygen Process                      3-2-1
Task 3  Renovation and Expansion of Winston Thomas Sewage
        Treatment Plant                                        3-3-1
Task 4  Plant Capacities                                       3-4-1
Task 5  Clear Creek Treatment Plant Tradeoffs Evaluation       3-5-1
Task 6  Present Worth Analysis                                 3-6-1
  6.1   Plant Site and Interceptor Alternatives                3-6-1
  6.2   Explanation of Present Worth Analysis for Interceptors 3-6-3
  6.3   Explanation of Present Worth Analysis for Site
        Development                                            3-6-3
  6.4   Evaluation of Interceptor Alternatives                 3-6-4
  6.5   Wastewater Treatment Systems                           3-6-5
    6.5.1  Land Application Alernative for Bloomington         3-6-5
    6.5.2  No Action Alternative                               3-6-7
  6.6   Present Worth Analysis - Smithville and Sanders        3-6-7
    6.6.1  Alternative No. 1 Sewage Treatment at Dillman Rd.    3-6-8
    6.6.2  Alternative No. 2 Sewage Treatment at the Caslon
           Treatment Plant                                     3-6-8
    6.6.3  Fairfax                                             3-6-8
  6.7   Project Costs                                          3-6-9

Task 7  Distribution of Costs                                  3-7-1
Task 8  Sludge Treatment and Disposal                          3-8-1
  8.1   Introduction and Summary                               3-8-1
  8.2   Sludge Production                                      3-8-2
  8.3   Unit Processes                                         3-8-4
    8.3.1  Aerobic Digestion                                   3-8-4
    8.3.2  Anaerobic Digestion                                 3-8-5
    8.3.3  Sludge Lagoon                                       3-8-6
    8.3.4  Sand Drying Bed                                     3-8-6
    8.3.5  Incineration                                        3-8-7
    8.3.6  Centrifuge                                          3-8-7
    8.3.7  Vacuum Filter                                       3-8-8
    8.3.8  Thickener                                           3-8-9
  8.4   Sludge Treatment Alternatives                          3-8-9
  8.5   Sludge Disposal Alternatives                           3-8-10
    8.5.1  Composting                                          3-8-10
    8.5.2  Soil Injection or Land Application                  3-8-10
    8.5.3  Sludge Lagoons                                      3-8-11
    8.5.4  Land Requirements for Injection or Surface
           Spreading                                           3-8-11
    8.5.5  Hauling Costs                                       3-8-13
    8.5.6  Sludge lagoon Costs                                 3-8-14
  8.6   Conclusion and Recommendations                         3-8-14

-------
                                  -3-
Chapter 4  Environmental Effects of Alternatives

     Task 9  Physical Environmental Impacts
       9.1  Impact on the Ecology
         9.1.1  General
         9.1.2  Aquatic Ecology
         9.1.3  Terrestrial Ecology
       9.2   Impact on the Visual Aesthetics
       9.3   Impact on the Traffic Pattern

     Task 10  Induced Development - Lake Monroe
       10.1   Introduction
         10.1.1  Regionalization Issue
         10.1.2  Other Questions and Considerations
              The Unique Role of the State of Indiana
              Sewer System Development
             Projected Land Use Patterns/Zoning
              Physical Constraints
              Discussion of Secondary Impacts
              Impact of Not Sewering Lake Monroe
10,
10,
10,
10,
10.6
10.7
     Task 11
       11.1
         11
         11
         11
         11
         11
       11.2
         11
         11
         11
         11.2
       Mitigative Measures for Minimizing Physical Effects
       Construction Activities
       ,1  Revegetation
       ,2  Pipe Crossings in Stream Beds
       3  Pipes Laid Parallel to Stream Banks
       4  Channel Relocations
       5  Tunneling Operations
       Plant Operation Activities
     2.1  Slduge Disposal by Land Application
     2.2  Odor Control
     2.3  Disinfection of Treated Sewage Effluent
       4  Visual Impact
  11.2.5  Clear Creek Recreation
  11.2.6  Zoning
4-9-1
4-9-1
4-9-1
4-9-1
4-9-6
4-9-8
4-9-9

4-10-1
4-10-1
4-10-1
4-10-1
4-10-2
4-10-4
4-10-5
4-10-7
4-10-8
4-10-9

4-11-1
4-11-1
4-11-1
4-11-2
4-11-3
4-11-4
4-11-5
4-11-6
4-11-6
4-11-6
4-11-8
4-11-8
4-11-8
4-11-9
       12.1   Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
              to the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented       4-12-1

       13.1   The Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of Man's
              Environment and the Maintenance anc( Enhancement of Long
              Term Productivity                                     4-13-1
Chapter 5  Conclusions and Recommendations

Chapter 6  Federal/State/Local Agency Comments and Public
           Participation

     A.  Federal Comments
     B.  State Comments
     C.  Local Agencies and Interest Groups' Coments
     D.  Letters From Individuals
                                                             5-1


                                                             6-1

                                                             6-2

-------
                               -4-
Plates

1.  Alternative Regional Sewage Treatment Plants
2.  Existing & Proposed Sewage Transmission
3.  Recommended Plan
4.  Demand Centers - Lake Monroe Area

-------
                                    -5-
                                APPENDICES
A.  Physical Parameters

    A.  Municipal Waste Loads                                      A-l
    B.  Receiving Water Quality                                    A-A
    C.  Winston Thomas Wastewater Plant Flow Measurements          A-10
    D.  Sludge Composition                                         A-13
    E.  Effluent Limits for the Proposed South Bloomington STP     A-16

B.  Aquatic Ecology - Lake Monroe

    A.  General Information                                        B-l
    B.  Physiography of Lake Monroe                                B-5
    C.  Physico-Chemical Properties of Lake Monroe                 B-ll
    D.  Organisms                                                  B-36
    E.  Summary                                                    B-69
    F.  References                                                 B-71

C.  Hardin Ridge Recreation Area - Discharge Monitoring Report     C-l

D.  Lake Monroe Land Suitability Study - Executive Summary         D-i

    Introduction                                                   D-l
    Geology                                                        D-5
    Terrestrial Ecology                                            D-ll
    Aquatic Ecology                                                D-l5
    Land Use                                                       D-21
    Institutional Framework                                        D-25

E.  Air Quality Sampling Data & Ambient Air Quality  Standards     E-l

F.  Engineering & Cost Calculations

    I. Evaluation of Pure Oxygen Process                           F-l

    II.  Present Worth Analysis ~ South Bloomington

          A.  Site Development                                     F-21
          B.  Calculated Cost of Treatment Plant                   F-26
          C.  Calculate 0 & M Costs                                F-29

    III.  Present Worth Analysis - Lake Monroe                     F-31

    IV.  Present Worth Analysis - Interceptors and Pumping Stations

          A.  Unit Prices                                          F-35
          B.  Interceptor Systems - Construction Costs             F-36
          C.  Stream Crossings                                     F-38
          D.  Railroad Borings                                     F-39
          E.  Pumping Stations                                     F-40

-------
                                     —7—
                        List of Tables and Figures

Chapter 1                                                        Page

  Figure

  1.1.  Location Map of Bloomington Indiana                      1-2
  1-2   Surface Drainage in the Bloomington Area                 1-3
  1-3.  Planning Area Map                                        1-4

Chapter 3

  Table

  1-1.  Flow Comparisons (MGD) Year 2000                         3-1-27
  1-2.  Comparison of Population Projections (Not adjusted)      3-1-28
  1-3.  Comparison of City Planning and 201 Plan Population
        Projections and Allocations                              3-1-29
  1-4.  South Drainage Area 1970 Population Estimates
        Restructured to Reflect Population Contributory to
        Interceptors                                             3-1-30
  1-5.  1970 Census Discrepancies                                3-1-31
  1-6.  University Enrollment                                    3-1-31
  1-7.  1970 Monroe County Employment & Jobs                     3-1-32
  1-8.  Projected Total Employment                               3-1-33
  1-9.  Current Municipal Population Trends-Lake Monroe
        Regional Waste District                                  3-1-34
  1-10  Household Characteristics 1970 LMRWD                     3-1-34
  1-11  Estimate 1970 Population - Lake Monroe Area              3-1-35
  1-12  Existing 1970 Institutional & Recreational Flow
        Capacities                                               3-1-36
  1-13  Estimate of Existing Flows - Year-Round Residences       3-1-37
  1-14  Projected Year-Round Population Lake Monroe Area -
        Year 2000                                                3-1-38
  1-15  Projected Flows - Year 2000; Year-Round Residences       3-1-38
  1-16  Institutional & Recreational Projected Flows             3-1-39
  1-17  Proposed Seasonal/Second Home Flows 1998                 3-1-40
  1-18  Land Use Comparisions/Alternate Sites                    3-1-41

  Figure

  1-1   A Comparison of Monroe County Population Projections     3-1-42
  1-2   Drainage Jurisdictional Boundaries                       3-1-43
  1-3   Flow Comparisons - Year 2000                             3-1-44

  Table

  2-1   Cost of Pure Oxygen Versus Air at the Salt Creek and
        Clear Creek Sites @ 15 MGD                               3-2-4

  Figure

  2-1   System Differences - Pure Oxygen vs. Conventional
        Activated Sludge                                         3-2-5

-------
                                  -8-
  Table

  5-1    Comparison of Salt Creek and Clear Creek Sites           3-5-4
  6-1    Cost of Interceptor Sewer Alternatives                   3-6-10
  6-2    Interceptor Design Criteria                              3-6-11
  6-3    Interceptor Cost Guidelines                              3-6-12
  6-4    Cost of Site Development                                 3-6-13
  6-5    Liquid Treatment Process @ 15 MGD                        3-6-14
  6-6    Present Worth Analysis  of Treatment
        Alternatives @ 15 MGD                                    3-6-15
  6-7    Present Worth Analysis-Smithville & Sanders              3-6-16
  6-8    Project Costs                                            3-6-17
  6-9    Cost Effectiveness - Treatment Alternatives              3-6-18
  7-1    Cost Sharing, for Dillman Road Site                       3-7-2
  8-1    Unit Process Cost-Sludge Handling                        3-8-16
  8-2    Alternative Sludge Treatment Cost                        3-8-17
  8-3    Land Disposal - Hauling Costs (10% Solids Concentration) 3-8-18
  8-4    Composting - Hauling Costs (20% Solids Concentration)    3-8-19
  8-5    Summary of Sludge Treatment and Disposal Cost            3-8-20

  Figure

  8-1    Sludge Treatment and Disposal Process                    3-8-21

Chapter 4

  Table

  9-1    Major Physical Impacts  of Project at Alternative Sites-
        A Comparison                                             4-9-11
  9-2    Aquatic Orgatiisms Found in Lake Monroe and Expected
        in Salt Creek                                            4-9-12
  9-3    Trees of the River Bottoms                               4-9-21

-------
                       CHAPTER 1
                       BACKGROUND
A.   Identification of Grant Applicants and Consultants

The grant applicants for the proposed wastewater treatment
facilities are the City of Bloomington Utilities (CBU),  and
the Lake Monroe Regional Waste District (LMRWD)  in Indiana.
The facilities plan for the City of Bloomington  was prepared
by Black & Veatch, Kansas City, Missouri.   The facilities
plan for the LMRWD was prepared by Beam, Longest & Neff,  Inc.
of Indianapolis, Indiana.

These facilities plans were submitted to USEPA as one document
with the City of Bloomington as the lead agency  since regionali-
zation of the two wastewater treatment service areas is  one of
the major considerations in developing a facilities plan for
the planning areas.  The consulting firm of Gilbert Associates,
Inc., Reading, Pennsylvania was hired by USEPA to provide
additional analyses of alternatives and impacts  associated with
implementation of various plans.

B.  Description of the Applicants' Proposed Action. *

Construction of a 20 MGD single stage complete mix activated
sludge STP with sand filtration of the effluent, aerobic
digestion of sludge followed by lagooning and soil injection
on the Salt Creek site.  This STP would be a regional facility
providing service to the South Bloomington Service Area  (20 yr.
flow projection of 17 MGD) and the Lake Monroe Regional  Waste
District (20 yr. flow projection of 3 MGD).  To transport the
existing flows from the Winston Thomas STP to the Salt Creek
site a 13.4 mile, 50 MGD gravity sewer along Salt Creek  would
be constructed.

C.  General and Specific Location of the Proposed Action.

Bloomington, Indiana is located approximately 50 miles SSW of
Indianapolis, Indiana (see Figure 1-1).  Figure 1-2 displays
surface drainage in the Bloomington area.    The planning areas
under consideration for sewage treatment facilities are  the
South Bloomington Service Area, and the Lake Monroe Regional
Waste District (see Figure 1-3).  The South Bloomington  Service
Area is presently served by both the Winston Thomas and  Blucher
Poole STP.  (Approximately 2 MGD is pumped via force main from
the South Service Area for treatment at Blucher  Poole STP).
The LMRWD Service Area has package treatment plants located
primarily around Lake Monroe.  The communities of Smithville,
Sanders, and Harrodsburg in the LMRWD do not have sewerage
service and rely on septic systems for sewage treatment.
*  Based on applicants' facilities Plans

                            1-1

-------

-------
MONROE
RESERVOIR

-------
                                 Figure 1-3
                                          i0 WORGAM-MONROE 3
                                                     FOREST
                       i \l«-l__Beanblossom
                          «j^     /  Creek

                               ^ Blucher"PooTe^STP
                                                          STT> "-" _
                                                               '
   Dillman Rd. Site	.,
   Ketcham fW. Srte—
                                       Salt Creek
                  LEGEND

«—«—— — '—— Lake Monroe Regional Waste District Service Area Boundary
—••—••—«—' City o' Bloornington Planning Area Boundary
».._._..<_.__._ Drainage Area Boundary

                                                   PLANNING  AREA MAP

-------
Effluent discharges in the south drainage basin of the planning
area are to Clear Creek (from the Winston Thomas STP  and  Caslon
Package Plant) which flows generally south to its confluence
with Salt Creek.  (Lake Monroe discharges to Salt Creek with  a
minimum controlled release of 32 MGD.)   Salt Creek flows  into
the East Fork of the White River which  becomes confluent  with
the West Fork of the White River near Petersburg, Indiana.
The White River flows west into the Wabash and the Wabash
flows generally south discharging to the Ohio River.   In  the
north drainage basin, the Blucher Poole STP discharges its
effluent to Bean Blossom Creek which flows into the West  Fork
of the White River.

D.  Water Quality and Water Quantity Problems in the  Area

    1.  Sources of Water Supply in the Service Area.

The major sources of water in the Bloomington area are the  Lake
Lemon, Griffy Creek, and Lake Monroe Reservoirs with  Lake Monroe
being the primary water supply for the City of Bloomington  and
the LMRWD.  Groundwater does not supply a significant quantity
of water in the planning area due to the proximity of the lime-
stone bedrock near the surface throughout much of the area. As
in other limestone regions, water from ground supplies or
issuing from springs is not filtered as well as water taken
from sand or gravel aquifers.  Pollution of the groundwater
supply by infiltration from septic tank drainage fields and
polluted suface water can be a serious problem.  Unfavorable
geological conditions require deep wells drilled through  bed-
rock and generally such wells do not yield adequate quantities
of good quality water for household use.  For this reason,  most
rural development is served by rural water districts  that pur-
chase water from the Bloomington municipal water system which
utilizes Lake Monroe water as its major source.  At the present
time there are no municipal water supplies in Monroe  County
using groundwater, however, a number of private wells are
located in the planning area.

    2.  Wastewater Treatment in the Planning Areas

        a-  The City of Bloomington

The City of Bloomington presently has two sewage treatment  plants
(STPs).  The north drainage area is served by the Blucher Poole
STP.  This plant has a design capacity of 6 MGD with  approximately
2/3 (2 MGD) of the present 3 MGD flow being pumped via force  main
from the south drainage area.  The treated effluent is discharged
to Bean Blossom Creek.  The south drainage area  is served by  the
Winston Thomas STP which has a design capacity of 7 MGD and hy-
draulic capacity of 10 MGD.  Flows in excess of 10 MGD receive
primary treatment and are diverted to a 16 acre lagoon while
flows in excess of 14 MGD by-pass the STP and go directly to
the lagoon.  Discharge of treated effluent is to Clear Creek
(Clear Creek has a 7 day once in 10 year low flow of  zero).
This STP was built in 1934 and expanded in 1955 and 1969.

                             1-5

-------
The Winston Thomas SIP is difficult  to  operate  efficiently  and
is frequently overloaded (1974  average  daily flow was  11.2  MGD).
The municipal waste laods,  flows,  treatment  efficiericies,
metal content of sludges, D.O.  conditions  in the  receiving
streams and effluent permit standards for  the proposed
facilities are in Appendix A.   Building a  new sewage treat-
ment plant to serve the South Bloomington  area  has a state
priority number of 14.

        b.  The Lake Monroe Regional Waste District

Package STPs and septic systems presently  serve the LMRWD.
The present flow to package plants during  the summer season
is approximately .2 M3D.  The projected summer  flow in 20
years from the Lake Monroe Regional  Waste  District is  estimated
to be 1 MGD.  Constructing an STP  to serve the  LMRWD has  a
state priority of 139.  Listed  below are the point source
discharges within the LMRWD.

Facility                  Development      Capacity     Discharge  To

1. Hardin-Monroe, Inc.    16 Residences   6,000 G.P.D.    Lake Monroe
2. Hardin Ridge U.S.
   Forest Service

3. Boy Scout Camp

4. Salt Creek

5. Paynetown Recreational
   State Dept.  of Natural
   Resources
                       Camping Area

                       Scout  Camp

                       Residences
               40,000 G.P.D.

                6,500 G.P.D.

               15,000 G.P.D.
                       Camping Area   43,700  G.P.D.
6. Water Filtration Plant  Sludge  Lagoon
   City of Bloomington    Overflow
                                      19,200  G.P.D.
                 Lake Monroe

                 Lake Monroe

                 Lake Monroe



                 Lake Monroe


                 Lake Monroe
9
Fairfax Recreational
Area State Dept.  of.
Natural Resources

Flood Control -
Dam U.S. Corps of
Engineers

 Caslon STP
                          Camping  Area    46,100 G.P.D.    Lake Monroe
                          Office  &  Overlook
                          at  Dam          10,000 G.P.D.
The Pointe
115,650 G.P.D.
Salt Creek

Clear Creek
A major concern of the existing sewage  discharges  to  Lake  Monroe
is their effect on water quality.   The  Aquatic  Ecology  section
of the Lake Monroe Land Suitability Study  provides detailed
information on existing physical-chemical  and biological
conditions in Lake Monroe and  is reproduced  in  Appendix B.
(The sewage treatment plant in Nashville,  Indiana  discussed
in Appendix B, is not in the planning area under consideration
in this EIS.  However, the poor quality effluent reported  for
                             1-6

-------
Nashville which flows into Lake Monroe is based on 1968-1972
data.  The effluent quality should be changed significantly
as a result of expansion during 1975 of the Nashville  STP
to .25 MGD and a general upgrading of the facility.)

The largest point source discharges to Lake Monroe within
the LMRWD are Paynetown, Fairfax and Hardin Ridge Recreation
Areas.  Although no monitoring of effluent quality was done
for Paynetown and Fairfax Recreation Areas, the state  of
Indiana has authorized the construction of an interceptor
that diverts the flow of the Fairfax Recreation Area from
Lake Monroe to the Caslon STP for treatment with subsequent
discharge to Clear Creek.  This action will eliminate  the
most significant treated sewage discharge to Lake Monroe in
the LMRWD.  Based on existing water consumption, the discharge
effluent from Paynetown is seasonal with the peak flows of
approximately 30,000 GPD during the summer.  Effluent  quality
information for Paynetown was not monitored and as a result
no detrimental effects on Lake Monroe are known due to dis-
charge from the Paynetown Recreational Area.  Constructing
an interceptor to serve the Paynetown Recreational Area is
considered in this EIS.

The Hardin Ridge Recreation Area is located on the east side
of Lake Monroe and regionalization with other facilities is
presently not economically feasible, nor is it necessary
based on the effluent quality found in Appendix C. Elimina-
tion of poorly functioning septic systems in the LMRWD by
constructing sewerage facilities is desirable only when
sewering an area is the most cost effective method to  solve
the problem.  Documentation of the severity of existing septic
system problems and alternate costs of solving those problems
should be evaluated by the LMRWD prior to its decision to
construct sewers to replace septic systems.

        c.  Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in the Winston
            Thomas STP System

PCBs have been detected in raw sewage of the Winston Thomas STP.
Monitoring efforts are underway by EPA to determine the sources
and concentrations of PCBs and the appropriate action  that
should be taken to correct the problem.  Background information
on PCBs is discussed in a July 1975 paper by EPA titled "State-
 ment of Concerns of the Lake Michigan Toxic Substances Committee
 Related to Polychlorinated Biphenyls".
                                      )
 E.  Other Water Quality and Quantity Objectives

     1.  The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
         1972 (Public Law 92-500) require:

         a.  Secondary treatment of wastes for municipal sewage
             and best practicable treatment for industrial
             discharges by July 1, 1977.
                             1-7

-------
       b.  Best practicable waste treatment technology for
           municipal wastes and best available treatment for
           industrial wastes by July 1, 1983, and form the
           basis for design of projects funded by EPA from
           FY 1975 01: later allocation.

       c.  All point-source discharges require a permit under
           the NPDES program (National Pollutant Discharge
           Elimination System).  The NPDES permit states the
           allowable waste loading and flow volume that can
           be discharged to a  receiving stream, Lake or ocean.

    2.  The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 requires the
       designation oi: flood-prone areas in the United States
        (based on 100 year flood) and participation by the
       appropriate communities and homeowners to qualify for
       national flood insurance protection.

       Portions of the Bloomington Metropolitan Area have been
       mapped for flood prone  designation and HUD is presently
       pursuing appropriate public comment procedures prior to
        issuing an official 100 year flood-prone map.

    3.  A Lake Monroe Land Suitability Study has been published
       by the school of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana
       University.  This study evaluates existing environmental
       conditions in a 100 square mile portion of the Lake Monroe
       Watershed, identifies issues that need to be considered in
       planning for future changes in the study  area, and sum-
       marizes the institutional framework that affects land  use
        and wetter quality decisions for the Lake Monroe area.
       The executive summary of this study is found in Appendix D,

F«  Cost  and  Financing

Detailed  costs of the various alternatives are summarized in
Chapter 3 Table 6.  The funding of the recommended proposal
would be  apportioned as follows:

    1.   75% federal funding of  eligible project costs

    2.   10% State of Indiana  funding of eligible project costs

    3.   The local communities must provide the capital to pay
        the remaining costs.

G-  History of Application  -  Sewage Works Projects; C180560-01
    and C180-561-01

       June 3,  1974 Application for  facilities plan grant sub-
       mitted to  the State  of  Indiana

       July 9,  1974  "Facilities Plan Agreement" between the City
       of Bloomington and  the LMRWD  for conducting  a facilities
       plan.

                            1-8

-------
-  August 20, 1974 Revised application for  facilities  plan
   grant submitted to State of Indiana.

   September 12, 1974 Application for completion  of  Sewer
   System Evaluation Survey (SSES)  (C180561-01) submitted
   to State of Indiana.

-  October 25, 1974 State of Indiana conditionally certi-
   fied application covering June 3, August 10, and  Septem-
   ber 12, 1974 applications.

-  December 20, 1974 State of Indiana certified the  Facili-
   ties Plan segment and SSES to EPA.

_  January 22, 1975 Meeting at Region V offices in Chicago
   to discuss deficiencies in facilities plan with City  of
   Bloomington, LMRWD and Black & Veatch.

   March 20, 1975 Black & Veatch transmitted 1st  Amendment
   to Facilities Plan to EPA.

   May 14, 1975 EPA issued notice of intent to prepare an
   EIS on the South Bloomington - Lake Monroe Facilities
   Plans.

   May 29, 1975 Environmental Assessment hearing  by  the  City
   of Bloomington Utilities Service Board on the  Facilities
   Plan in Bloomington.

   June 25, 1975 EPA made grant award to City of  Bloomington
   for facilities plan preparation subject  to supplemental
   information which might be requested during EIS process.

   July 14, 1975 Gilbert Associates commences preparation of
   an analytical report on South Bloomington, Indiana  -  Lake
   Monroe EIS issues.

   July 16, 1975 EPA Holds community information  meeting
   to explain EIS Process, to identify key  issues on the
   proposed wastewater treatment facilities and to announce
   preparation of analytic report by Gilbert Associates.

   November 7, 1975 Gilbert Associates transmits  preliminary
   analytic report to EPA.

   December 4, 1975 EPA summarizes preliminary findings  of
   GA report in letter to City of Bloomington, see Chapter 6.

-  December 23, 1975 GA submits final report to EPA.

   January 17, 1976 EPA approves and releases final  report
   of GA.
                        1-9

-------
H.  Issues Evaluated:

    1.  Regionalization - should there be one STP to serve the
        South Bloom:.ngton and Lake Monroe areas or separate
        STPs?

    2.  Evaluation of  the pure oxygen wastewater treatment process
        for all regional plants as contrasted with the activated
        sludge process.

    3.  The desirab:.lity of renovation and expansion of the Winston
        Thomas STP.

    4.  The capacity(ies) and location!s)  of a regional STP or
        separate STPs  as determined by existing needs and pro-
        jected populations of the South  Bloomington and Lake
        Monroe areas;.

    5.  The tradeoffs  involved in constructing a treatment plant
        on sites along Clear Creek with  a 5 BOD ,  5 SS effluent
        vs. the Salt Creek site with a 10 BOD  10  SS effluent.

    6.  Present Worth  Analysis of alternatives.

    7.  Distribution of Costs.

    8.  The process  of sludge treatment  and disposal best suited
        for the wastewater treatment facilities recommended.

    9.  The full range of environmental  impacts in implementing
        the various  alternatives.

   10.  The induced  growth implications  for the Lake Monroe Area
        if one regional STP is constructed.

   11.  The mitigative measures that can be implemented to mini-
        mize undesirable physical environmental impacts.

The above issues are evaluated in Chapters 3 and 4,.   They are
organized by tasks corresponding to the  order in which they
are identified.  Tasks 1-8 are in Chapter 3 and tasks 9-11
are found in Chapter 4.
                            1-10

-------
                         CHAPTER 2
        THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION
A.  General

The planning area consists of three regions referred to as the
north, south, and Monroe Reservoir service areas.  The proposed
new wastewater treatment facilities will primarily affect the
south and Monroe Reservoir service areas.

The south service area consists of most of the City of
Bloomington and the lower Clear Creek drainage area. Approxi-
mately 28,230 acres of developed land or land suitable for
development are contained within the City and the surrounding
fringe areas south of the City.  It is anticipated that resi-
dential development will continue to expand into this area.

An additional 24,300 acres are contained in the lower Clear
Creek area located between Dillman Road and Salt Creek.  This
area is sparsely populated farm land, with several stone quarries
scattered throughout the area.  Extensive development is not
anticipated in this area during the period considered in this
study.  Concentrated development is more likely to occur in  areas
adjacent to the City of Bloomington and near Monroe Reservoir.

The Monroe Reservoir service area is located about 8 miles
southeast of Bloomington.  The reservoir covers approximately
10,750 acres of the total 40,000 acres within the Lake Monroe
Regional Waste District boundaries.  Some of the area has
rugged terrain and limited development has occurred. The area
is subject to extensive recreational use, especially over
holiday weekends.  Greater detail on the Lake Monroe Area
is found in Appendix D .

6.  Detailed Description

    1.  Climate

Indiana has a climate of warm summers and cool winters.
tJloomington has a mean maximum temperature in January of 42   F
and in July of 89 F.  The annual mean temperature is 55.3° F
and the annual mean precipitation is 44.04 inches.

    2.  Topography

The area in the vicinity of Clear Creek between Bloomington
and the confluence of Clear Creek with Salt Creek is rugged  and
characterized by steep land slopes.  The rugged topography
limits the potential treatment plant sites south of Bloomington.
There are relatively few areas which have sufficient level
ground to allow construction of a treatment plant adequate
to handle existing and future neeeds.  The few level areas
available are generally dissected by a railroad track, roads,
or Clear Creek.  The rugged topography also influences the

                            2-1

-------
location and the difficulty of  construction  of  the  main
interceptor  for  the proposed wastewater  treatment  facility.

    3.   Geology

Bloomington  and  its immediate surroundings are  located  in  the
northern portion of the famous  Bedford-Bloomington  limestone
area.  It is an  important mineral  producing  area,  with  many
stone quarries and milling operations.   Four limestone  forma-
tions (Barrodsburg, Salem, St.  Louis,  and St.  Genevieve)  underlie
much of the  central and western portions of  the county.   Weather-
ing of this  limestone has resulted in  the formation of  the long,
narrow karst plain that extends from northwestern  Monroe  County
all the way  to Kentucky.

The limestone bedrock which extends  the  entire  length of  Clear
Creek will complicate the construction of the  main  interceptor
sewer.   It will  require use of  explosives in the construction
of the sewer.

    4.   Soils

Soils in the areas underlain by the  limestone  have  extremely
variaole thickness and are a function of topography. Three
general geologic soils types are present:  residual, colluvial,
and alluvial.  Most soils in Bloomington and vicinity are of
residual and colluvial origin and are derived  largely from the
weathering of limestone.  Residual soils are those that were
formed in place by progressive  weathering of rock.   Colluvial
soils were formed by accummulations  of the soils from higher
slopes sliding downhill.  Colluvial  soils are  generally thicker,
less nomogeneous, and less well compacted.   All four limestone
formations are overlain by residual  soils on the flat upland
slopes, but  colluvial soils are dominant on  the steep slopes
of the valleys near stream level.   Most  colluvial  areas,  how-
ever, are character izied by gently rolling topography without
steep slopes.  Alluvial soils are soils  deposited  by moving
water and are found only in the large stream valleys.

Subsoils in  the upland areas are moderately  to slowly permeable,
depending upon topography.  Soils in the Salt Creek and Monroe
Reservoir areas are underlain by relatively  impervious  siltstones
and shales.

    5.  Water Resources

As in other  limestone regions,  water from ground supplies or
issuing from springs is not filtered as  well as water taken
from sand or gravel aquifers.  Pollution of  the ground  water
supply by infiltration from septic tank  drainage fields and
polluted surface waters can be a serious problem.   Unfavorable
geologic conditions require deep wells drilled through  bedrock
and generally such weslls do not yield adequate quantities of
good-quality water for household use.  For this reason, most
rural development is served by rural water districts that

                            2-2

-------
purchase water from the Bloomington municipal water system
which utilizes surface water supply sources.  At the present
time there are no municipal water supplies in Monroe County
using ground water.  However, a number of private wells are
located in the planning area.

Surface drainage is distinctly different in the central and
western areas of the county as compared to eastern areas.
Drainage in some parts of the limestone region is through  under-
ground passages or into small streams ending in sinkholes.  Sur-
face drainage in the east and southeast areas of the county is
more clearly defined.  The area is severely dissected by stream
beds cut deeply into the bedrock.  The high runoff rates in this
area cause minor flooding problems on the lower reaches of Clear
and Salt Creeks during periods of heavy rainfall.

There are no natural lakes in Monroe County.  Reservoirs,  water-
filled quarries, and ponds, however, are scattered throughout
the area.  Lake Lemon and the Monroe and Griffy Reservoirs
are used extensively for recreational purposes and also serve
as municipal water supply sources for most of the county.

    6.  garks and Historical Sites

There are no parks or prominent historical sites within the
limits of the proposed project.  There are state and national
forests along the eastern part of Monroe Reservoir.  There are
also recreational areas adjacent to Monroe Reservoir to the
east of the Salt Creek Site.

    7.  Cemetery

A cemetery is located near one of the potential treatment  plant
sites.  It is east of Victor Pike and slightly more than one
mile south of Dillman Road. The cemetery would be within about
250 feet of the Ketcham Road site, but would be separated
from the plant by Clear Creek.

    8.  Environmental Constraints

Topography and geology are factors which place serious constraints
on the project.  The rugged terrain and existing development limit
the number of potential treatment plant sites. The prevalence of
rock throughout the area will complicate construction of a con-
necting main sewer for all sites except Winston Thomas and
South Rogers.

Tne quantity of water available for effluent dilution is another
consideration.  A higher degree of treatment must be provided
for a plant located on Clear Creek due to the lack of dilution
water during low flow periods.

Provisions must be made to protect the treatment facilities
from floods. Levees can De provided for flood protection for
the 100 year flood level.  The flood protection measures

                            2-3

-------
must not result in excessive restriction of the flood plain.

    9.   Air Quality

The air quality in the Bloomington area (based  on the monitoring
station at 4th and Walnut Streets) is  within the ambient air
quality standards.  Air sampling  frequency distributions and
the ambient air quality standards are  found in  Appendix F .
                            2-4

-------
                                 CHAPTER 3
                            ISSUES & ALTERNATIVES

                                  TASK 1*

                 EVALUATION OF REGIONALIZATION/PROJECTED POPULATION
                               AND LAND USE PATTERNS

1.1           ISSUES,  BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AND FINDINGS

              The regionalization issue,  which would probably result  in one large
              plant  at Salt Creek to serve the South Bloomington Service Area (SBSA)
              and the  LMRWD, hangs upon the demand  and  need for  sewering Lake Monroe.
              There  is no other apparent reason for treating sewage some eight miles
              from its major source, the Bloomington Area.   As such,  the decision
              becomes, in the Consultant's opinion**, more  of a  politcal than an
              engineering one, for the analysis of  the  issues and related consid-
              erations raises some serious doubts as to the need for  sewering the
              Lake Monroe area.

              A desire for the improvement of  the economic  climate may be the sole
              reason for the lakewide sewer system, which would  aid in opening the
              lake area for development.   Even if this  sytem could be financed by
              tying  it into the Bloomington Sewer System and thereby  spreading the
              cost of  this economic development program over a wider  population
              (the Bloomington Urban area), it would still  be prudent to defer
              such action until the environmental effects of development can be
              better evaluated in light of the lake's ability to accommodate such
              change.   Lake Monroe is too valuable  a natural resource and asset
              to the area to treat it like a commodity.

              If Lake  Monroe were not served by a lakewide  interceptor sewer system,
              the Salt Creek Plant site location and regional scheme  would not be
              necessary.  Both the Lake Monroe and  Bloomington 201 Plans recommended
              this regional plant and the lakewide  interceptor system.  The latter
              system was sized and designed to facilitate seasonal, second home
              and resort complexes proposed at various  locations around the lake.

              There  is no absolute answer about the need for sewering the lake.
              Data given the Consusltant was not in sufficient detail to conclude
              that a regional waste treatment  system is economically  feasible,
              when in  fact it might be needed, or who might be participating in its
              financing.  This system, as designed, consists of  a force main collector.
              Therefore, economically speaking, it  will only be  available to rather
              large  developments, those which can underwrite the temporary treatment
              facility depreciation and provide f)or the pumping  and other extra costs
              necessitated by such a system.  These potential second  home and resort
              developers were unable, for the most  part, to respond to the LMRWD
              Consultant in sufficient detail to ascertain  a timetable for construction.
              In effect, this system would be planned for developments which have not
              been scheduled and may never be constructed.

              * Pages  in Chapters 3 & 4 are numbered as  follows 1st digit = chapter #,
                2nd  digit = task # and 3rd digit =  page #.

             ** The  (Consultant's opinion/Consultant) not explicitly identified in
                Chapters 3 & 4 is Gilbert Associates.

                                        3-1-1

-------
The attempt to determine the potential seasonal housing market at Lake
Monroe produced unsatisfying and somewhat inconclusive results.  There
are too many significant variables affecting this market.  One aspect
is that it would be possible to purchase a housing unit located on the
lake but not in line of sight with the lake, nor having any access for
swimming or boating except at designated public facilities such as
Fairfax State Park.  T^is holds true for all developers except the
State of Indiana.  At present, the State leases land from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, with full property rights including direct
lake access.  The State, in turn, is able to sublease land, and has
done so for commercial development such as the Four Winds Marina.
There is no way of determining what the State will do in the future;
but theoretically, the State is in a more advantageous position than
private developers with respect to the market and inducing development.
It is possible that with the present market uncertainity, it is the
market and not the sewer system that may prove to be the more central
issue in Lake Monroe's development future.

There is one seasonal/second home development now under construction
and it has i':s own temporary sewerage treatment facility.  This
development, The Pointe, is a planned community of some 1400 units.
At its present rate of completion, The Pointe may not be completed
until after 1990.  The Pointe is a first class seasonal-recreational
facility; and it has advantages that other developers may not be able
to equal, such as lake access thorough the Marina.

In the course of this independent analysis, the Consultant was able to
locate individual demand centers or areas of sufficient population
size and densities felt to warrant sewerage service.  In addition,
these demand centers were evaluated with respect to their geographic
and hydraulic location to one another with a view toward determining
their potential relationship to service from alternative site
locations.  "t was not possible, with the data available at this time,
to ascertain economic feasibility of alternative total  systems  for
servicing Lake Monroe.  The Consultant* is of the opinion that such
feasibility studies are premature considering that it is not
known for certain how, when and where sewerage service will be needed
around the lake.  This preliminary analysis was helpful  in suggesting
some alternate possibilities for handling the major sewerage demands
within the Lake Monroe area.  The major demand centers  in the Lake
Monroe Area are shown on Plate 4.

The major sewerage demand in the Lake Monroe area consists mainly of
year-round housing located in several of the older hamlets.  One
grouping, the. Sanders-Smithville area, could actually be better served
at the Dillman rather than the Salt Creek Site.  Harrodsburg fits in
with the Salt. Creek Site location but could just as well be served at
The Pointe's facility.  The sewering of these older areas would be
more desirable in  the event of the documentation of on-lot disposal
system failures within  these older settlement areas.


* Gilbert Associates.

                             3-1-2

-------
          Some areas around the lake, particularly near the causeway, are
          actually located closer to the Winston Thomas site than the Salt Creek
          Site.  On the south side of the lake, the developments could probably
          treat their effluent outside the lake drainage district; although some
          of these proposed developments are too small to reasonably expect
          service.

          Even if it were determined that serving the Lake Monroe area would
          induce immediate development, sufficient doubts have been raised about
          the environmental effects of such development to warrant further study
          before taking action.

1.2       POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS

          Since people create the demand for sewerage service, it is important
          not only to carefully match the rate of population growth to the
          sizing and scheduling of sewer development, but also to coordinate
          sewer system development with anticipated changes in land use
          activities to maximize the benefit of that improvement.

          Any projection, whether demographic, economic or social, is based upon
          a multitude of assumptions and value judgements as to the reasonable
          expectations for the future.  Demographic projection is not a science,
          because the future will consist of those events and changes that
          cannot be forseen as well as those that can.  The only certain thing
          is that conditions underlying projections can, and often do, change
          overnight.

          Since the preparation of the Bloomington and the Lake Monroe Regional
          Waste District 201 Plans, some changes have occured in local growth
          assumptions regarding the university, industrial trends, and other
          factors that warranted independent analysis to determine what, if any,
          significance these changes might have on flow calculations.  In
          addition, the original population analysis outlined in the 201 Plan
          was not organized in a manner suitable for evaluation of alternative
          regional schemes.  Considering this situation, the Consultant decided
          to independently prepare population and flow projections as an aid in
          evaluating regionalization.

1.2.1     Summary of Findings

          The following paragraphs describe the methodologies, procedures and
          assumptions used by the Consultant in developing projections and
          estimates of flows.

          The Bloomington 201 Plan estimated increases in residential and
          student populations, industrial jobs, and commercial activities to
          determine flow increments; adding to these projections those of the
          Lake Monroe 201 Plan.
                                       3-1-3

-------
          The Consultant,  in preparing independent projections;,  used a similar
          projection method and flow parameters  as found in the  Bloomington 201
          Plan.

          Figure 1-1 shows a comparison of various population projections for
          Monroe County.

          Using  quite different growth assumptions and expectations for flow
          increases in the residential, industrial and university segment, the
          results only varied 10% from those in  the Bloomington  201 Plan as
          amended.

          Table  1-1 summarizes the differences  in flow calculations between
          those  of  the Bloomington 201 Plan and  this Consultant.   The existing
          flow figure of  11.2 MGD does not include the total flow from the south
          now pumped north and treated at  the Blucher Poole plant.   The
          Bloomington 20].  Plan recommended that  this pumping be  discontinued,
          but this  Consultant feels that there  are compelling arguments for its
          continuation.   Therefore, for convenience of comparing the two
          calculations in  Table 1-1, the current Blucher Poole flow was deleted
          from the  southern regional plant sizing consideration.   The rationale
          for this  recommendation is the excess  capacity at the  northern plant
          and the fact that the use of this capacity will aid in producing a
          better effluent  and allow more efficient operation.  In addition, the
          lower  level of  treatment required at  the northern plant means that it
          will more than  likely be operated at  an equal or lower cost, than a new
          regional  facility, even considering the minimal extra  costs associated
          with pumping.

          In the case of Lake Monroe,  it was extremely difficult to corroborate
          the expectations for a sewage flow of  3.0 MGD.   Instead,  a near term
          flow estimate of 1.0 MGD was used in  the alternative comparison.
1.2.2     Flow Variations
          To adequately understand  the  differences  between flow projections in
          the 201 Plan arid those developed by this  Consultant,  it is necessary
          to understand the various drainage and jurisdictional areas within
          Monroe County.   The boundaries of these areas  are shown in Figure 1-2.
          The flow comparisions indicated in Table  1-1 are shown graphically in
          Figure 1-3.
1.2.2.1   Residential
          Local agencies indicated that the Bloomington 201 Plan County
          projections for the county were quite  high as evidenced by
          Figure 1-1.  In addition,  the 201 Plan considered the entire
          population living south of the drainage divide to be "contributory to1
          and therefore to be served by the regional sewer system.  But, in
          fact, there are extensive  areas within Monroe County that will not be
                                      3-1-4

-------
          economical to serve in the foreseeable future.  Both of these
          differences would tend to reduce the original 201 estimate, but
          they were offset, by other considerations.  First of all, local
          planning officials did not agree that such a high percentage of the
          total county population (even if overstated) would be located in the
          northern section of their jurisdiction, instead of the south and
          southeast areas, the more traditional growth areas.  Secondly, the
          local planners envision more of the total population residing within
          range of future sewers.  Even with these differences, the overall
          difference between flow calculations as shown in Figure 1-3 was not
          too significant, particularly considering that this Consultant used
          the City Planning Commission's more conservative growth projections.

          The differences between flow calculations in the case of Lake Monroe
          are more at variance and are documented in this task and in Task 10,
          Induced Development - Lake Monroe.  The Lake Monroe 201 Plan assumed
          that all the population within the district and all the seasonal
          developments would be served.  This Consultant's review indicates
          that it is almost impossible to predict the lake resort seasonal and
          resort prospects based on available information.

          The differences between this Consultant's and the Lake Monroe 201
          Plan projections are quite significant, and are rooted more in basic
          assumptions than in differences in opinions as to rates of growth and
          household sizes.

          The Lake Monroe 201 Plan assumed a rather rapid rate of population
          growth for the lake area, presumably in anticipation of a forthcoming
          real estate boom.  The future of the Lake Monroe area in terms of
          population growth lies in the seasonal and second home market.  While
          the 201 Plan treated all the plans submitted to date as if they would
          be built, this Consultant feels that with the particular situation
          at Lake Monroe and the current market, this assumption cannot be
          corroborated.  This consultant assumed, based upon the details
          presented later in this text, that the south side of Lake Monroe
          and even the causeway area did not at this time justify service,
          and furthermore, that the entire interceptor concept would be quite
          an expensive system.  Passing on added costs of an expensive sewerage
          system would in turn affect the competitiveness of each project.
1.2.2.2   Industrial
          The main difference in the industrial iflow calculations is that the
          Bloomington 201 Plan inadvertantly used Region 10 overall economic
          employment projections as an industrial employment projection for
          Monroe County.
                                    3-1-5

-------
1.2.2.3   Indiana University
          University officials indicated that they anticipated the enrollments
          to peak prior to construction startup and decline thereafter.  As a
          result, this Consultant did not consider the university as having any
          future increase.         /

1.2.2.4   Commercial

          As an independent check, this Consultant calculated commercial flow at
          50 gallons per person daily.  With an anticipated 19,000 more people
          to be served by the year 2000, an increase in commercial flow of about
          1.0 MGD might be expected rather than the 0.8 in the 201 Plan.

1.3       POPULATION PROJECTIONS/DEMAND CALCULATIONS

1.3.1     Introduction

          The population projections for Monroe County from the 1974 Bloomington
          Facilities Plan anticipate a significantly higher rate, of growth than
          projections from either the Bloomington City Planning Commission or
          the Bureau of Research in the Indiana University School of Business.
          Personal interviews with officials in both agencies substantiate this
          disparity.!  The variation in population projections is shown in
          Figure 1-1.

          Population projections reflect basic underlying assumptions regarding
          birth, death, and migration rates.  The Bloomington 201 Facilities
          Plan population projections are thought to be based upon pre-1970
          census data embodying underlying assumptions such as a continuation of
          Monroe County's population increase commensurate with its share of
          1960-1970 population growth which represented 90 percent of the total
          of Economic Region 10.   However, during the 1960-1970 period,
          several changes occurred that were responsible for Monroe County's
          accounting for such a large share of Region 10's population change,
          and local authorities do not feel that these events will reoccur in
          the future.  These changes included doubling of University enrollments
          and a rapid increase in manufacturing jobs resulting from the
          relocation of the Otis Escalator Plant, employing 1000 persons, into
          the area.  In addition, the 201 Facility Plan projections were based
          on pre-1970 birth rate trends which would result in a much higher
          population level than if current birth rates were utilized.

1.3.2     Alternate Projections/Bloomington 201 Plan

1.3.2.1   Indiana University School of Business, Bureau of Research

          One set of alternate population projections was prepared by the
          Indiana University School of Business, Bureau of Research.  While
          these projections incorporated more current birth rate trends, they do
 Bloomington City Planning Commission; Indiana University, Bureau of Reasearch
^School of Business.
 Includes Monroe, Owen, Lawrence and Greene Counties.
                                      3-1-6

-------
          not offer a fair comparison due to the manner in which university
          student population was projected.  The methodology used was a five
          year age-sex, cohort-survival method; but student populations were
          aged forward rather than replaced as the overall population was aged
          forward for each five year period.  As a result, by 1990 the 15-24
          age group, where one would expect to find most university students,
          was one third the size of that age group in 1970.  The 1970 university
          student population being aged forward resulted in an abnormally large
          35 to 44 year age group by the year 2000.  While these two errors may
          offset each other, the resulting projection is significantly lower
          than if the error was not introduced.

1.3.2.3   Bloomington City Planning Commission

          Another source for locally prepared population projections is the
          Bloomington City Planning Commission.  This agency is responsible for
          the planning and land use control for the more populated portion of
          Monroe County, the Bloomington jurisdictional area.  This Commission
          is now in the process of preparing a report dealing with future
          population growth within the Bloomington area.  It was the lead agency
          responsible for discovering, among other census irregularities, that
          the 1970 census total population was greater than that reported.

          The city has prepared population projections for its jurisdictional
          area as well as for Monroe County.  These projections consist of a
          high and low series reflecting somewhat different birth rate levels
          and are quite conservative in comparison to the Bloomington 201 Plan.
          The reason for this wide disparity is that the basic underlying growth
          assumptions in the city's projection run contrary to those of the 201
          Plan.  The former assumes a reduced birth rate commensurate with
          current trends, a much slower rate of economic growth, and anticipates
          university population stabilizing in the very near future.  The City
          Planning Commission projections are more attuned to the areawide 1950-
          1960 rather than 1960-1970 growth trends.  They consider the latter
          period to be atypical due to birth rate levels, the university
          enrollment explosion, and the rather rapid growth of industrial
          employment.

          Their Monroe County projections ranged from a low of 95,000 to a high
          of 110,000 by the year 2000, from a 12 to 30 percent increase.  For
          comparison purposes, the average population change anticipated was
          used.  The city's high estimate is about ten years behind the
          population levels envisioned in the Bloomington 201 Plan, while the
          city's low estimate was twenty years behind the same 201 Plan
          forecasts.

          The Bloomington 201 Plan envisions Monroe County to increase in its
          population by 62 percent by the year 2000 versus a more modest 21
          percent envisioned by the city.  Certainly, neither projection will be
          absolutely correct.  Short term trends evident today, such as greatly
                                      3-1-7

-------
          reduced birth rates, slow growth in university enrollment, and less
          than dynamic economic conditions would appear to lean more toward
          corroborating the  city's growth assumptions rather than the 201
          Plan's.

          Intercensal population estimates for Monroe County pinpoint the
          county's 1973 population3 at 89,806 persons.   If these figures are
          reasonably accurate, then the short term county population growth
          rate trend would more clearly approximate those in the Long Range
          Water and Sewer Flan for 1980.   If this estimate is on course in
          context of the Icng run period, then even the city's high projection
          would appear to be somewhat conservative, while the 201 Plan would
          still fall on the  high side.

1.3.3     Adjustments to Projections/1970 Under Reporting

          Both the 201 Plan  and the City  Planning Commission projections were
          estimated without  the benefit of adjusting for 1970 census under
          reporting.  While  it is fairly  evident that the 1970 city and,
          therefore, county  population was actually larger than reported, by
          how much has not yet been definitely determined.
                                                               4
          If the city's projections are adjusted upward by 6000  persons the
          city's high side population projection fits remarkably well with the
          curve in the Long  Range Water and Sewer Plan, while the adjusted
          average would approach the former high population projection.   The
          average adjusted projection was utilized herein as an independent
          population projection to compare with the 201 Plans.

1.3.4     Projected Population Distribution

          The Bloomington 201 Plan not  only assumed a faster rate of population
          growth within the  county, but a somewhat different distribution of
          population than envisioned in the city projections; and more importantly
          a somewhat larger  population "contributory to" the southern area.

          The Bloomington 201 Plan distributed future population change  almost
          equally between locations north and south of  the major drainage
          divide running through the center of the city.   Under this allocation,
          the northern area,  which accounts for about 20 percent of the  1970
          population, would  account for 33 percent of the total county population
          by 2000.  In this  regard, the 201 Plan also anticipates a more rapid
          rate of development for this  northern area than did the City Planning
          Commission.  The Planning Commission expects  the major thrust  of new
          residential development to continue within the southern and southeastern
          sectors of its jurisdictional area.  One reason the cityS offers for
          this is that the northern section of the Bloomington jurisdictional
          area is restricted by flood plains, steep slopes, limestone problem
3
 Table 1.   Population 1970 and 1973,  and  Related  Per  Capita  Income (PCI)  for
.Revenue Sharing Area,  U.S.  Bureau of Census.
 See paragraph 1.3.6.1, Census Discrepancies.
 Conversation with the  Bloomington City Planning  Commission  Staff.


                                    3-1-8

-------
          areas, quarries, existing industrial development, and city and
          university ownership of large tracts of land.  These factors are
          significant constraints to residential development.  This is in
          contrast to the less physically restricted traditional south and
          southeast growth corridors.

          The portion of the northern drainage area that has recently reported
          rapid population growth is the Elletsville area which is located
          beyond the Bloomington jurisdictional area.  Elletsville has its own
          sewer system which has apparently already reached its capacity.  The
          City Planning Commission is of the opinion that the lack of additional
          sewage treatment capacity there would tend to limit growth of Elletsville.

          While the City Planning Commission has not yet allocated its population
          growth projections, it does not anticipate a widening gap between the
          proportion of population north and south of the drainage divide.
          Instead, the City Planning Commission is of the opinion that the
          present 20/80 percent distribution of population is likely to continue
          in the future.  Therefore, even using the City Planning Commission's
          population projection for Monroe County for the year 2000, which is
          30,000 persons below that shown in the Bloomington 201 Plan and the
          city's distribution assumptionst  it is apparent that some 7,000
          fewer people would reside in the southern drainage district in the
          year 2000 (Table 1-3).

1.3.5     Population Distribution and Sewer Service Areas

          The Bloomington 201 Plan used the total anticipated change in population
          for all areas of the county located south of the major drainage
          district in determining incremental increases in sewage flows, even
          though some of this population was located within drainage areas not
          planned to be served by future interceptors.

          The Bloomington 201 Plan referred to some 63,000 persons as residing
          "contributory to" the southern drainage district, with 90,000 people
          anticipated by the year 2000.  Not all of this population will be
          served by sewers by the year 2000 regardless of the plant site
          location; however, the 25,000 persons increase was used in the
          Bloomington 201 Plan to calculate increase in future sewage flows.

          With this in mind, the Consultant, using U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute
          quadrangle sheets and counting houses, attempted to determine existing
          population distribution with the natural drainage area that would be
          served by the southwest and southeast interceptors—the two interceptors
          planned for construction within the 20 year planning period for the
          proposed plant.  A part of the southeast drainage area even goes far
          enough south to include a part of the District Service Area" of Lake
          Monroe Regional Waste District.
 Lake Monroe 201 Plan.
                                     3-1-9

-------
         Based on  the  foregoing analysis,  it was determined  that  only  70
         percent of  the  1970 population residing south of  the major  drainage
         boundary  actually resided within  any  of these natural  drainage
         districts:  the central, southeast and southwest.   This  percentage
         should be adjusted upward to  80 percent taking  into account the  1970
         census under  reporting.

         The  Consultant  assumed that this  southern  drainage  area,  noted by the
         City Planning Commission to be the major growth area within its
         jurisdictional  area,  would attract an ever increasing  percentage or
         share of  population growth in the future.   Although not  definitively
         ascertained, this proportion was anticipated to  increase  from  80  to 85
         percent by  1990.

         The  Consultant, using the city's  growth projections, calculated  an
         18,000 person increase within the combined central, southwestern, and
         southeastern  drainage areas.  At  an average sewage  flow  of  100 GPCD
         this would  add  1.8 MGD rather than 2.5 MGD to southern sewage flows.
         This calculation does not yet include consideration for  the Lake
         Monroe waste  district flow increases.

1.3.6    Variances with  Bloomington 201 Plan Projections

1.3.6.1  1970 Census Discrepancies

         The  1970  census count for the City of Bloomington and  the south
         drainage  flows  should be adjusted upward by 5,000 to 6,000  persons to
         reflect  census  discrepancies. This would  directly affect all
         previously  prepared population projections such as  found in the
         Bloomington 201 Facility Plan by  enlarging the  population base quite
         significantly,  amounting to an equivalent  of 1/6  of the  city's total
         1970 population.  Not all of  this error  is within the  City  of
         Bloomington,  but most of it is certainly located  within  the southern
         drainage  districts.

         As well  as  can  be  determined, this under reporting occurred primarily
         within  the  university student population.   The  1970 census  was self-
         reported  so there  is  no way to definitively determine  the extent of
         under  reporting with  the data at  hand, but the  calculations in Table
         1-5  provide at  least  an estimate  of  the magnitude of total  error.
         From this cursory  analysis, it appears that about 8 percent of the
         university  student population probably commutes to and from the
         university  from locations outside Monroe County.

1.3.6.2   Indiana  University Enrollment Trends/Flows

         The  university  is  the city  and county's  largest single industry.  A
         good share  of the  9,714 persons  employed by public and private schools
         within the  county  owe their livelihood  to  the university.
                                      3-1-10

-------
          The   30,370 student population in 1970 was equivalent to 3/4 of the
          city's  population as reported in the census.   Adjusting for suspected
          discrepancies,  the university student population accounts for 2/3 of
          the  city's total population.

          Current and future university enrollment trends indicate that the
          Indiana University enrollments will peak prior to 1979-1980 school
          year.   After this the enrollment may stabilize or even decline
          slightly.

          The  unofficial  1975 enrollment at Indiana University is expected to
          fall within the range of 31,000 to 32,000 students.'  An average of
          31,500  students would indicate an increase of 1,132 students, a rate
          of change  less  than a 1% per  year since 1970.  At this rate of change,
          enrollment may  peak out at approximately 32,350 students in the 1978-
          1979 school year; some 2,500  fewer students than anticipated in the
          Bloomington 201 Plan.

          These enrollment projection rates may be slightly overstated
          considering the current economy.  The university noted a one to two
          percent higher  ratio of enrollment to the total state population age
          pool that  the university draws upon for its enrollment and apparently
          a higher proportion of undergraduates remaining for graduate work.
          This condition  is felt to reflect current employment opportunities and
          will probably not become a permanent condition.  It is quite possible
          that university enrollments will actually decline in the 1980's as a
          reflection of the current statewide decline in the size of the
          elementary and  secondary school age group.

          There are  no known absolute limits to long term enrollment changes at
          the  Bloomington Indiana University campus.  The university owns
          considerable acreage upon which to expand.  There are, however,
          practical  short term limits.   At present, the university is faced with
          a limit in the  amount of classroom capacity.8  With the immediate
          prospects  for declining enrollments, it is not very likely that the
          State of Indiana will be entering upon any new era of university
          enlargement in  the near future.

          With an anticipated 1978-1979 enrollment increase of less than 2,000
          students over the 1970 levels, increase in university flows may be
          closer to  .09 MGD rather than the.2 MGD increase projected  in  the 201
          Plan.  In  fact, considering that university enrollments will have
          peaked prior to the completion of the sewage treatment plant, and may
          even decline thereafter, incremental changes in sewage flows from the
          university may  be negligible.
7Telecon with Mr. Shellhamer, I.U. Registrar's Office, September, 1975.

8Telecon with Mr. James Perin, Indiana University Budget Office, September, 1975.
                                       3-1-11

-------
1.3.6.3   Economic Trends
                                  g
          The economy of Region 10  improved rapidly in the 1960's as a result
          of the university enrollment doubling and an increase in electrical
          machinery employment.  Otis Elevator located a new factory in the
          Bloomington area hiring 1,000 persons.   Most local sources forsee a
          slowdown in economic growth, and the future growth prospects for the
          university appear to be limited.  Increases in manufacturing
          employment normally result more from growth within existing industries
          rather than relocations,and the probability of another large
          manufacturing plant relocating to the Bloomington area is felt to be
          remote.

          One reason is thai: the Bloomington area, particularly the
          manufacturing sector, is rather limited with respect to labor supply.
          It is estimated that nearly 1/4 of all 1976 jobs in the Bloomington
          area were held by residents of other counties and that nearly 1/2 of
          all manufacturing job opportunities within the Bloomington area were
          held by outsiders,  Any additional labor would have to drive from more
          distant areas.  11: appears that from both a labor demand and supply
          standpoint this area will probably not grow at a very fast rate in the
          future.

1.3.6.4   Manufacturing Employment Trends

          The Bloomington 201 Facility Plan estimate of projected growth of
          manufacturing employment was based upon employment trends anticipated
          in an "Indiana Regional and Economic Development and Planning
          Study."10  The 201 Plan calculation of Monroe County's share of
          Region 10's manufacturing employment actually represented the total
          projected employment increase which includes both the manufacturing as
          well as the non-manufacturing sectors of employment opportunity.

          Increases anticipated in manufacturing flows as recalculated by the
          consultant are equivalent to about 1/3 that projected in the 201 Plan.
          Note that the recalculations were taken to the year 2000, while those
          embodied in the Bloomington 201 Plan were to the year 1990.

1.3.7     Alternate Projections/Lake Monroe Regional Waste District

1.3.7.1   Existing Year-Round Population

          Lake Monroe Regional Waste District's 201 plan estimated the
          district's 1966 population at 5,000 persons in 1,404 household units,
          assuming 3.7 persons per average household.  It was not determined
          where these 5,000 persons resided nor if they were favorably located
          with respect to fostering development of an economically viable
          sewerage treatment system.  Also, the plan did not differentiate
          between year-round and seasonal residential development.
9
 Includes the counties of Monroe, Greene, Lawrence, and Owen.

  Richard L. Pfister, Indiana University, Division of Research, School of Business.

                                      3-1-12

-------
          It is desirable to isolate the concentration and distribution of
          year-round sewage flows from that which might accrue from seasonal,
          second home, and recreational inputs.  This is important because
          seasonal growth is not directly related to normal economic and
          population growth factors.  Furthermore, there is normally a difference
          in flow volumes per dwelling unit between these types of units.

          The Consultant duplicated the LMRWD methodology, but updated the 1966
          housing counts to 1970, and instead of using a blanket 3.7 persons
          per household,.utilized individual 1970 municipal household sizes.
          This 3.7 persons per household figure used in the 201 Plan is much
          higher than reported in the 1970 Census.  The 1970 figures predate
          seasonal and second home construction around the lake and are assumed
          to fairly accurately represent existing year round household sizes.

          The results of the recount of population by this Consultant were not
          exactly similar to the LMRWD 201 Plan figures. Possibly part of the
          difference might result from the difference in boundary delineations
          for the Lake Monroe Regional Waste District shown in the two 201
          plans.  The LMRWD population estimates probably include people
          residing in the State Route 37 corridor, although this corridor does
          not appear to lie within the district boundaries.  There is no doubt,
          however, that this corridor should be also served by sewers, especially
          if Harrodsburg is, since together they represent one of the larger
          demand centers found within the entire area.

          The major demand centers in the Lake Monroe area are shown on Plate 4.

1.3.7.2   Population Distribution/Demand Centers

          Suprisingly. the majority of the 3,500 persons estimated by the
          Consultant** to be residing in or contiguous to the LMRWD or within
          the District's Service Area (Figure 1-2) are located some distance
          from the lake, principally in older hamlets and villages as distinct
          from new subdivisions, and not within the district boundaries.

          About 1,600 persons resided within the boundaries of the original
          Lake Monroe regional waste district in 1970; and, more importantly,
          there were few population concentrations warranting sewer services
          based on population density or concentration.  Most residential
          developments in the lake district proper consisted of residential
          development along the ridge roads.  Portions of this district population
          are physically isolated from the rest of the county by Lake Monroe,
          which is the largest man-made lake in Indiana.  Those isolated segments
          of Salt Creek and Polk Townships are also lightly populated, and
          these two areas are predominantly forested with some steep terrain.
          In addition, much of the land here is maintained by the U.S. Forest
          Service as part of the Hoosier National Park.  The only concentration
          of year-round housing found within the LMRWD was at Harrodsburg.
  Gilbert Associates, Inc.
                                     3-1-13

-------
          The  District's  Service  Area  (DSA)  is  located  contiguous to and north
          of the LMRWD  boundary.   As estimated  by  Gilbert  Associates, Inc.,
          this area contained  55% of the  3,518  persons  residing with the combined
          LMRWD and DSA.   The  DSA is contiguous to the  city of  Bloomington
          jurisdictional  area;  part of  it is also  located  within the southeast
          drainage basin  of  the city.   This  means  that  part of  the DSA population
          is favorably  located with respect  to  possible gravity sewage flow to
          the  Dillman or  Ketcham  sites.

          The  DSA population is located mainly  with the small older settlements
          such as Handy,  Sanders  and Smithville.   Handy and Sanders are located
          just at the edge of  the city's  southeast watershed boundary, but
          sewage would  have  to be pumped  over this ridge to be  treated at any
          of the Clear  Creek sites.  However, except in the case of Smithville,
          these sewage  flows would also have to be pumped  over  ridges to reach
          the  Salt Creek  Site.

1.3.7.3   Estimates of  Potential  Flow From Existing Development

          There are two existing  residential demand centers that warrant
          sewering.12  The largest is the Harrodsburg/State Route 37 corridor
          and  the smaller an amalgamation of the small  hamlets  located in the
          DSA.  Discounting  the isolated  and scattered  residential developments
          typical in the  area,  it is estimated  that less than 2,500 persons
          reside in areas of favorable  density  and in locations that warrant
          near term sewerage service.   This  figure also includes 600 persons
          outside the district in the State  Route  37 corridor.   Another .12  MGD
          should be added to this estimated  .24 MGD year-round  residential flow
          to reflect contributions from the  three  elementary schools and
          recreational  flows; from Fairfax State Park.

1.3.7.4   Year-Round Population Projections

          In the LMRWD  201 plan the population  increase was assumed to be an
          average annual  rate  of  3.47%  per year.   At this  rate  Monroe County
          would have a  population of 180,000 persons by the year 2000.  This
          rate of growth  evtm  exceeds that found in the Bloomington 201 Plan
          which is itself probably overstated.   At this rate, the Bloomington
          201  plan population  projection  of  138,000 would  be attained in the
          mid  1980's; and the  City Planning  Commission's county projection for
          2000 would be attained  in approximately  1977.

          Current population trends within the  district reflect a turn-around
          from 1960 to  1970  population  changes  (Table 1-9), when the reservoir
          construction  was largely responsible  for an estimated 500 person
          population loss in the  townships adjoining the lake.   These current
          1970-1973 growth trends range from 1.0 to 1.7 percent per annum
          increase within these lakeside  municipalities.   The census does not
          ennumerate seasonal  populations so that  this  increase will not
          include new recreational and  resort projects.  These  most current
          figures are,  however, only estimates.
12
  Assuming a minimum of 300 units.
                                     3-1-14

-------
          The City Planning Commission population projections estimated a 3,650
          person population increase between 1970 and 2000. in that part of the
          county located outside their jurisdictional area.  The corresponding
          growth rate usin& their projection is 16.7 percent over the 30 year
          period.  At this rate of increase, the year round district population
          would enlarge to slightly over 4,000 persons.  If the area growth
          rates were to continue at the 1970 to 1973 levels of approximately 1.5
          percent per annum, this area could reach a population level of about
          5400 persons.

          The same 16.7 and 45,0 percent growth rates for a thirty year period
          were used to estimate the magnitude of year-round population change
          anticipated within the Lake Monroe demand centers.  It appears from
          these calculations that year-round residential flows in the Lake
          Monroe area will be in the vicinity of .30 MGD.

1.3.7.5   Recreational and Institutional Projections

          The  recreational and institutional flow projections were utilized
          directly from the LMRWD 201 Plan.  It appears that within the time
          frame in question, the three small  schools may eventually be con-
          solidated into one school, the location of which may not even be in
          the Lake Monroe Regional Waste District.  This particular proposition
          was recently on the ballot for voter approval at a strain Ridge Road
          location and was voted down.

          The only real net increase in recreation flow is projected at the two
          major state recreation areas—Fairfax and Paynetown.  While the
          Fairfax recreation area is rather favorably located with respect to
          incorporation with other flow into the Little Clear Creek interim
          package plant, Paynetown is ill-located - about five (5) miles
          directly north and east of Fairfax.  Without crossing Moore Creek and
          Ramp Creek inlets, this distance may actually increase to nine (9)
          miles and the path between is lightly populated.

1.3.7.6   Seasonal Population/Background

          Lake Monroe is a Corps of Engineers multi-purpose reservoir, a flow
          augmentation and flood control reservoir, a major water supplier for
          the City of Rloomington, and a major state recreational facility.
          Since its completion in 1965, the lake has been the scene of intense
          real estate as well as environmental activity.  The latter is a
          response to the real or imagined threat of development
          indiscriminantly destroying the lake with sewage discharges, coupled
          with the possibility of construction and operation of developments .
          resulting in an increased sedimentation and siltation, fertilizer
          runoff, etc.

          The State of Indiana passed special legislation to form the Lake
          Monroe Regional Waste District solely to address the wastewater
                                      3-1-15

-------
          problem around the lake.   This group,  in turn,  contracted for the
          preparation of sewerage system plans.   In recognition of the linkage
          between the sewerage service and land  usage and environmental effects
          it also spearheaded a three phase environmental survey and baseline
          study of Lake Nonroe to include a capability model for determining
          optimum land usage around the lake.  This model is not available and
          the first phase conclusions were preliminary and could not be used in
          this report.

          The Corps of Engineers purchase line for the lake ensures that no one
          can privately cwn frontage and have  direct access to the lake.  Lake
          access is limited to selected state  facilities  for boating and
          swimming, such as Fairfax, Paynetown,  etc.  Reportedly, this lake line
          was designed so that views from boats  on the lake toward the shore
          would remain natural looking even if developed.   The Indiana State
          Department of Natural Resources controls the construction of boat
          docks, slips, itarinas, and ramps into  the lake.   In turn, the quantity
          of these facilities controls the intensity of boating on the lake.

          The major selling point of Lake Monroe from a real estate viewpoint
          for marketing seasonal home developments is the view and aesthetic
          appeal, micro-climate of  a lake, and relative proximity to boating
          opportunities.  Interestingly enough,  the lake  itself seems to have
          very little to do with the only viable development under construction
          at Lake Monroe - - The Pointe.   The  Pointe is inward and recreation
          oriented, built around a  golf course,  tennis, etc.  Lake usage is
          possibly by special arrangements with  the Four  Winds Marina or at the
          State Park, both of which are located  off-site.   Even at The Pointe,
          the lake presence or the  fact that this development adjoined the lake
          was not very visually apparent.


1.3.7.7   Seasonal Development Proposals

          At present the major private seasonal-resort developments are The
          Pointe, a planned unit condominium development  with a recreation
          orientation, and the Four Winds, a resort-motel-marina located within
          Fairfax State Park on subleased land.   Quite a  few development schemes
          have been presented for various properties located on the perimeter of
          the lake.  These proposals range from  campsites to highly commercial
          developments such as resort-motels,  etc.  Very  few of these developers
          could provide a definite  timetable or  construction schedule to the
          LMRWD Consultant.  Some developments are apparently being held in
          abeyance unless and until there is a regional sewer system;  while
          others, such as the Inland Steel proposal, have been temporarily or
          perhaps permanently abandoned.

          The Pointe is the only development where construction is in progress
          and following reasonably  close to a  construction schedule.   Subsequent
          to the LMRWD 201 Plan, the Pointe constructed a 0.1 MGD temporary
          package sewage treatment  plant along Little Clear Creek.
                                      3-1-16

-------
          The existing developments proposed around the lake have selected
          the west and north side of the lake.   This may also reflect
          ownership patterns since most of Salt Creek and Polk Creek Townships
          are federally owned forest lands, but it also reflects environmental
          constraints such as soil and steepness of slopes.  Of all the
          developments proposed to date, only The Pointe and Land and Leisure
          are located so they would drain naturally to Little Clear Creek and
          the Salt Creek Plant.  Except for proposed developments clustered
          around the north side of the causeway, most are separated from one
          another by significant distances of open land which is wooded, with
          rugged terrain, steep slope, and numerous lake inlets.

          Most of the Lake Monroe perimeter within Salt Creek and Polk Creek
          Townships is surrounded by U.S. Forest Service lands, part of the
          Hoosier National Forest.  These forest lands surround every potential
          development around Lake Monroe except for The Pointe, Land and
          Leisure, Seven Flags and Brendon Shores.  The U.S. Forest Service has
          taken a stance that it will not allow sewer line easements across its
          lands without the protection afforded by an areawide plan for the
          entire lake, presumably addressing the impact of such development.

1.3.7.8   Existing Seasonal Development/The Pointe

          The Pointe, a condominium apartment development, is the sole major
          seasonal development being constructed around Lake Monroe.  The first
          village, one of seven planned, was partially completed in August 1975,
          with 96 of the 200 planned units under roof.  Each of the seven
          villages is planned to have a pool and tennis courts as its focus and
          draw.  Each will contain approximately 200 units.  Central recreation
          features now include a championship golf course.  Joint arrangements
          have been made with Four Winds for use of their marina.  Plans include
          a central sports complex centered around golf and tennis pro shops and
          restaurant facilities.

          Current purchasers reside mainly in Indianapolis and Terre Haute,
          using their units for second homes.  They are predominately
          professional's in their 40's and 50's.^   The latter may be more of a
          reflection on the mix of units built in this first section which was
          predominantly three bedroom apartments.

          Of the 96 units under roof (August 1975), some 45% reportedly have
          been sold. ^  This represents approximately a one year construction
          and marketing effort with respect to the residential aspects of the
          project.  At this rate The Pointe may not meet its expected 1985
          completion date.  In fact, at this rate the completion might extend
          considerably beyond 1985.  Certainly the overall market for housing is
          a little soft at this time, although this seasonal housing market
          consists mainly of affluent families, better capable of improving
          their relative position in a period of economic uncertainty. Units
          in this development range in price from $25,000 to $85,000 with
  Conversation with Ron Jarrett, The Pointe.

                                      3-1-17

-------
          most units  probably priced  in the $45,000  range.   A sizable front end
          investment  has  been made in this  project,  such as  an 18  hole golf
          course,  roads,  water,  sewage treatment  plant,  etc.,  which would lead
          one to believe  that it will be completed,  and  become a guaranteed
          part of  future  sewage  flows within this area.

1.3.7.9   LMRWD 201 Plan  Projections

          According to the LMRWD 201  Plan,  seasonal  flow projections for the
          major developments proposed at one time or another around Lake Monroe
          could total approximately 6400 units with  an estimated flow of over
          L.5 MGD  by  1998., assuming a regional collection and sewer system.

          The LMRWD consultant queried each potential developer to determine
          his projected 1998 sewage flows and their  startup  and completion
          schedules.   Only three developers responded with schedules.  Land and
          Leisure  and Brendon Shores  indicated a  1974 startup, while Graves and
          Moore indicated they were awaiting the  public  sewer system.  Construction
          activity was apparent  only  at The Pointe during an August 1975 flight
          over the lake.

          In Table 1-17,  the Consultant has rearranged the projected LMRWD 201
          Plan flow data by geographical location around the lake  and grouped
          together developments  that  are relatively  geographically contiguous.

          Those seasonal developments reasonably  close to the Salt Creek site
          and the  interim facility on Little Clear Creek include The Pointe,
          Land and Leisure, Fairfax State Park and the Four Winds  Marina.  Flow
          projections for Fairfax State Park includes the Four Winds.  This
          grouping of developments, etc., represents the area with the greatest
          potential for completion as well  as for sharing sewerage services.
          The seasonal development within these two  developments represents
          one-half of the proposed year 2000 sewage  flows for the  north and
          west side of the lake.  This service area  could also handle about
          one-half of thai projected  flow increase expected to be  contributed
          by regional recreational facilities.

          The Inland  Steel project now lies dormant  and  the remaining second
          home projections on the north side of the  lake have a potential waste
          load of  .23 MGD, not including the Paynetown State Park.  About 5 to
          9 miles  of  open land separates this area from Fairfax, depending on
          whether  or  not Moores  Creek Inlet is to be crossed by a  sewer line.
          This particular area is located closer  to  Winston Thomas than it is
          to the Salt Creek site.  Due to the lack of definite plans and schedules
          for development the feasibility for servicing this area  is uncertain.

          Considerably less seasonal  development  has been proposed for the south
          side of  the lake.  The largest of these proposals, Seven Flags, lies
          practically on top of  the Salt Creek site.  Seven Flags, Brendon
                                    3-1-18

-------
          Shores and Chapel Hill proposed developments together account for
          one-half of the projected seasonal development sewage flow on the
          south side of the lake.  Each is located close enough to the lake
          drainage divide to enable them to discharge effluent outside the Lake
          Monroe drainage district without worrying about discharges into the
          lake.

          Developments on the southern side share with those on the northern
          side a lack of definite timetable and a wide distance separating each
          development from its so called neighbor.

          Another factor complicating regional service is that national forest
          lands surround most of these developments and any joint collection
          system would require right-of-way easements through these Federal
          lands.  This does not appear to be an immediate certainty, since the
          Forest Service has stipulated as a precondition to granting such
          easements that a coordinated areawide planning for the lake be
          developed.  The latter may result as an outgrowth of the Lake Monroe
          Land Capability Study, but is probably some years away from becoming
          a reality.

1.3.8     The Seasonal and Second Home Market

          Little regional analysis is available either from a governmental or an
          institutional sources that would enable the determination of the
          aggregate market for resort, seasonal and second homes within the Lake
          Monroe area.    At present there are some 6400 units or lots which
          have been conceived and planned.  Some of these plans have already
          been cancelled^-*, while others cannot offer much in the way of
          providing start-up dates, scheduling, etc.    At present there is no
          definitive answer as to whether any of these units will ever be
          constructed.

          The prospect of a regional plan being developed as a result of the
          Lake Monroe Land Capability Study now underway may be a limiting
          factor to large scale seasonal development around the lake.  Such
          a plan may limit or constrain lakeside development for environ-
          mental reasons, and possibly increase the cost of construction.
          The U.S. Forest Service's reluctance to allow easements across
          their land, without an overall land use plan for the lake should
          be considered another important constraint.  In addition, the
          Indiana Department of Health discharge requirements will add
          to the list of limiting factors.
  Dr. Morton Marcus, Indiana University, Bureau of Research and Planning,
  Graduate School of Business.

  Inland Steel Project, for example.

  Beam, Longest and Neff, Survey of Lake Monroe Developers.
                                      3-1-19

-------
          Lacking areawide data,  this Consultant  investigated some national and
          regional literature on  the second home  market which isolated various
          usage and ownership characteristics.   Several reports indicate that
          the second home market  consists primarily of affluent metropolitan
          residents (two-thirds of all owners  nationally),  arid most of these
          homes were located within a 100 mile radius  of their year round
          residence. ^>18  The Indianapolis and Terre  Haute SMSA's would,
          therefore, make up the  primary market areas  for Lake Monroe seasonal
          housing, being the most accessible to Lake Monroe,  within a one and
          one-half hour  commuting time.   However,  a 100 mile  radius from Lake
          Monroe includes all of  Indiana's Standard Metropolitan Areas except
          for the Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, South Bend and Fort Wayne.   In
          fact, even the Cincinnati and  Louisville SMSA's falls within this
          radius.

          Nationally, the second  home boom accelerated between 1950 and 1970,
          directly correlated with the viability  of the economy and rising
          affluence of  families in metropolitan areas.   In  that period,
          one-half of all the total second homes  units were constructed.

          Nationally second home  owners  consist mainly of small families, one
          or two persons, with one-third of all families having three to four
          members.  About one-fifth of all seasonal homeowners nationally are
          over 65 years  of age.

          Second home usage will  also vary with the local climates, and whether
          the location  is suitable for "four season" usage.   Nationally, usage
          will range from 90 to 180 days.   In  1967 second homes were mainly used
          almost exclusively by their owners with  only ten  percent of them
          rented. '   In  1967 the  average second homeowner reported a medium
          income nationally of $9600 - well beyond the overall national medium.

          Experiences in the Pocono Mountain Region of Pennsylvania, an
          established four season vacation area serving the northeast
          megalopolis,  Indicates  that less than one-fifth of  all the seasonal
          lots existing  at the time of the survey  were built  upon, and that land
          prices range  from an average of $3,640  to $11,590 for lake-front
          locations.1^   Ninety percent of all  lots were without community
          sewerage and  fifty percent without public water.  Electricity and
          roads seemed  i:o be the  major common  improvements  available.  Retirees
          only comprised 10% of the buyers, and the median  family income of
          Pocono land buyers was  $16,098.
  Housing Report,  Series  121,  U.S.  Bureau  of  Census  and  the  U.S.  Forest  Service,
  U.S.  Government  Printing Office,  1969.
18
  Supply Characteristics  of the  vacation home in  Pocono  Mountain  Region,  Center
  for Business Economics  and Urban  Studies, Lehigh University,  Bethlehem,
  Pennsylvania, update.
19
  Housing Report,  Series  121,  U.S.  Bureau  of  Census  and  the  U.S.  Forest  Service,
  U.S.  Government  Printing Office,  1969.
                                     3-1-20

-------
          Usually, the major attraction for seasonal and second homes is a body
          of water, and Lake Monroe is the largest man-made lake in the state of
          Indiana.  Counterbalancing this attraction is the fact at Lake Monroe
          access cannot be purchased but is owned by the Corps of Engineers,
          which may discourage boating and swimming enthusiasts.

          While the economy is a big factor in second home purchase, there are
          some positive factors in the second home market.  The November 1974
          House and Home Magazine, a housing trade publication, attributed the
          resort market's apparent survival of environmental pressures, gas
          shortage (at that time), runaway inflation, etc., to the fact that
          this market consists mainly of the affluent who have a greater
          discretionary income either less affected by inflation; or afraid that
          with inflation, their buying power will not be increased in the
          future.  Many are buying as an investment and thinking about
          retirement.  The projects that are in best shape are those that have
          the best combination of design and planning and the most attractive
          environment.  The latter includes recreation attractions and
          facilities and thoughtful unit design.

          Other factors that might stimulate this market include an innovative
          real estate concept called time-sharing, now emerging in Florida and
          California.  Under time-sharing, a buyer actually buys a time frame
          for occupying the unit which is centrally managed for all buyers.
          Another more conventional method to reduce the investment needed or
          help defray owners costs is to sublease the second home.  Buyers of
          units at The Pointe can take this course of action, although some
          developments prohibit subleasing.

1.4       SYSTEMS/COORDINATION AND COMPATIBILITY WITH PROJECTED LAND
          USE PATTERNS

1.4.1     Summary

          Within this subtask, attention has been given to comparing and
          evaluating the relative differences between each plant site system
          with respect as to how well they relate to locally desired long range
          development goals, plans, and land use compatibility.

          With respect to serving the near term urban area growth of the
          Bloomington area, the Winston Thomas site appears to be the best of
          all four choices; but from a long term viewpoint, the advantage falls
          to the Dillman site which was presumably selected as an optimal
          location to receive gravity flow from the two drainage districts
          flanking the urban area that are considered to be the long range
          growth areas.  The Ketcham Road site also appears favorably with
          respect to the latter consideration.  In fact, at first glance the
          Ketcham site is even better located since it could also collect
          gravity flows from the western drainage district.  However, providing
          sewer service to the Western district with the resulting large
                                      3-1-21

-------
interceptor would conflict with the Bloomington Use Plan which
attempts to discourage intensive development on the environmentally
sensitive lands within a large portion of this district.  The Long
Range Water and Sewer Plan also did not schedule the western
interceptor.  This apparent locational advantage of the Ketcham site
is not really an asset in the time-frame under consideration.

The Ketcham and Salt Creek sites, particularly the Latter, would be
the more disruptive to the desired land use pattern for the urban
region systems.  Both would foster leap-frogging and sprawling type of
development pattern on cheaper lands accessible to the interceptor
sewer line.  One Bloomington Land Use Plan goal is to foster the
centralizing future development in higher density patterns to take
advantage of the existing community infrastructure.  Leap-frogging
would tend to dissipate this effort by helping in dissipating the
central area g.rowth potential.  This same leap-frogging and sprawling
development pa.ttern would have play havoc on those lightly populated
rural areas that are little prepared to cope with the associated
problems and costs.

In a total economic sense, uncontrolled development is the worst
choice for both the public and the private economic sectors and both
must pay for t.he extra costs that result.  Granted, the control of
sprawl is a difficult matter, but strong utility policies could play a
most important: role in this effort.  The land use goal of higher
density in more centralized locational patterns where the community
framework develops gradually outward from the existing network is also
a most economical pattern with respect to utility system development.
A side benefit: is that less pressure is put on less suitable vacant
lands by speculative interests.

The list of total economic costs is long, involving both operating and
capital expenses, and public and private interests.  These are well
documented in "The Costs of Sprawl," prepared in 1974 for the Council
of Environmental Quality by the Real Estate Research Corporation.
This same publication also documents the overall environmental effects
as well as personal effects of sprawl in the community and the
residents.

In terms of plant site location and compatibility with proposed land
use and zoning patterns, the Salt Creek site is in obvious conflict
with the existing zoning ordinance.  The site is zoned for residential
use as are  its environs.  Most of this site, which lies on a floodway,
is not suitable for residential usage without the added expenses of
flood protection and/or flood proofing.  Existing document search did
not clarify whether the South Rogers site was zoned or not, but the
Land Use Plan indicated a residential usage pattern here.  The other
sites and  their immediate environs are for the most part zoned for
non-residenti.al usage which would not conflict with a plant being
located at  those sites.
                            3-1-22

-------
          With respect to existing development patterns, Winston Thomas and
          South Rogers Site are the only two sites that have already been
          encroached upon by residential development.  The Rogers Site is in
          fact occupied by a rather large mobile home park.  It is difficult to
          assess just how critical the land use conflicts are at the Winston
          Thomas Site, since it was built and in operation long before the
          adjoining residential development occurred.

          One very serious shortcoming complicating the entire land use issue is
          the lack of long range guidelines for development around Lake Monroe.
          The county zoning pattern appears to have placed part of the lake on
          hold, i.e., requiring extremely large residential lots in both Polk
          and Salt Creek townships as well as some other areas; although
          allowing unlimited residential development in Clear Creek and Perry
          townships.  This same map, except for a few commercial zones, bears
          little relationship to the multitude of development proposals offered
          the lake.  The analysis made possible with the present time
          constraint, unfortunately, has probably raised more questions than
          were answered.  More importantly, the lack of planning around the lake
          puts the Consultant in the hazardous position of interfering in local
          land use decisions.  This could result from the acceptance of a
          particular sewerage plan solution, which will by fiat establish a land
          use plan whether the municipalities desire that particular plan or
          not.  The development of an overall totally coordinative land use and
          sewerage plan for the lake should be a priority item in Monroe County.

1.4.2     Coordination with City Land Use Plans

          The City of Bloomington is responsible for charting the future growth
          and development of the urban area of Monroe County, while the county
          exercises that responsibility in the other areas which includes Lake
          Monroe.

          The Bloomington Land Use Plan, circa 1970, maps land use patterns
          desired within the city's jurisdictional area, along with highway and
          utility plan improvements.  The City Planning Commission's staff is of
          the opinion that this plan is a conceptually correct and acceptable
          portrayal of how the area might ultimately develop.    The city's Land
          Use Plan recognizes most of the recommendations of the Long Range
          Water and Sewer Plan such as the southwest, southeast, northeast, and
          northwest interceptors.  The Long Range Water and Sewer Plan
          recommendation for the western interceptor was largely ignored,
          reflecting the land use goal to preserve rather than develop the
          environmentally sensitive western area.  The plan shows the proposed
          treatment plant site location at Dillman Road.

          The Bloomington Land Use Plan might be considered an optimum plan.  It
          does not provide specific guidance in terms of the desired phasing of
          growth and development, such as when and where it would be most
          desirable to encourage growth and development.  The Bloomington City
20
  August 1975 conversation with Tom Grossman, Executive Director, and his
  assistant, Stuart Rueller.

                                      3-1-23

-------
          Planning Commission Staff was able,  however,  to supply some direction
          in this regard.   The answer to this  question  will depend largely upon
          the staging of l;he construction of the various proposed interceptor
          sewers.

          The City Staff is of the opinion that physical growth constraints are
          more limiting to the west and northwest of the city than in any other
          directions.  These mainly result from the unique Karst geological
          formation with Lts associated problems such as the development of
          sinkholes, solution cavities, and easy linkage to the groundwater
          supply.  Other Limiting factors in this sector, particularly for
          residential development include large areas now quarried and large
          industrial tracts located west of the city.  In addition, State
          Route 37 Bypass  and the railroads have cut this sector into smaller
          areas reducing residential appeal.

          To the north of  the city, the floodplain areas and rugged steep
          hillsides, are the major physical limitations.  In addition, much of
          the remaining usable land is largely tied up  in municipal watershed or
          university ownership.  The rugged wooded topography which adjoins Lake
          Monroe extends westward toward the city to form a physical barrier to
          eastward expansion of the city.  The more physically suitable and
          readily developable areas lie to the south and southeast of the city;
          the historic direction for residential growth.  This potential urban
          growth area to the south extends down to Dillman Road which is fairly
          close to the Lake Monroe District Service Area.  Within this latter
          service area, the nature of the terrain quickly changes to that of
          rugged wooded hills.

1 . A . 3     Coordination with County Land Use Plans

          Monroe County does not have a long range planning guideline document
          available from which to make similar comparisons as in the city's
          jurisdictional
1.4.4     Plant Site and Environs/Land Use Compatibility  (See Plate  1)

1.4.4.1   Winston Thomas /Rogers Site

          This plant site and immediate environs are in predominantly
          non-residential land usage pattern,  except for the south portion of
          the Rogers Site which is now occupied by an 80 unit trailer park.
          While Old State Route 37 to the east of the site has  developed
          commercially,  residential development has occurred across the creek
          and railroad right-of-way west of the Winston Thomas  Plant, the plant
          site construction preceded this residential development.  The latest
          addition to this residential fabric  is a new middle school opening
21
  Conversation with Mr.  Lee Hardy,  August 1975.
                                      3-1-24

-------
          this year at the corner of Rogers Road and Gordon Pike.  Much of the
          view toward the Winston Thomas site from the higher residential
          development is partially screened on the western side of the plant by
          the creek and railroad tree lines.  Much of the existing plant site
          lies within the floodplain of Clear Creek.

          The Bloomington Land Use Plan for the Winston Thomas site reflects
          its non-residential potential, while the Rogers Site and most peripheral
          areas are considered suitable for low density residential development,
          except east of Old State Route 37 where commercial development is
          contemplated.  The site is zoned for special conservation and light
          manufacturing with a low density residential zone on the northern
          periphery.  The east side of Old State Route 37 is zoned for arterial
          business.  Either the city's zoning jurisdiction ends at Gordon Road,
          or the Zoning Map is incomplete, because zoning district lines were
          not indicated south of Gordon Road.

          The special conservation district is designed to protect lands with
          high water tables or flooding, and most of the treatment plant site
          lies within this zone.  The city has adopted floodway and fringe area
          regulations for the 100 year flood contour.  Permitted uses within
          this floodway mainly include agricultural and recreational activities
          having a non-structural character that would tend not to obstruct,
          confine, or impede flood flows.
1.4.4.2   The Dillman Site
          The Dillman Site is located between two railroad rights-of-way
          paralleling Clear Creek.   Most of the land is now vacant.  State
          Route 37 cuts the site into two pieces.  The general land use character
          of the environs is rolling pasture land and fallow bottomland with
          homes located up on the hillside to the west of the site along Victor
          Pike.  This site has little potential other than for an open and
          agricultural usage, and is not well suited for residential development.

          The Dillman Site is located at the extreme southern edge of the
          optimum plan area.  An analogy has been made that the Dillman Site is
          now located with respect to urban growth as was the Winston Thomas
          Site some years back.  This observation ignores the fact that the
          area available for expansion increase is directly proportional to the
          square of the radius as development radiates outward.  Furthermore,
          it is unlikely at the present rate of growth that the Dillman Site
          would be surrounded by residential development, even if the zoning
          allowed residential development.

          Both the Bloomington Plan and the County Zoning Ordinance consider
          this area to be more suitable for non-residential usage.  The
          Bloomington Plan shows most of the site in a special conservation
          floodplain district with commercial development at the northeast
                                    3- 1-25

-------
          corner of  Dillman Road and  State Route 37.   The  Bloomington Land Use
          Plan does  not  portray residential development  below Clear Creek.  The
          Dillman site,  as  well as  the  Ketcham Road Site,  is located within a
          huge proposed  industrial  zoning district, some 5-1/2 square miles in
          area.  Except  for a few level upland areas,  most of this industrially
          zoned land has little suitability for industrial usage,  except
          possibly for quarrying, etc., a predominant  existing industrial
          activity.
1.4.4.3   Ketcham Site
          The Ketcham Site,  like Dillman,  consists of  bottomland located between
          the two railroad rights-of-way.   The general environs of the Ketcham
          Site is even more rural than at  Dillman.  Land use is typified by
          occasional small farms, fallow lands, rural  housing,  and what appears
          to be an abandoned quarry.   A plant located  here should not interfere
          with any current land use activities.
1.4.4.4   Salt Creek Site:
          The Salt Creek Site consists mainly of a wide bottom which is now
          farmed at the confluence of the Clear and Salt Creeks.   The main value
          of this land is for agricultural purposes, however,  the soils here
          appeared to be poorly drained and tile fields have been installed to
          dewater the site area for farming.   The only possible land use in
          compatibility might be with a proposed seasonal development that could
          be located up the hill from the proposed site.  The site area is now
          zoned residentrLally.
                                      3-1-26

-------
                                    TABLE 1-1

                        FLOW COMPARISONS (MGD) YEAR 2000

                         Consultant               Bloomington
                  (Gilbert Associates, Inc.)    LMRWD 201 Plans       Differences

Existing Flow*                11.2                  11.2

Increase
  Residential                  1.9                   2.5                   +.6
  Industrial                   0.4                   1.0                   +.6
  University                    -                    0.2                   +.2
  Commercial                   1.0                   0.8                   -.2

Subtotal Bloomington
  Region                      14.5                  15.7                   +1.2

Lake Monroe Regional
Waste District

  Year Round                    >4
  Seasonal                       .55

Subtotal Lake Monroe           1.00                  3.0                   +2.0

TOTAL                         15.5                  18.7                   +3.2
SOURCE:  Bloomington 201 Facility Plan, and independent analysis by Consultant
         (Gilbert Associates, Inc.)
*Neither includes 1.9 MGD flow currently pumped north to Blucher Poole Plant.
Notes:  (1)  Assumes 0.30 MGD from residences  (Ref. Table 1-15) and 0.15 MGD
             from institutional and recreation areas  (Ref. Table 1-16)

        (2)  Assumes flows only from "The Pointe" and "Land and Leisure"
             (Ref. Table 1-17)
                                    3-1-27

-------
                                    TABLE 1-2

               COMPARISON OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS (Not adjusted)

                                   1970      198Q      1990      2000

Monroe County

City Planning Commission*         84,850*   90,500*   95,500*   102,500*

Bloomington 201 Plan              84,850   105,000   122,000    138,000

City Jurisdictional Area

City Planning Commission*         63,000    68,00.0    72,000     77,000

Remainder of County

City Planning Commission*         21,850    22,500.    24,000     25,500

*Average between high and low projections -
 Sources:  City Planning Commission;  Rloomington 201 Plan.
                                      3-1-28

-------
                                     TABLE 1-3

               COMPARISON OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND 201 PLAN
                     POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND ALLOCATIONS
                              1970           1980           1990           2QQQ

Monroe County

- City Planning Commission,  90,849         96,500        102,000        108,500
    Adjusted3
- Bloomington 201 Plan       85,000        105,000        123,000        138,000

City Jurisdictional Areab

- City Planning Commission   69,000         74,000         78,000         83,000
    (Adjusted)

County Population North
of Major Drainage Divide

- City Planning Commission   22,570         23,530         24,000         24,600
- Bloomington 201 Plan6      20,000         28,500         37,000         44,000

County Population South0
of Major Drainage Divide

- City Planning Commission   68,290         72,970         78,000         83,900
- Bloomington 201 Plan6      63,000         74,000         83,000         90,000

Central Southwest and
Southeast Drainage Areas^

- Gilbert Associates, Inc.   47,410         52,540         58,500         65,440
- Adjusted3                  53,410         58,540         64,500         71,440


Source:  Unpublished Projections City Planning Dept., Gilbert Associates, Inc.
         Calculations of Distributions for North and South Drainage Area.


aAdjusted upward by 6,000 students, assumed to be city residents and reside
 in the southern drainage area.

 Includes city plus two mile perimeter, some areas of which fall outside
 natural drainage ways of southwest interceptors.
Q
 Includes Lake Monroe and southern area of county.

 Includes only population within these two natural drainage areas.
g
 Does not include total county population.

                                      3-1-29

-------
                                    TABLE 1-4
Township

Benton

Bloomington

Richland

Van Buren

Perry

Salt Creek

Polk Creek

Clear Creek

Indian Creek

Total
                  SOUTH DRAINAGE AREA 1970 POPULATION ESTIMATES
                             RESTRUCTURED TO REFLECT
                     POPULATION CONTRIBUTORY TO INTERCEPTORS

                                      1970
Bloomington
201 Plan
South
Drainage
990
23,410
2,300
6,600
24,550
793
290
2,470
876
Southwest
& Southeast
Interceptors*
-
23,410
„*
1,135*
22,864**
-
-
-
.-
62,279
47,409
  Change

   -990



 -2,300

 -5,465

 -1,686

   -793

   -290

 -2,470

	-876

-14,870
*    Gilbert Associates calculations; also does not include population now
     pumped into system.

**   Excludes 800 persons of the population residing within the LMRWD
     (Districts Service Area).
                                      3-1-30

-------
                                    TABLE 1-5

                            197Q CENSUS DISCREPANCIES
                    U.S.  Census
                      Persons enrolled In college*                    22,708

                    Indiana University
                      1970 enrollment                                 30,368

                    Net difference                                     7,660
                    U.S. Census
                      Population in group quarters*                   12,434

                    Indiana University
                      Estimate of student housing                     18,000

                    Net difference                                     5,566

                    Net difference population enrolled                 7,660
                    Net difference population in group quarter         5,566
                    Estimate of student commutation**                  2,594
 * Residents of Monroe County

** Est. of students living outside of Monroe County

Source:  U.S. Bureau of Census, Bloomington 201 Plan.
                                    TABLE 1-6

               Estimated                                         Estimated
               Enrollment               Increase       GPCD      Flow (MGD)

               Bloomington  201 Plan      4,500          45          0.20
               University Est.           1,980          45          0.09
                                       3-1-31

-------
                                    TABLE 1-7


                      1970 MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT & JOBS


                          Employment
Jobs
Manufacturing


Non-Manufacturing


Total




 U.S. Census



 Indiana Employment Service


c
 From counties other than Monroe.
Count.y
Residents
6,435
26,572
33,007
Employed
in Monroe
5,600
23,120
28,720
Total
9,300
27,550
36,850
Held by-
Commuter0
3,700
4,400
8,100
Commuter
As %
of Total
40.0
16.0
22.0
                                      3-1-32

-------
                                    TABLE  1-8

                           PROJECTED TOTAL EMPLOYMENT*
                      ECONOMIC REGION NO.  10 (BLOOMINGTON)
                              BLOOMINGTON  201 PLAN
Projected Total Employment
  Change 1975-1990                                     8,000
Monroe County Share  (90%)a                             7,200
Bloomington 201 Plan
  Manufacturing Employment Est.                        7,200


Employment Change 1975-2000                           14,000
Monroe County Share  (90%)a                            12,600
Ratio Mfg/Non-Mfg (25%)c                               3,150
Percent in southern        ,
  drainage district  (83.3%)                            2,620
Increase in Manufacturing Flow
  Bloomington 201 Plan (MGD)
     (7,200 x 165 gpcd) -                              1.18
  Gilbert Associates
     (2,620 x 165 gpcd) -                              0.43
 Based on Monroe County's share of 1960 to 1970 population growth, Bloomington
 201 Plan


 Straight line extrapolation to the year 2000


CIndiana Employment Security Office 1970


 Estimated current ratio of industrial flow


Source:  Richard L. Pfister, Indiana University School of Business; Gilbert
         Associates Extrapolations & Flow Recalculations.
                                      3-1-33

-------
                                     TABLE 1-9

                       CURRENT MUNICIPAL POPULATION TRENDS
                       LAKE MONROE REGIONAL WASTE DISTRICT
                             1960 - 1970 - 1973 (EST)
Municipality

Clear Creek Township

Perry Township

Polk Township

Salt Creek Township
1960
2
6


,250
,461a
572
837
1960-1970
Change
Net %
-224
2,071
-278
- 39
-10
32
-48
- 4
.0
.1
.6
.7
1970
2,474
8,532
294
798
1970-1973
Change
Net %
100 4
b 5
15 5
37 4
.0
.3C
.1
.6
1973
2,574
b
309
835
                       10,120
978
9.6   12,098
  Total excludes city of Bloomington and Broadview  (U).
  Not comparable with 1960 and 1970 figures.
  Includes the City of Bloomington and Broadview  (U).

SOURCE:  U.S. Bureau of Census
                                     TABLE 1-10

                         HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 1970
                       LAKE MONROE REGIONAL WASTE DISTRICT
                     SELECTED MONROE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES

                                     Population
                                    per Household
Clear Creek Township

Perry Township *

Polk Township

Salt Creek Township
      3.36

      2.73

      3.09

      3.28
                   Households

                       736

                     8,772

                        95

                       234
* Includes City of Bloomington and Broadview  (U).

SOURCE:  U.S. Census
                                      3-1-34

-------
                                   TABLE 1-11


                            ESTIMATE 1970 POPULATION
                                LAKE MONROE AREA



LMRWD
Townships
Clear Creek
Perry
Polk
Salt Creek
Total
Units
300
75
50
66
491
Pop.
l,008a
205
155
216
1,584


DSA
Units
213
446
-
_
659
Pop.
716
1,218C
*!"•
—
1,934


TOTAL
Units Pop.
513
521
50
66
1,150
1,724
1,423
155
216
3,518
% Total
Municipal
Population
70
17b
50
27
29
  Includes 440 persons residing in Harrodsburg area.



  Percent of Township excluding city of Bloomington and Broadview.


p
  Includes about 328 persons living within gravity flow district of Dillman.
SOURCE:  Gilbert Associates, Inc. - Quad Sheet (1965-1966) housing count
         updated to 1970 by 104.8 percent, except for Clear Creek where
         this method would have exceeded the 1970 housing count.
                                      3-1-35

-------
                                   TABLE 1-12

                         EXISTING 1970 INSTITUTIONAL AND
                          RECREATIONAL FLOW CAPACITIES
Perry Township
     Sanders School

Clear Creek Township
     Water Plant
     Fairfax State Park*
     U.S.C.E.**
     Sraithville School
     Harrodsburg School
                                                 MGD
.01
                   Population
                   Equivalent
                    Subtotal
.11
                      770
                      160
930
Salt Creek Township
     Residences
     Paynetown State Park

                    Subtotal

Polk Creek Township***
     Residences
     Hardin Ridge U.S.F.S.
     Boy Scout Camp

                    Subtotal

                    TOTAL
.01
.04
.01

.06

.21
772
* Includes Four Winds Marina
** Discharges to Salt Creek
*** East Side of Lake Monroe

SOURCE:  LMRWD 201 Plan.
                                      3-1-36

-------
Clear Creek Twp,
  Units
  Population
  Flow (MGD)

Perry Twp.
  Units
  Population
  Flow (MGD)

Total
  Units
  Population
  Flow
                                   TABLE 1-13

                           ESTIMATE OF EXISTING FLOWS
                              YEAR-ROUND RESIDENCES
                    LMRWD   Harrodsburg
DSA
  Outside And
Other Locations
Total
60
202
.02
mm
-
—
60
202
.02
131
440
.04
_
-
_
131
440
.04
136a
457
.05
80b
218
.02
216
675
.07
173
581
.06
193C
527
.05
366
1,108
.11
500
1,680
.17
273
745
.07
773
2,425
.24
 Smithville
 Sanders
°Handy plus area that drains toward Dillman or Ketcham Sites.

SOURCE:   Gilbert Associates, Inc., estimate only includes significant
          population concentrations.  Polk and Salt Creek Townships were
          considered too sparsely settled to include.
Note:  1.  LMRWD figures on this table do not include Harrodsburg.

       2.  DSA = District's Service Area (see Figure 1-1)
                                    3-1-37

-------
                                   TABLE 1-14

                      PROJECTED YEAR-ROUND POPULATION
                                LAKE MONROE AREA-  YEAR 2000
Towns hij3

Clear Creek
Perry
Polk
Salt Creek
     Total

SOURCE:
LMRWD
A
1176
240
180
252
B
1460
298
224
312
DSA
A
836
1420
-
*»
B
1038
2060
—
-
Total
A
2012
1660
180
252
B
2498
2358
224
312
              1848
2294
2256
3098
4104
5392
Gilbert Associates, Inc.
A.   Assumes city planning commission growth rate of 16.'
B.   Assumes current 1970-73 trend rate of 45.0%,
                                   TABLE 1-15

                           PROJECTED FLOWS - YEAR 2000
                              YEAR-ROUND RESIDENCES
Clear Creek
  Population
  Flow (MGD)

Perry Township
  Population
  Flow (MGD)

Total
  Population
  Flow (MGD)
LMRWD
A B
750
.08
-
750
.08
930
.09
-
930
.09
DSA
A
532
.05
254
.02
786
.07
B
662
.07
316
.03
978
.10
Other
A
678
.07
608
.06
1286
.13
B
842
.08
764
.08
1606
.16
Total
A
1960
.20
862
.08
2822
.28
B
2434
.24
1080
.11
3514
.35
  Including Harrodsburg.,

SOURCE:   Gilbert Associates, Inc.
          A.   Assumes city planning commission growth rate  of  16.7%.
          B.   Assumes current 1970-73  trend rate of 45.0%.
                                      3-1-38

-------
                                     TABLE 1-16

                          INSTITUTIONAL AND RECREATIONS
                                 PROJECTED FLOWS
Perry
     Sanders - School

Clear Creek
     Smithville School
     Harrodsburg School
     Filter Plant
     Fairfax State Park
     U.S.C.E.
Salt Creek
     Residences
     Paynetown State Park
Polk Creek
     Residences
     Hardin Ridge U.S.F.S.
     Boy Scout Camp
                              Subtotal
                              Subtotal
                              Subtotal

                              TOTAL
                                                  1998 Flows
                                                     MGD
.01
.02
.01
,02
.09
.01

.15
.02
.09
              Net Increase
               1970 - 1998
.11


.01
.04
.01

.06

.33
.04
.04



.04

.04
.08
SOURCE:  LMRWD 201 Plan, Beam, Longest and Neff.
                                      3-1-39

-------
                                   TABLE 1-17

                            PROPOSED SEASONAL/SECOND
                                 HOME FLOWS 1998
                            CMAJOR DEVELOPMENTS ONLY)
Est. of
Residential Est. of
Units Population
North Side of Lake
Clear Creek
The Pointe (under construction)
*Land and Leisure
Subtotal
Salt Creek
Inland Steel 1,
*Graves, Moore, etc.
Holiday Hills
Subtotal
TOTAL NORTH SIDE
South Side of Lake
Polk
Tan Tara
Aliens Creek
Chapel Hill
Subtotal
Clear Creek
*Brendon Shores
Seven Flags
Subtotal
TOTAL SOUTH SIDE
1,440
560
2,000
300
740
205
2,245
4,245
625
480
100
1,005
450
700
1,150
2,155
2,880
1,020
3,900
2,600
1,650
450
4,700
8,600
1,250
960
200
2,410
900
1.400
2,300
4,710
Est.
Flows
MGD
.50
.05
.55
.26
.15
.08
.49
1.04
.13
.10
.02
.25
.09
.14
.23
.48
GRAND TOTAL                            6,400          13,310              1.52


3 Estimated by the Consultant at 100 GPCD, and 50 GPCP for campsites.


  Project now inactive.


* Did not reply to LMRWD consultants query as to potential startup dates.


SOURCE:  LMRWD 201 Plan, Gilbert Associates Estimate of Units and Population.

                                      3- 1-40

-------















£
EH
M
rJ
rH
CO
M
H
W
r/
CJ ri
rH C
(M C
fcj •<
5 p



•a
o
5







en
Jsj
SM
H
H £-*
»*
O O
1
u
s
iH
rH
01
o
X
u
o
4J
•8
cS
41 n
o -a
X 01
W 41








1
C
ri
M
O
M

                                                    O MH
                                                    |


                                                    o
                                                    N
3
1-











i COORDINATION
w
en
?


















J rJ
«
&•
CJ U
,5 •<
M CT
H S
CO
M p
X 2
W 5
rJ
s
O 41
B< rH
A
O -H
4>J 4-t
cd
^ &
13 §
[x U
41
CO
o .«
rH B
°5 .
PROJECTED
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
Good: Major weakness too
in fit gravity configurat
seriously encroached upon



GOALS
Excellent:
Encourages
centralization




CO

R
Q
JS
H
B
O
4J
W
H
M
CO
CO
B
iH
3

0
4>
rH
rH
41
O
X
w

o

•o
J
\4^ >M
0 E
as
Good to Excellent: At ed
Projected development pat
good gravity system fit.



Excellent:
Encourages
centralization










c*
I
3
rH
•H
Q

^j
CD
O
*»
41
•• W

C CO
41
rH rH
rH r— f
1) td
U
U 0


41
tl
Good: Optional for full
gravity fit, but may indui
development in Western
ecologically sensitive
district



Good to Fair:
Would encourage
leapfrogging,
decentralizatior
to some degree.











§
•C

U

x<

•M
C
at
rH
•H
ai
g
M
HJ
O
4J
*O
o
o
u

r?
•H
?:...
Poor: With respect to sei
Bloomington Jurisdictiona]
Area



Poor: Would
encourage
decentralization
more than other
alternatives









•8
41
rl
0

4J
rH
(d
CO









CO
•H 4J
n
td oi
01 r.
rl O
Monroe Area, although the a
density, residential, and f
ommercial districts.
u
01 »
M 8 -0
plan for the La
on industrial, 1
ith some isolate
01 iH 9
CO 4J
s  *O
2 §
U rH
U-)
n floodways except the Salt
latter property Is In the
•H 41
J3 JG
4J +J
i-*
>-s
•8«
4-1 0)
Cd O
gg
rH Si
. 3°
S!JS
•H 4J
4J rH
cd <;
V4 1
01 1
4J j
i—4
Cd 4J
C
i-t n)
i-H f— '
< CM
|
U


z

«
                                       3-1-41

-------
                                         FIGURE -  1-1

                                       A  COMPARISON OF

                          MONROE COUNTY  POPULATION  PROJECTIONS
CO
o
CO
=
o
CL.
o
       130  U
       120  h
       NO h
       100 h
        90 h
        80 I-
        70
         1970
                      1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
            1,   STRAIGHT LINE EXTRAPOLATED BY GAI FROM 1990 TO 2000


            2,   MEAN AVERAGE POPULATION ADJUSTED UPWARD BY 6000 PERSONS FOR 1980,  1990 AND 2000

                TO REFLECT 1970 UNDERREPORTING
                                          3-1-42

-------
                               FIGURE  -  1-2
                DRAINAGE JURISDICTION BOUNDARIES
                          l    WASHINGTON
                                   -4
                          !   IBLOQWNGTON
                                               USALT\CREEK
          INDIAN  CREEK   { CLEAf CREEK
                          1
                          I
                                   LEGEND
A.   COUNTY BOUNDARY
B.   NORTH-SOUTH DRAINAGE  DIVIDE
C.   CITY PLANNING JURISDICTION AREAS
D.   LAKE MONROE REGIONAL  WASTE DISTRICT
E.   DI STB I CIS  SERVICE AREA
F.  CENTRAL DRAINAGE DISTRICT
G.  SOUTHEAST DRAINAGE DISTRICT
H.  SOUTHWEST DRAINAGE DISTRICT
I.  WESTERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT
+   ALTERNATE TREATMENT SITE LOCATIONS
                                    3-1-43

-------
                            FIGURE 1-3

                   FLOW COMPARISONS - YEAR 2000
                               (MGD)
    BLOOMINGTON
      201  PLAN
INDEPENDENT
 ANALYSIS
18.7
15.7

14.9
14.7

13.7
11.2
                                             11.2
                                                        LEGEND


                                                         LAKE MONORE

                                                         COMMERCIAL

                                                 U777A  UNIVERSITY

                                                         INDUSTRIAL

                                                 	RESIDENTIAL

                                                 ||  EXISTING  FLOW
                          3-1-44

-------
                                     TASK 2
                       EVALUATION OF PURE OXYGEN PROCESS
The use of oxygen rather than air in the activated sludge process is an
advancement that often offers higher quality treatment from existing plants and
construction of new facilities at reduced cost.  The pure oxygen process
requires a covered oxygenation tank and high purity oxygen (90-100 percent
volume).  Because of higher DO levels, the biological solids settle faster
resulting in reduced detention times.  There is less wasted activated sludge and
a higher BOD load at comparable effluent quality.  A comparison of the unit
processes for pure oxygen and conventional activated sludge is given in Figure
2-1.

A cost comparison wa^ made utilizing the pure oxygen process and the complete
mix activated sludge process utilizing air.  The analysis included comparing
both processes using Clear Creek and Salt Creek effluent standards.

According to Indiana State regulations, the following effluent standards will be
required by 1977 for discharges to Salt Creek and Clear Creek.
     BOD (Biochemical Oxygen
      Demand)

     Suspended Solids
     Phosphorus
     Ammonia Nitrogen
Salt Creek

10 mg/1 or 95%
removal

10 mg/1 or 95%
removal

1 mg/1 or 80%
removal
Clear Creek

5 mg/1 or 97.5%
removal

5 mg/1 or 97.5%
removal

1 mg/1 or 80%
removal
6.5 mg/1 in summer  1.5 mg/1 summer
no limitation in    3.0 mg/1 winter
winter
The significant difference between a Salt Creek plant site and Clear Creek plant
site is the nitrogen effluent standards.  In order to obtain a NH-j-N (ammonia
nitrogen level) of 1.5 mg/1, a two stage aeration process is recommended.  A
single stage nitrification process would be suitable to meet Salt Creek effluent
requirements.

The single stage nitrification process achieves biological oxidation of
carbonaceous and nitrogenous compounds in one aerated unit with a corresponding
clarifier unit.  The system is based on a single sludge culture of mixed
organisms.
                                       3-2-1

-------
The two stage system consists of two essentially identical sets of activated
sludge units with two sets of sedimentation units.   Each activated sludge unit
has its own separate sludge system.  The first system oxidizes the carbonaceous
matter (conventional activated sludge), the second oxidizes nitrogenous compounds
(nitrification).

The cost analysis was based on the aeration and clarifier treatment units alone
at a flow of 15 MGD.  It was assumed that the pure oxygen process would produce
a sludge of sufficient density that would eliminate the need for a thickener.
It was assumed the air process would require a thickener.  Operation and
maintenance costs in the analysis only concerned the aeration units, clarifiers
and thickeners.

Sizing of the pure oxygen process components (aeration, clarifier and power
requirements) was done in1consultation with manufacturers of equipment for the
process.  Significant design parameters concerning the pure oxygen are as
follows:

                                        Single Stage        Two Stage
                                        (Salt Creek)      (Clear Creek)

     Detention Time (hrs.)                   3               3(1.5 hours each)

     MLSS (mg/1)                         4,500           4,500

     Recycle Flow (% of Q)                  30              30

     Clarifier Dia. (ft.)                  115             115

     Brake Power                           594             626

The significant design parameters concerning the air process are as follows:

                                        Single Stage        Two Stage
                                        (Salt Creek)      (Clear Creek)

     Detention Time (hrs.)                   6                8 (4 hrs. each)

     MLSS (mg/1)                         3,000            3,000

     Recycle Flow (% of Q)                  43               43

     Clarifier Diameter  (ft.)              100              100

     Brake Horsepower                      516              543

The above data indicates  that it was assumed that aeration volumes did not vary
as a result of the site being located on either Salt or Clear Creek, however,
detention times significantly varied between the air (8 hours) and pure oxygen
(3 hours).  The power required to run the aeration systems at ultimate load
                                     3-2-2

-------
(15 MGD during the summer) did not vary significantly between plant sites or
process.  It should be noted that the pure oxygen process did require more power
than the air process.  There was a significant difference in equipment costs
between the air and oxygen process.  The equipment required for an air process
was quoted at $390,000 while the pure oxygen equipment was quoted at $1,900,000.

Clarifier size was a process variable.  Clarifiers were designed on a basis of
700 GPD/sq. ft. overflow rate and a solids loading of 25 Ibs/sq. ft.  The air
process required clarifiers to be sized at 100 ft. in diameter.  However, the
pure oxygen process required clarifiers to be designed with a diameter of 115
feet.  The increased diameter was required because of the higher solids
concentration being carried in the pure oxygen process and therefore an
increased solids loading to the clarifier over the air process.

As stated previously,  the two stage process requires a second set of clarifiers
because of the two separate sludge systems, whereas the single stage process
only requires one set  of clarifiers.

Power  costs for pumping return activated sludge will favor the pure oxygen
process as the percent return sludge  is less with the pure oxygen process.  The
two  stage process will require additional pumping costs in the form of both
capital and operating  as there are two sludge systems.

Construction costs for the aerations  tank and equipment as well as the clarifier
tank and  equipment were calculated by obtaining manufacturers' quotes for the
equipment and performing takeoffs for the concrete, excavation, etc., for the
aeration  and clarifier tanks.  Power  costs were determined by using 2C/KWH.

Material  and supply  costs were determined by using "Estimating Costs and
Manpower  Requirements  for Conventional Wastewater Treatment Facilities."
Construction, operation and maintenance costs for the thickener were determined
from this source also.

Table  2-1 shows construction, project, operating and salvage costs.  These costs
have been put  in terms of present worth.  It is evident from the analysis that
the  complete mix activated sludge process utilizing air is more economical than
the  pure  oxygen process for either the single stage or two stage system.  A
summary of  the  table follows:

               Alternative                   Present Worth

          Single Stage - Air                    3,498,000

          Single Stage - Oxygen                 5,510,000

          Two  Stage  -  Air                       6,060,000

          Two  Stage  -  Oxygen                    7,925,000
                                      3-2-3

-------
                 C     C    -
                             ceo
                                   g    g
                i—    —I     —     OJ
1.1 I,'
i c  _c|
                C
                C
                C

                      £    c
                                                      c

-------
                               FIGURE 2-1
                           SYSTEM DIFFERENCES
              PURE OXYGEN VS. CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Pure Oxygen Activated Sludge
Salt Creek
OXYGENATION
i


CLARIFIER
RETURN SLUDGE

Clear Creek
OXYGENATION


CLARIFIER
I RETURN SLUDGE



OXYGENATION


CLARIFIER
1 RETURN SLUDGE

Conventional Activated Sludge

Salt Creek
Clear Creek
AERATION
i


CLARIFIER
RETURN SLUDGE

                                THICKENER


f
j RETURN SLUDGE





1 1
- PTTTTTPTJ *3T TTHPIT

T
THICKENER

                                 3-2 -

-------

-------
                                     TASK 3

        RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF WINSTON THOMAS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
The present plant is a secondary treatment plant with grit removal facilities,
primary clarification, biofiltration, secondary clarifiers, chlorination and an
oxidation pond.  Sludge handling is accomplished by anaerobic digestion and
drying beds.

Portions of the plant date back to 1934, with improvements and expanded
facilities added in 1955 and 1969.  The present plant has primary units capable
of handling 7 MGD average daily flow and the secondary units have a capability
of handling a 5 MGD average daily flow.  The plant is currently processing
average daily flow of 11.2 MGD.

A tour of the Winston Thomas plant was completed as part of the scope of work
for this project.  The inspection of the plant revealed a facility showing signs
of its age; the units are 20 and 40 years old.  The primary clarifier drive,
sludge collector equipment and gear bores are badly worn.  The concrete in the
final clarifiers is structurally damaged.  The biofiltration design is an
outdated fixed nozzle design.  The biofiltration units require considerable
maintenance for cleaning and repairing nozzles since the nozzles are specially
manufactured and must be constructed individually at the plant.  There are also
cracks in the concrete walls of the digester which have allowed sludge leakage.

It is the opinion of the Consultant that use of the existing Winston Thomas
plant would be very inconvenient considering process, operating and maintenance
problems.  The treatment process required to meet the new effluent standards
would not normally incorporate the biofiltration process.  If the new plant were
to use the biofiltration process and activated sludge process to meet the new
effluent standards, it would require plant personnel to operate and maintain two
entirely different processes.  The previously mentioned differences concerning
the equipment and structures of the existing treatment facilities would require
considerable maintenance, repair and replacement dollars.

It is also the Consultant's opinion that the phased construction of new
facilities along with the required demolition and renovation of existing
facilities would require that the effluent standards (30 mg/1 BOD5 and 30 mg/1
suspended solids) could not be met at all times.

Therefore, it is not recommended that the existing facilities be considered as
a viable alternative for providing the required treatment plant facilities.
However, there is sufficient land available for a 15 MGD plant on the
Winston Thomas plant site, west of the existing facilities.  If the plant were
placed in the area, continuous operating of the existing facilities could be
practiced while the new plant was constructed without any interruption or
degradation of effluent quality.  When the new plant was completed, flow to the
old plant would simply be shut off and diverted to the new plant.
                                       3-3-1

-------
                                     TASK 4

                                PLANT CAPACITIES
The population projections developed in Task 1 indicate that design capacities
for the proposed plants should be somewhat less than those indicated in the
201 Facilities Plan.

Examination of present population densities and projected development patterns
within the 20 year planning period indicates that a regional plant to serve both
the Bloomington area and the Lake Monroe area is not feasible at this time.
Instead, based on present population projections, it appears to be more realistic
to build a separate plant to serve the Bloomington south drainage area and serve
the Lake Monroe area with one or more smaller plants.

Based on the population projections, a plant capacity of 15 MGD will be required
to serve the south Bloomington service area through 1995.  This capacity would
apply to the Winston Thomas, South Rogers Street, Dillman Road, and Ketcham Road
sites. A total flow of 1 MGD is projected for the Lake Monroe Area.


The 15 MGD figure developed for the south Bloomington drainage area assumes the
continuation of pumping of 1.9 MGD at the central lift station of sewage from
the south drainage area to the north plant.  The north plant is presently
greatly underutilized and is expected to remain so for the foreseeable future.
The low operation and maintenance costs for the pumping and force main indicate
that this practice should be continued.

In evaluating the effects of inaccurate flow metering at the Winston Thomas
plant, it appears that 11.2 MGD represents the present average daily flow to the
plant.

The possibility of phased construction was considered for the new Bloomington
south plant, but was rejected because of the relatively slow growth rate
now projected for the Bloomington area.  If the projected growth were slow
for the first ten years of the design life and rapid for the last ten, staging
of construction (building a new plant now, with an expansion later on) would be
appropriate.
                                        3-4-1

-------
                                     TASK 5

                CLEAR CREEK TREATMENT PLANT TRADEOFFS EVALUATION


5.1       INTRODUCTION

          In addition to the issue of regionalization (of the Bloomington and
          Lake Monroe areas), a number of other factors must be considered in
          the determination of the final treatment plant site location.

          For the City of Bloomington, a treatment plant site on Salt Creek
          means the construction of a long outfall sewer (13.4 miles); but since
          effluent requirements are less stringent on Salt Creek, a less
          expensive plant can be built than would be required on Clear Creek.
          It is assumed, in this analysis, that the same treatment process train
          would be used for any of the alternative sites on Clear Creek.

5.2       TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

          The Clear Creek and Salt Creek effluent standards are as follows:

                                        Clear Creek         Salt Creek

          BOD5                (mg/1)         5                 10

          Suspended Solids    (mg/1)         5                 10

          Phosphorus          (mg/1)  '       1                  1

          Nitrogen            (mg/1)
            Summer                           1.5               7.9
            Winter                           3.0               N/A

          The significant difference between the Salt Creek and Clear Creek
          effluent standards is in the nitrogen standard.  Nitrogen conversion
          is not required during the winter months, defined as 5 months of the
          year, if discharge is to Salt Creek.  Nitrogen conversion is required
          year round if discharge is to Clear Creek.  The degree of nitrogen
          conversion also varies depending on the point of discharge.  During
          the summer months, an ammonia nitrogen discharge level of 1.5 mg/1 is
          required at Clear Creek, while a level of 7.9 mg/1 is mandated
          for Salt Creek.  (Based on a 15 MGD flow  )

          Because the two stage nitrification system is capable of essentially
          complete nitrification at all times, and because incomplete
          nitrification is characteristic of winter performance of single stage
          systems, the two stage system was chosen for Clear Creek sites and the
          single stage system for the Salt Creek site.
                                      3-5-1

-------
The single stage nitrification process achieves biological oxidation
of carbonaceous and nitrogenous compounds in one aerated unit with a
corresponding clarifier unit.  The system is based on a single sludge
culture of mixed organisms.  The two stage system consists of two
essentially identical sets of activated sludge units with two sets of
sedimentation units.  Each activated sludge unit has its own separate
sludge system.  The first system oxidizes the carbonaceous matter
(conventional activated sludge); the second oxidizes nitrogenous
compounds (nitrification).

Concerning costs, a two stage system has both higher capital and
operating cost.  As discussed previously, the two stage system
requires two sets of clarifiers with corresponding additional capital
and operating costs.  Also, because a two stage system has two
separate sludge systems, return sludge pumping costs are twice those
of a single sludge system.  Additional construction costs are
necessary for additional piping, pumps and pump structures.  Because
there are more facilities to operate in a two stage system as opposed
to a single stage system, more manpower will be required to operate a
two stage system.  Power costs for the single stage system are less
than the two stage system by the nature of the effluent requirements,
since no ammonia conversion is required during nine months of the
year.

Concerning process reliability, a two stage system affords protection
of nitrifying organisms from sludge loads of toxic materials, high
organic loads and peak flows.  It is important to realize that the
nitrifying organisms are unique and that the mixed liquor suspended
solids must not be allowed to escape from the system.  A two stage
system by its very nature affords better protection of the organisms
and can provide a better flexibility for growing the organisms as well
as phosphorus removal.  Both systems can readily be followed by
clarification units.

In summary,  it is the Consultant's opinion that a. single stage
nitrification is appropriate for Salt Creek effluent standards and a
two stage system is appropriate for Clear Creek effluent limitation.
The following is a tabular presentation of the trade offs between the
two systems.

                              Clear Creek           Salt Creek
                              (Two Stage)          (Single Stage)

Construction Co&t             $3,320,000           $1,975,000

0 & M @ 15 MGD                $  205,000           $  138,000

Present Worth                 $6,060,000           $3,498,000

Man power (hourss) (annual)         7,500                5,500
                          3-5-2

-------
5.3       OTHER FACTORS
          Table 5-1 lists a number of additional factors considered in the
          comparison of the Salt Creek and Clear Creek plant sites.  In terms of
          the cost required to meet effluent requirements, the Salt Creek site
          has a definite advantage.  However, in terms of the quality of the
          discharge, a Clear Creek plant would produce a superior effluent
          because of the higher degree of treatment required.  Furthermore, the
          two stage process which would be utilized at the Clear Creek site
          would be more reliable in terms of maintaining a consistently high
          effluent quality than the single stage process which would be employed
          at the Salt Creek site.

          A water supply intake for the City of Bedford, Indiana is located on
          Salt Creek approximately 13 miles downstream from the confluence of
          Clear Creek and Salt Creek.  If the Bloomington south treatment plant
          were located at any of the Clear Creek sites, the added travel
          distance in Clear Creek would provide more instream aeration   of the
          discharge before it reached the Bedford intake, than if the plant were
          on Salt Creek.  However, in terms of immediate dilution in the
          receiving stream, the Salt Creek site would be favored because of the
          higher flow in Salt Creek.

          The high cost of the long outfall sewer necessary for the Salt Creek
          site, plus the probability of adverse environmental effects resulting
          from the construction of the outfall definitely favor a Clear Creek
          site.  However, more land is available at Salt Creek for plant
          construction and future expansion.  In addition, large areas of bottom
          land suitable for sludge disposal are located closer to Salt Creek
          than the Clear Creek site.

          In terms of plant operating costs and energy costs, the Salt Creek
          site is favored because it would be a single stage process as opposed
          to a two stage process at any of the Clear Creek sites.

          A final point favoring the construction of the plant at a Clear Creek
          site is the fact that by not discharging the effluent to Clear Creek,
          the flow in the creek could at times be reduced to zero.
                                      3-3-3

-------
                                    TABLE 5-1

                 COMPARISON OF SALT CREEK AND CLEAR CREEK SITES
                                                          Favor
                                                       Clear Creek
          Factor                                       	Sites;	

1.   Effluent requirement?! (cost to attain)

2.   Effluent requirements (water quality)                  X

3.   Distance from discharge to Bedford water
     supply intake                                          X

4.   Cost for outfall sewer from Bloomington                X

5.   Environmental effects of outfall sewer                 X

6.   Land area available

7.   Plant operating costs

8.   Effluent dilution in receiving stream

9.   Effect on low flow in Clear Creek                      X

10.  Reliability of process to maintain
     effluent quality                                       X

11.  Energy requirements

12.  Proximity to land suitable for sludge
     disposal
  Favor
Salt Creek
  Site
    X

    X

    X
    X
                                       3-5-4

-------
                                     TASK 6

                             PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS


6.1       PLANT SITE AND INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVES

          Alternative treatment plant site locations are shown on Plate 1.  All
          locations have sufficient land area available to permit future
          expansion of the presently proposed 15 MGD plant to 30 MGD.

          All pipe sizes and lengths for interceptors are the same as shown in
          the 1974 201 Facilities Plan  and the 1975 amendment.  Sizes and
          lengths of various interceptor sections are shown in the calculations
          in the Appendix F of this report.

6.1.1     Alternative 1

          The treatment site for this alternative would be located at the
          confluence of Clear Creek and Salt Creek.  The site offers 320 acres
          of land.  Approximately 60 acres of this would be sufficient for the
          plant's needs.  Flood protection and 1000 feet of stream relocation
          are necessary at the Salt Creek site.  The present worth analysis does
          include a separate item for additional land (320 - 60 = 260 acres)
          available at Salt Creek.

          Sewage would be transported by an interceptor that would flow entirely
          by gravity from the existing Winston Thomas plant site along Clear
          Creek to the Salt Creek plant site.  The total length of pipe would
          be 71,000 feet.  The proposed routing would also require 25 concrete-
          encased stream crossings and 15 railroad borings.  A minimal expenditure
          in maintenance would be necessary for the interceptor.

6.1.2     Alternative 2

          This scheme would also use the Salt Creek treatment plant site
          discussed under Alternative 1.  The interceptor would flow by gravity
          from the Winston Thomas plant site along Clear Creek to a pump station
          near Jackson Creek.  A force main would carry sewage along the Monon
          Railroad to Smithville where it would discharge into a gravity sewer.
          This sewer could be constructed in the abandoned railroad right-of-way,
          then flow along Little Clear Creek to the Salt Creek site.  The total
          length of the interceptor would be 57,500 feet.  A significant reduction
          in stream and railroad crossings could be realized by using this
          alternative rather than Alternative 1.  However, the savings would be
          partially offset by the cost of the pump station.  The pump station
          would have a peak capacity of 40 MGD and a total dynamic head (TDK)
          of 140 feet.

6.1.3     Alternative 3

          This alternative would utilize a treatment plant located on Clear
          Creek at its intersection with Ketcham Road.  The Ketcham Road site
          offers approximately 60 acres of land for a plant site.  Clear Creek


                                     3-6-1

-------
          makes a circuitous path through the existing site and it is presently
          subject to flooding.  Therefore, 2,500 feet of stream relocation would
          be required with dikes for flood protection.

          The transport system would be a gravity interceptor from the Winston
          Thomas plant site along Clear Creek to the Ketcham Road site.  The
          total length of this interceptor would be 23,400 feet.
6.1.4     Alternative 4
          This alternative is similar to Alternative 3.   The treatment plant
          would be located on Clear Creek immediately upstream from its
          intersection with Dillman Road.  The Dillman Road, site has available
          60 acres of land.  Clear Creek meanders through the site.  In order
          to construct a treatment plant at the site, 2,000 feet of stream
          would have to be relocated along with flood protection.

          The interceptor would follow the same route along Clear Creek as
          Alternative 3, but would terminate at the Dillman Road site.  Alternative 4
          would require 12:,600 feet of interceptor sewer pipe, the least of any
          of the alternatives considered.
6.1.5     Alternative 5
          Under this alternative,  sewage would be pumped from the southwest and
          southeast interceptors upstream along Clear Creek to the South Rogers
          Street Site.   Two pump stations would be required,  one to pump the
          flow from the southwest  interceptor and the other to pump the flow
          from the southeast interceptor.  The southwest pump station was sized
          on an average daily flow of  3.5 MGD and a TDH of 52 feet.  The
          southeast pump station was sized on an average daily flow of 6.5 MGD
          and a TDH of  71 feet.   The total length of the force main would be
          15,000 feet.

          The South Rogers Street  Site presents a unique problem.   There is an
          existing mobile home development on the site which  would have to be
          relocated. An assumed cost  of $500,000 has been included in site
          development costs for  the South Rogers Street Site  to purchase the
          mobile home development  and  relocate the existing homes.  The South
          Rogers Street Site is  comprised of  approximately 40 acres which will
          require approximately  4,500  feet of stream relocation and flood
          protection.

          A separate evaluation  of transmission of sewage to  the Winston Thomas
          plant was not undertaken.  However, its proximity to the South Rogers
          Street Site suggests that the cost  for transporting sewage to either
          of them would be approximately equal.

          Sufficient land is available to the west of the existing Winston
          Thomas treatment facilities  to provide for a complete 15 or 16 MGD
          plant.  In order to accomplish this, a stream relocation of approximately
          3,200 feet would be necessary.  Flood protection would also be required.
          It is assumed that the land  is owned by the City of Bloomington.
                                    3-6-2

-------
          A basic uncertainty in the costing of this alternative is the timing
          of construction of the southeast and southwest interceptors.  Without
          these interceptors, the force main and pumping stations would not be
          needed to transport sewage upstream along Clear Creek to the plant
          site.  In the basic analysis for this alternative, it has been assumed
          that the southeast and southwest interceptors would be constructed in
          1985 (year 10).  The location of the proposed interceptors is shown on
          Plate 2.  The assumption of construction in 1985 is based upon this
          consultant's best estimate of when population will grow to a
          sufficient level in the southwest and southeast drainage areas to
          warrant construction of the interceptors.  However, because of the
          degree of uncertainty in the timing of these interceptors, alternative
          estimates have been made for Alternative 5.  Alternative 5A assumes
          that the southeast and southwest Interceptors will be built in 1990,
          while Alternative 5B assumes that they will not be built until after
          the year 2000.

6.2       EXPLANATION OF PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS FOR INTERCEPTORS

          A summary of -design criteria for the interceptor alternatives is found
          in Table 6-2.

          A number of assumptions were made in the compilation of the cost
          table.  Capital costs, obtained from unit price take-offs (see
          Table 6-3) are converted to project costs by multiplying by a factor
          of 1.3.  This factor includes allowances for engineering and legal
          fees, contingencies, right-of-way costs, etc.

          Operation and maintenance costs for the gravity systems are very
          small.  One or two man-days per month would be required to maintain
          the lines.  The O&M gradient for these systems is assumed to be zero
          because the labor costs would not increase with the capacity of the
          system.  Operation and maintenance of Alternatives 2 and 5 is more
          costly because of the electrical, labor, and material and supply costs
          required to operate the pump stations.

          The service life of the facilities is assumed to be 50 years.
          Assuming the value of the facilities depreciates linearly with time,
          at the end of the 20 year design period the salvage value will equal
          30/50 of the original value.

6.3       EXPLANATION OF PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT

          A present worth analysis for site development costs has been prepared
          for each of the prospective sites.  A summary of this analysis is
          presented in Table 6-4.  The items of concern in this analysis are
          stream relocation and restoration, flood protection, dikes, and
          available land.  The costs of general site clearing, grading, etc.,
          have not been included in this analysis as they would be common to all
          sites.  Land costs have been assumed to be $2,500 per acre at each
          site.
                                     3-6-3

-------
6.4       EVALUATION OF INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVES

          The least costly alternative based on present worth analysis is
          Alternative 5.  The total present worth is $1,766,600.   The low cost
          of this alternative is due to a high salvage value at the end of the
          design period.  Because flow in the southwest and southeast
          interceptors can presently be routed through the City of Bloomington
          to the Winston Thomas Plant, the main interceptor need not be
          constructed until 1985.  Therefore, by 1995, only 10 years of the
          50 year useful life of the sewer pipe will be exhausted.

          Estimates for the capital costs of the pump stations indicated that a
          3.5 MGD station should cost $600,000.*  Experience with similar pump
          stations has indicated that these figures are not adequate to cover
          the cost.  Consequently, the cost of the 3.5 MGD station was estimated
          at $1,000,000 and the 6.5 MGD station at $1,400,000.

          The second least costly alternative is Alternative 4.  This ranking is
          caused by Alternative 4 having the shortest interceptor length and no
          pump stations.

          Alternative 3 is third least costly.  It is similar to Alternative 4
          except that 10,000 additional feet of interceptor would have to be
          installed to reach the Ketcham Road plant site.

          Alternatives 1 and 2 both utilize the Salt Creek plant site.  Because
          of the much greater length of interceptor required to reach this site,
          these alternatives are the most costly.  Under Alternative 2,
          assumptions similar to those in Alternative 5 had to be made regarding
          capital costs of pump stations.  Therefore, the graphic takeoff cost
          of 1.3 million for a 15 MGD pump station was thought to be inadequate
          and the estimated cost was adjusted to 2.5 million for the 15 MGD pump
          station.

          A summary of the present worth costs is given in Table 6.1.
           "Estimating Costs & Manpower Requirements for Conventional
           Wastewater Treatment Facilities," Black & Veatch, U.S.
           Environmental Protection Agency, Act 1971.

           "Basis of Cost Estimates," Camp, Dresser & McKee, Pennsylvania
            Department of Environmental Resources, COWAMP Studies,
            March 8, 1974.
          2
           Some of the cost estimates are for 15 MGD capacity and others
           are for 16 MGD.  The 1.0 MGD discrepancy reflects the projected
           additional flow from the Lake Monroe District.  The comprehensive
           cost table (Table 6-6) is based on 15 MGD because it would not
           be feasible to transport the Lake Monroe flow to most of the
           treatment plant: sites.
                                      3-6-4

-------
6.5             WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS

                This discussion is limited to the liquid treatment portion of the
                wastewater disposal process.  Sludge handling alternatives and
                costs are discussed in another section.

                The Consultant recommends the use of a complete mix activated
                sludge plant without the use of primary  clarifiers.  The plant
                process includes raw wastewater pumping, preliminary treatment,
                clarification, dual media filtration, and disinfection.  Phos-
                phorus removal would occur in the clarification basins.  A flow
                equalization basin is included to reduce peak flows.

                The only variation in liquid treatment process would be the use
                of a single stage activated sludge system for a plant located
                along Salt Creek as opposed to a two stage activated sludge system
                for a plant located along Clear Creek.  Costs for the liquid treat-
                ment portion of the plant for both two stage and single stage
                systems have been calcuatled and are summarized in Table 6-5.

                Construction and operating cost data was determined from "Estimating
                Costs and Manpower Requirements For Construction of Wastewater
                Treatment Facilities" with the exception of flow equalization and
                filtration costs.  These costs were determined from "Flow Equali-
                zation - EPA Technology Transfer Seminar Publication" and "Advanced
                Wastewater Treatment Seminar Manual" by Gulp, Wesner and Culp.
                These sources were required because flow equalization and filtration
                costs were not available in the "Estimating ... " reference.
                Construction costs for the aeration and clarification units were
                derived from take off and manufacturers' quotes as they were
                necessary for the pure oxygen versus air cost analysis.

                Costs also included in this discussion are clearing and grubbing,
                piping, roadways, structures, electrical work, heating, ventilating
                and plumbing.

6.5.1           LAND APPLICATION ALTERNATIVE FOR BLOOMINGTON

                The area within a 10-mile radius of the existing Winton-Thomas
                plant was evaluated for potential sites for land application of
                treatment sewage effluent.  All wastes would receive a minimum
                of secondary treatment before application to the'land.  (The area
                north of Bloomington, which drains into Bean Blossom Creek was
                eliminated since pumping of the total  flow of  15 MGD would be
                necessary to cross the drainage divide.)  The following parameters
                were considered in the evaluation: soil depth, soil permeability,
                geology and topography.

                Soils in the Bloomington area are of variable depth, ranging from
                2-20 feet in the vicinity of Lake Monroe.  The U.S. Department of
                Agriculture Soil Map for Monroe County indicates the frequent
                occurrence of shallow soils (2-4 feet) in the Bloomington area.
                                       3-6-5

-------
Since land application of treated sewage effluent requires a
uniform minimum soil depth of 5-6 feet, certain measures would
likely be needed to insure proper effluent treatment.  Such
measures might include underdrains or use of more than one
application, site with minimum soil depth requirements.

The major soils found in the Bloomington area are silt loams.
Because these soils are relatively fine-grained., their permea-
bility is gjenerally poor.  For land application systems, a
relatively permeable soil is needed to allow for percolation
and removal of nutrients from the effluent.

The Bloomington area is underlain by cavernous Mississippian
limestones,,  A number of quarries and caves are presently in
the vincinlty, and sinkholes, some of which are filled with
water, are abundant.  Since much of the drainage in this area
is underground, special attention would need to be given to
site location to insure that improperly treated effluent would
not enter surface streams.

The topography of the Bloomington area is rugged and is character-
ized by steep-sided streams valleys.  Since land application
requires a relatively flat area to minimize soil erosion and
surface runoff, potential application sites in the Bloomington
area would be severly limited by the topography.

A land application system serving a 15 MGD treatment plant would
require 4000 to 7000 acres of land, and based on the physical
parameters evaluated, there are no areas of this size within
ten miles of the existing treatment facility.  Therefore, it
can be concluded that the area within ten miles of the Winston-
Thomas plant is not conducive to land application of sewage
effluent.

A potential site was located outside of the ten mile radius
about seven miles southwest of the Salt Creek site by Black
and Veatch in the Bloomington 201 Facilities Plan.  However,
the great length of effluent line required between the other
proposed treatment plant sites along Clear Creek and this
disposal site renders the land application alternative not
cost-effective for  Clear  Creek sites.

Cost calculations for a transport, storage,, capacity and spray
irrigation system with secondary treatment by complete mix
activated sludge (CMAS) are compared with other liquid treat-
ment alternatives for the Salt Creek site in Table 6-10 . The
present worth cost of the land application alternative (2C) is
approximately twice that of other liquid treatment alternatives
for the Salt Creek site evaluated in the Facilities Plan.
   Black & Veatch Facilities Plan for Bloomington, Indiana -
   Lake Monroe Area, 197A.
                          3-6-6

-------
              In summary, because of the unavailability of a suitable site
              (based on physical parameters), land application of treated
              sewage effluent is not feasible for any of the proposed treat-
              ment plant sites except the Salt Creek site.  Furthermore, the
              high cost figures for land application indicate that even if
              the Salt Creek location were chosen, land application is not
              the most cost-effective alternative.

6.5.2         NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

              The no action alternative for the South Bloomington Service
              Area would result in continued use of the Winston Thomas STF.
              As indicated in Chapter 1, the present flow of 11.2 MGD exceeds
              the design capacity resulting in a poor quality effluent.

              The no action alternative would not enable the City of Bloomington
              to meet NPDES standards consistent with P.L.92-500 and would
              result in a continuously poor water quality in Clear Creek.

6.6           PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS - SMITHVILLE AND SANDERS

              A present worth analysis was made of the following two alter-
              natives for providing sewage service to the communities of
              Smithville and Sanders.                              ~~

              1.  Treatment at the Dillman plant site with the necessary pump
                  station, force main and gravity lines.

              2.  Treatment at the Caslon treatment plant at an expanded capacity
                  of 0.6 MGD and necessary gravity interceptor to reach the Caslon
                  plant.
                                   3-6-7

-------
6.6.1.         ALTERNATIVE NO.  1  SEWAGE TREATMENT AT DILLMAN ROAD

              In order to convey Smithville and Sanders waatewater  to the Dillman
              site,  it is estimated that one pump station with 6,500 lineal feet
              of 4 inch force  main and 5,500 lineal feet of 8" gravity sewer
              would  be required.

              Smithville and Sanders would be responsible for their share of the
              project and operating costs of the Dillman plant.  The Dillman plant
              will be 15 MGD and Sanders Smithville ultimate flow is expected to
              be 80,000 gpd.  Therefore, their share of the Dillman costs would
              be .08/15 or 0.53  of the costs.

6.6.2.         ALTERNATIVE NO.  2  SEWAGE TREATMENT AT THE CASLON TREATMENT PLANT

              In order to reach  the plant, 18,500 feet of 8" gravity interceptor
              would be required.  The Caslon plant presently has a capacity of
              0.09 MGD.  The 20  year growth projection for the Caslon Development
              is 0.5 MGD.  For the purposes of this analysis, it was also assumed
              that Harrodsburg (.04 MGD) and the communities of Smithville and
              Sanders (.08 MGD)  to the north would also join in this plant.,
              Therefore, .5 MGD  of additional capacity would be required at
              the Caslon plant.   Smithville would be responsible for .08/.6
              or 14% of those costs.  Also, a relief outfall sewer would be
              required as a result of the additional flows.

              The present worth analysis, summarized in Table 6-7,  reveals that
              it is more economical for Smithville and Sanders to convey and
              treat their waste  at the Dillman site.

              It would still be  possible for the Harrodsburg area to be served
              by the existing Caslon Development plant on Little Clear Creek.
              Another possibility, if Harrodsburg would be served by the plant,
              would be to move the plant to an alternate location at the con-
              fluence of Clear Creek and Little Clear Creek.

6.6.3.         FAIRFAX

              A construction and project estimate was made for conveying waste-
              water from Fairfax to the plant serving the Caslon Development
              (The Point«).  It  was assumed that three pump stations would
              be required and 2,000 feet of 8" gravity sewer with 16,000 feet
              of 4" force main.   It was also assumed that use of the existing
              interceptor would  be made by Fairfax although no costs were
              added for their proportionate share.  A construction cost of
              $486,000 and project cost of $632,000 were estimated. (The
              Indiana State legislature has appropriated 300,000 to design
              and construct an interceptor connecting the Fairfax Recreation
              Area to the Caslon lift station with treatment at the Caslon
              package plant.)   The Caslon interceptor was originally sized
              to accommodate flows from the Fairfax Recreation Area.
                                      3-6-8

-------
6.7          PROJECT COSTS
             Table 6-8 presents a summary of project costs (excluding sludge
             disposal) for the various alternative sites.  The project cost
             represents the capital cost of the project times a 1.3 factor
             for engineering, legal, and miscellaneous costs of completing
             construction.  The table shows the Dillman Road site to have
             the lowest project cost of the alternatives.
                                 3-6-9

-------



















































to
g
tH
^
§
W
3
 O •— ' CM
H *-< IS CN

rH





O
CJ O
WJ QJ O
cfl 3 ^-x «
> rH oo r-.
JT! rH 0) ^ •£>
H (0 > co
(*; co
O ft
is

H
^
W
to
s
K s o
,-N at

— ' tN
O rH







o
4J O
O to
•o CO ,-N in

H CJ — O
PL|
rH
CN




CD O
tO 3 ^
> tH m m
rH tO ^  tO
CO •>
tN
rH







O
o
m

o
o
at
in
tH





O
O
o

in
CT-

*







0
o
o


CTt








O
o
m
tN
o
in

00
rH




O
""1
rH
O

rH
rH







0
O
rH

tN
O
O
m






o
o
o

f)
tN
rH

rH






O
O
*D

0^ vO
r— 1 VD
m r-
CN rH






O o
o o
o o

O O"i
Csl 






ro
O O
0 0
r- o
CN m
en CM
00 O

CN m




CM
O O
o o
o o
0 0
o —>

•H -3








0 0
O


O
cr«
r~-







o o
o
o

1^,
rH
in
rl
iH






O O
0


in







in
0 0
o
o
CN
to
C-J

CN





O
^
tH
tO

-3-


















,

CJ

IH
O


CO

rH
CJ

CO
•H


01
4J
•H
CO
CO
w a
> 0)
M OI
H rl
< CJ

§ 4J
W rH
H to
3 "
0
a: 4-1
1 s
CO 4J
p-
& CO
0 0
H rl
CM oi
W 4J
y c
u
B r?
rH -H
tO
O

1
rH

H
M

*j]

















10
•H
^


CO
01
rl
CJ

4J
rH
a
CO

o

c
•H
CO
e

01
u
rl
o
MH
t)

to
rl •
O Ai
4J 01
PH 01
01 rl
O CJ
u
01 rl
4J CO
c oi
CJ
4-1 01
•H rH
CO 4-1
O ,4

1
CN

IS
M

^J
5











B
^
0)
CO
iH
CJ

V4
10
CI
tH
CJ

10
•rl
^»

CO

•H
W
T)
ca
o


[?
10
.c
CJ
4J
01
«
O

H
4J
O.
O)
O
rl
01
4J
C

4J
•rl
CO
O

1
CO

>
M
H














^
01
01
M
CJ

M
CO
CJ
rH
0

CO
•rH
£>

0)

•H
CO
13
to
0


c
r]
e
rH
rH
•H
O
O
4J
H
4J
a-

o
u
01
c

5*
•H
to
o

1


>
M
!H

?}







(_(
l^l
Q
rH
C



a)
a)
j-i
u


co
(U
rH
U

cd
T*
>

(U
4-1
>H
(0


OJ
(U
Vj
4-1
CO

W
J-i
0)
to
o
p^
J=
3
o
CO

o
4J
C
CO
E
CO
Q


1
in

>
M
H

3
CD
O
O
CN

• tH
CO rt
rl 01
r*-i t>>
in u
rH 01
C 14H
•H tO


0) 01
01 01
rH V-l
CJ CJ


10 CO
01 O)
iH tH
CJ CJ

tO to
•H -H
> >

01 01
4J 4J
•H -H
CO CO

4-1 4-1
0) 01
01 01
rl rl
4J 4J
CO CO

CO CO

01 01
60 M
O 0
p£ PH
s: A
3 3
0 0
C/i CO

0 0
4-> 4J
C C
'io 'cO
B e
CO CO
£ £
ti-i PH

1 1
< ta
in in

w W
M M
H H
< <
?i ^
                                     ia
                                     H
in   o
tN   O
rH   o
in   o
tN   o
rH   CO
                 o
                 o
o
o
CN
iH
4J 4J
•H CO
0. 0
O

rH

0
o
0
tN
rH
CN
to
0
O
r^
tN
CO
CN
-a-
o
o
r-~
to
o
r*.
<•
O
o
o
Ot
r^
rH
CN
O
0
CS
o
•*
tN
-3-
O
0
CN
O


HI
DO
0)
rH
tO
CO



^_^
-3
CO
-3
m
•^
X

ro

rH
X
rH


tH
0
cj •
n

4J
CO
O
CJ

4J
U
0)
o
VI
PH
CO
m
^^
in
tN
*-"
•*

rH
O
u
+
^

CO

m
O
^^
r_l
CO

f.^
	
tN

•
tH
O
CJ

n

a
*o

o
                                     3-6-10

-------
                                    TABLE 6-2

                           INTERCEPTOR DESIGN CRITERIA
A.   Pipe

     1.   Gravity Severs

          a.   Reinforced concrete
          b.   Steel joints with 0-ring gasket
          c.   Size - 42" to 78" dia.

     2.   Force Mains

          a.   Ductile iron
          b.   Tyton joint
          c.   Size - 24" to 48" dia.

     3.   Excavation

          a.   Two-thirds of the distance from Winston-Thomas to Salt Creek
               Site is classified as rock excavation.
          b.   Average trench depth - 10 feet.
          c.   Trench width - pipe diameter plus two (2) feet.

B.   Stream Crossings

     1.   Length - 40 feet.
     2.   Concrete encasement.

C.   Railroad Crossings

     1.   Length - 80'
     2.   Tunnel

D.   Highway Crossings

     1.   Open cut.
                                         3-6-11

-------
                                    TABLE 6-3

                           INTERCEPTOR COST GUIDELINES


A.   Pipe

               Size and Type               Price for Pipe & Labor*

                  24" DIP                        $ 66 L/F
                  30" DIP                              71
                  42" RCP                              88
                  48" DIP                             105
                  54" RCP                             132
                  60" RCP                             149
                  66" RCP                             165
                  72" RCP                             187
                  78" RCP                             209

          *Excavation and backfill not included
               Rock Excavation     $25/C.Y.
               Soil Excavation     $ 5/C.Y.
               Backfill            $ 6/C.Y.

B.   Manholes

          $1,500 each

C.   Pumping

     1.   Electricity - 2c/kw-hr
     2.   Labor - $6/hr.

D.   Stream Crossing

     1.   Pipe Prices - 1.5 X Standard Unit Prices
     2.   Excavation and Backfill

          a.   Rock Excavation -   $50/C.Y.
          b.   Soil Excavation -   $10/C.Y.
          c.   Backfill        -   $12/C.Y.

E.   Railroad Crossings

          Pipe Size and Type            Price for Pipe & Tunneling  Operations

               42" RCP                                $230/L.F.
               54" RCP                                 300
               60" RCP                                 340
               66" RCP          ,                       370
               72" RCP                                 400

     Excavation for boring pit - $2,000/Pit

                                        3-6-12

-------
                          CO
Total
Present
Worth
o
o
o
m
r-
r^
0
o
o
*.
in
i-l
r-~
M
O
o
0
«1
\D
ro
r-
0
0
o
•V
oo
ON
00
o
o
0
*t
e^
m
oo
o
o
0
m
m
  3
                   4J rH  iH
                   C  «  CO
                   0) W)  >
                   w
                   01 14-1
                   (-1  O
                                 o
                                 o
                                 o
               o
               o
               o
                 *
               m
               o
               o
               o
                •t
               m
               o
               o
               o
               o
               o
               o
                »
               m
•vf
 I
w

w
Q


W
H
Project
Cost
o
o
o
m
o
o
o
m
o
o
o
1-1
00
0
o
o
en
o
o
0
oo
00
                                                                                               0)
                                                                                               HI
                                                                                               U
                                                                                               4-1

                                                                                               (0
        O


        H
        C/3

        O
                C
                o
               •H
               4-1
                U
                3
                M
                       CJ
                      13 4J
                       C  cn
                       CO  O
                      i-J 0
O
o
o

vD
CTi
m
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
                                                        CN|
o
o
o

o*
00
                                 o
                                 o
                                 o
                                   A
                                 o
                                 o
                                                o
                                                o
                                                o
                      o
                      o
                      o
                      o
                      o
                      o
               o     o     o
               m     m     m
               rH     i-l     rH
                      o
                      O
                      O
                        M

                      O
                      m
                                                                                               •H
                                                                                               cd
                                                                                               W

                                                                                               0)
                                                                                               O
                                                                                               ffl
                                                                                               o
                                                                                               ^o
                                                                                               CM
                                                      ni

                                                      C
                                                      O
                                                      •H
                                                      4J
                                                      •H
                   CO
                   C
                   (-1
                   CD
 CO
 cfl


 o
X!
H


 C
 O
 4-1
 CO
 C
•H
IS
                                          3
                                          O
                                         CO
        C


        §
        I
        CJ

        4->

        Ol
                                                                01

                                                                OJ
                                                        cfl
                                                        on
                                                                0)

                                                                0)
               CJ
                               co
                              CO
                                                                                               4J
                                                                                               c

                                                                                               o
                                                                                               a
                                                                                               o
                                                         3-6-13

-------
I      §
             i
             3
                              III
                        ,,

                         ,  --- — £ a c
                        i jC   ^ —' ~ E
                         JCM ^-   c — r
                        -
"5 —
               c/: TI
              x  —'
              •i- C C
                           C C, 0- C, —
                           > —) !T tt c

                           .- C t O J-
                           C C C C C
                         3-6-14

-------
Total
o
o
o
r\
m
CO
oo
0
0
o
yi
m
r-
r^
O
O
O
A
oo
«*
co
0
0
o
•V
CO
o
1 — 1
o
0
0
•t
ON
00
 cfl
60 CO
XI O
3 (3.
rH CO
rf\ *f_j
o

4J
c
cu cu
60 0
T> 4-1
3 cfl
r-t 01
f/^ t.J
WJ M
H


4-1
13
13 CU
•H 6
3 4J
cr cfl
•H CU
iJ rl
H
4-1
c
CU
e
cu a
4J O
•H rH
co cu
^
CU
o
t-l
o
4J
a
CU
o
(-1
cu
4-1
(3
0
o
p~
*
vO
r^
o
rH
•co-
rH
0
o
CO
A
CM
>*
CO
CO

o
0
o
•s

o
o
o
A
r-
vO
r*-
n
rH

O
O
r^
n
vO
r~
O
rH
r7
O
O
CO
n
CM
•-
rH

0
o
o
A
f-
vO
r~
•V
rH

O
o
I>~
ft
vO
r-
O
rH
^~*\
rH
^**
O
o
CO
n
CM

CO
CM

o
o
o
n
vO
CO
r^


O
O
O
•s
o\
rH
CO
*,
CM

O
o
r-.
•\
vO
1^.
0
rH
/•"**.
rH
^^
O
O
CO

CM
<(•
CO
CO
O
O
O
f\
<)•
r~-
00

CO
CM

O
o
o
*s
oo

3
O
CO


fi
cfl
E
rH
rH
•rt
0


0
cO
43
O
4J
CU
W
A!
cu
cu
rl
u

4-1
rH
CO
CO

















•
60
rj
•H
XI
cfl
CU
M
p,
CO
cu
a
cfl
*4H
M
3
CO
>-l
43
X)
a)
5
o
rH
rH
o
IH
60
a
•H
60
14-1
^
J-l
4J
g
O
X)
g

Lgestion
13
O
•H
43
O
j_i
CU
cfl
en
cu
CO
CO
























*
G
O
•H
4-1

m vj
CO CU
CU S-i
?• CO
•H
4-1 CO
CO (3
C 0
Li •!-<
M ^i
CU 4->
4-1 CO
rH 4J
CO CO
» OH
r-l 6
1 3
VO P.
CU 13
rH C
43 CO
CO
H C
•H
CU CO
cu e
CO
cu
u
• *-i
m o
00 M-l

0
CO 4-1 CM
cu c
0 0) M
3 M O
CO CU
                                                           
-------
                                          O O
                                          O O
                                          O O

                                          00 -*
                                              O
                                              O
                                              O
                                                *v
                                              CM
                                              LTl
0
O
O
i — t
m
in
O
O
O
ro
ro
00
iH
O
0
O
r^
LO
CNI
O
O
O
00
oo
[-^
        CO  CO
        M  Pd
        CO  W
            CO
vo

W
iJ
PQ
<
H
H
Pi
        CO  H
        W  M
        PM  CO
                            01
                            3
                           r-H
                            cfl
                       M-l  >
                        O
                            (1)
                       3   Ml
                       PU   Cfl
                           CO
                        O
                        d)
                        O  O
                        M O
 oo
 «
 >  -
iH
 tti
CO
                                   O
                                   O
                                   O
                                                  O
                                                  O
                                                  o
                                                    »\
                                                  00
                                           o
                                           o
                                           o
                                           o
                                           O
                                           O
                                   O
                                   O
                                   O
                                     M
                                   CO
                                   01
                                   en
                                   o
                                   o
                                   o
CO
CN
                                   O
                                   o
                                                                          o
                                                                          o
                                                                          o
O
O
o
  M
ON
00
CO
                                                                              o
                                                                              o
                                                                              o
                                                                                      oo
                                                              o
                                                              o
                                                              o
                                                              ON
                                                              o
                                           o
                                           o
                                           o
vD
CO
                                                              O
                                                              o
                                                              o
                                                                                                                         en
                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                         U
                                                                                                                                  a.
                                                                                                                                  0)
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                       c
                                                                                      •H

                                                                                       60
                                                                                       C
                                                                                      •H
                                                                                      T3


                                                                                       CJ

                                                                                       0)

                                                                                       0)
                                                                                       4J
                                                                                      •H
                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                                          c
                                                                                                                          0)
                                                                                                                          E
C
cd
                                                                                      4-1
                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                  to
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                  CJ
                        C
                        O
 O  4.J
 3   co
 M   O
 4J  C.)
 CO
 e
 o
u
                                           o
                                           o
                                           o
                                             r.
                                           CN
                                           O
                                           CO


S-l
o
4J
ex
a)
C
Cfl
e
i-H
rH
•H
Q
O
Vi
0)
4-1
C
M


C
cfl
_J
PM

C
a)
a
cfl
0)
J-l
H








i-H
cfl
4-J
0
H


                                                           c
                                                           o
                                                          rH
                                                           CO
                                                           Cfl
                                                          O
o
o
o
0
o
m




^j
o
4J
P.
OJ
O
^1
0)
4J
rj
H
0
O
0
txf
-^-
oo
4-1
C
cfl
rH
PM rH
rH
4J CO
C HH
0) 4-1
e a
4J 0
Cfl
0) T3
t-i C
H cfl





y-N
5
rr^J
d a)
CO M
Cfl
0) .C
iH CO

•H Cfl
> (-1
j; cu
4-J 'O
•H C
E: cfl
CO CO
                                                                                   o
                                                                                  H
                                                                                                                                 '-M
                                                                                                                                  O
                                                                                                                          §
                                                                                                                                  a)
                                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                                  (D
                                                                                                                                 M-l
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                                                 in
                                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                                  cu
                                                                                                                                  CO
                                                                                                                                  to

-------
                                    TABLE 6-8

                                  PROJECT COSTS
Interceptors

Site Development
  Total
Winston-
Thomas
3,023,000*
775,000
.8,383,000
1,787,500
13,968,500
South
Rogers
3,023,000*
1,745,000
18,383,000
1,787,500
$24,938,500
Dillman
Road
2,832,700
781,000
18,383,000
1,787,500
$23,784,200
Ketcham
Road
6,118,700
943,000
18,383,000
1,787,500
$27,232,200
Salt
Creek
18,502,500
884,000
16,130,000
886,600
$36,403,100
*  Present worth of 5.512 million dollars 10 years hence.  See Table 6-1, column 6
   for project cost in 15 and 20 years respectively.

** Project costs of aerobic digestion and centrifuge for all sites except Salt Creek
   which would have aerobic digestion and sludge lagoon.
                                      3-6-17

-------
                 C S5  a
                 c •«  o
                 < O U
                    00
                    c
                    U  eo
                    at  >
                    O- O I
                    W O •
CT.


vD
ft
 cd
H
X
*•{
U
03
0.
(0

rH
CQ
£
u
01
•*-»
o
Cu


n
o
U
CM
hi
X
                    hi

                 •3J8
                 00 W
                    o
                 at
                       09

                       CO
                 U    O
                 CO
                 01 00
                 P C  •
                 41 -rt  CO


                 SS*
                 M Q  I
                    eg  u

                    §  6
                       hi
                       u
                       •

                      rH
o
o
o
vD
CM
CM
O
«n
§
0
in
r-
CN
0
o
0
CM
CM
-31
CM
rH
O
O
0
o"
o
m
|
M
•^
Ti
n
M
O
o
o
r^
CO
>a
C1
e>
S
o
o
a>
r-l

o
§
iri
00
-3
oc-
tn-





J
hi U
a at
-i oa
(x O
OC U
C -H
rH O
.* hi
0 0)
*
rH
O
8
en
rH
CM
O
0
O
r-
O
rH
*
rH
O
o
o
CN

vO
CM
rH
0
O
o
o
0
en
0
o
o
1^
oo
in
sr
CN
O
O
0
rH
00
^
en
O
0
o
o
m
00
rH

O
0
o
*G
m
o»
oo
rH






15 g
4J -H
b. oi
00
00 -H
C 0
rH .-4
^ cO
x&
H
«
0
O
O
0
in
o
o
0
ON
o
rH
O
o
o
r*.
oo
-3-
O
rH
O
0
o
0
0
CN
O
o
o
in
vO
CN
O
CN
O
O
0
^
CN
rH
en
§
0
cT
oo
-3-
rH

O
o
o
rH
£
m
iH






X
I
p*
o
en
*
CM
O
8
VO
in
oo
CM
CM
O
o
0
in
0
a*
O
o
o
CM
CO
f"~
oT

0
o
o
0
o
00
CM
8
0
^J
^
CO
CO
rH
O
o
0
o>
o
°1
CM
O
0
o
o
in
en
rH

§
O
in
to
in
,/
tH






n c
E o
hi 00
0. CO
0
*&
<| (M
S
03
CM
O
O
O
i?
CO
m
0
0
O
rH
O
o
0
CO
CN
O
0
en
o
0
o
O
0
o
in
o
o
o
^
in

o
vO
0
o
o
ON
OO
rH
0>
0
o
0
o
0
CM
m

o
o
o
in
vO
0
NO
"*






X
hi rH
CO CO
E in
vH O
^ a.
tx u
*H
o a
* -o
c
V) ttj
^
o
o
o
o
en
O
in
•o
CN
O
0
o
fN
CO
o
*-t
o
0
o
^
CN
rH
rH
rH
0
O
o
o
0
CN
en
o
§
o

v*
rH
CN
O
O
O
00
o
en
m
§
0
o
00

rH

o
8
CN
CO
m
>o
rH






xl
CQ W
E 4)
-^ 00
a. o
•K *H
CO
Ul 3
< O

S
O
0
0
in
•H
in
00
CN
0
O
o
<*
0
en
rH
o
0
o
9i
rH
rH
rH
rH
O
o
o
0
o
•3-
en
O
o
o
Oi
00
en
rH
CM
O
O
o
vO
a»
CN
en
O
8
o

in
rH

O
o
o
en
CM
in
vO
•~"





g
• CO
X 01
hi oo
E a
-H
hi U
a. .H
"» "o
<2

m
o
o
<3
S
o
n
§
e3
00
CM
rH
O
§
CM
en
^*
CM
rH
O
o
o
o
§
•*
0
o
o
CM

•*
^
CM
o
o
o
o>
vO

en
o
o
0
o
en
00
rH

1
en
00
00
rH






a
0
•H
4-*
^4
4!
tJ
01
•o
c
01
4J
X
ut

s
c^
•e
in
o
o
o
r-l
CM
r-l
0
8
r-
rH
^
in
rH
o
8
o
o
in
""
O
8
•^
i*^

-------
                                     TASK 7

                              DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS
The initial purpose of this task was to identify costs for a regional treatment
facility serving both Bloomington and the Lake Monroe Area and to break those
costs down to each service area, namely Bloomington and Lake Monroe.  However,
based on the discussions in other tasks of this report, such a regional plant is
not recommended, and hence a detailed breakdown of costs is not needed.

The Consultant has recommended that a 15 MGD plant be built on the Dillman Road
plant site with the necessary interceptor from Bloomington.  An analysis of Lake
Monroe has revealed that it is less costly for the communities of Sanders and
Smithville to have their wastewater treated at the Dillman site rather than at
the Caslon site.  Smithville - Sanders will require 80,000 gallons per day (0.08
MGD) of treatment plant capacity.

If the City of Bloomington and Smithville - Sanders agree to build a plant on
the Dillman site, both project and operating costs will be shared.  As stated
previously, the plant should have a capacity of 15 MGD, and Smithville - Sanders
will be responsible for .08/15 = 0.53% of the project and operational costs at
design capacity.  Each community will be responsible for its own interceptor to
reach the plant.

Table 7-1 shows the sharing of costs for the respective shares of the plant
costs and individual interceptor costs.

It should be noted that this analysis does not list the collection system
project costs for Sanders and Smithville.

A sewage collection system for the Sanders-Smithville area would, of course, be
needed.  A very rough approximation of the cost for such a system is based on
27,000 lineal feet of sewer line at an in-place construction cost of $25 per
foot.  This would produce an approximate construction cost for the collection
sewer system of $675,000, or a total project cost of approximately $877,500.
Assuming receipt of a federal grant for 75 percent of the cost and a state
grant for 10 percent of the cost, the local share of the project cost would be
$131,625.
                                      3-7-1

-------
                                    TABLE 7-1

                    COST SHARING FOR DILLMAN ROAD PLANT SITE
Treatment @ 15 MOD

     Bloomington

     Smithville and Sanders

                    Total

Interceptors and Pumping Station

     Bloomington

     Smithville and Sanders


Bloomington Total Costs

Smithville/Sanders Total Costs
                                             Project Cost    O&M (g 11 MGD
$ 16,776,000     $ 524,000
      89,000
3,000
$ 16,865,000     $ 527,000



$  2,833,000     $   1,000

     393,000         8,000


$ 19,599,000     $ 532,000

$    482,000     $  11,000
NOTE:  Project cost for sewage collection system for Smithville and Sanders
       would be approximately $877,500.

       Total project cost for collection, interceptors and treatment = 1,359,500

       Assuming 75% federal grant, 10% state grant:

                    Local Share = $203,925

       Annual Cost, assuming 20 years at 6^5% = $17,960
                                      3-7-2

-------
                                     TASK 8

                          SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
8.1       INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

          A major problem facing the designer of any sewage treatment plant
          today is the ultimate disposal of the solids removed in the treatment
          processes.   Environmental regulations concerning the disposal of
          sewage treatment plant sludges are becoming increasingly stringent as
          adverse effects of past disposal practices become known.  In
          investigating sludge handling alternatives for the new Bloomington
          south treatment plant, a number of treatment and disposal processes
          were evaluated.  The sludge volume to be produced by the proposed
          plant was first calculated, and costs for the various handling
          processes were then determined.

          Potential sludge disposal sites in the Bloomington area were
          investigated by examining topographic maps, aerial photographs and
          soils maps.   It was determined that with the recommended agronomic
          loading rates    there would not be sufficient land available at the
          Salt Creek site to sustain land application of all sludge produced at
          the plant for the 20 year planning period.

          The least costly alternative for sludge handling and disposal at the
          recommended  Dillman Road site is aerobic digestion followed by a
          sludge lagoon with ultimate disposal by soil injection.  This
          arrangement, however, limits future flexibility for sludge disposal,
          since other  methods of disposal (composting, landfilling) require a
          higher solids concentration than soil injection (20% solids vs 10%
          solids).  More flexibility could be built into the system by adding
          centrifuging instead of the sludge lagoon, even though the costs, both
          initial and  operating, would be higher.  This would provide the
          flexibility  of being able to use other methods of sludge disposal such
          as composting, landfilling, or land application.

          The alternative of composting was considered for sludge disposal
          because of the proximity of the Scarab Composting Company and the
          recent request by Scarab to take large volumes of sewage treatment
          plant sludge.  The Scarab offer appears quite attractive since the
          city would do away with much of its problem of ultimate disposal, and
          a useful product would result from the operation.  However, the city
          should approach composting with some caution for several reasons:

          1.   The history of composting operations in the U.S. is not good.
               Most operations have failed.

          2.   The composting system must be extremely reliable, or provisions
               must be made to stockpile the sludge.  Sludge will be produced
               every day and must be placed somewhere.
                                         3-8-1

-------
         3.    The city would still be responsible for disposal of the  sludge in
              the event the composting operation were shut down.

         Landfilling or land application would be viable alternatives  should
         the composting arrangement fail.

8.2      SLUDGE PRODUCTION

         The daily sludge volume produced by the proposed treatment plant:  was
         calculated by performing a mass balance analysis on the treatment
         plant.   The assumptions and calculations used in this analysis  are
         listed below.

         Influent:
                   Flow = Q = 15 MGD
                   BOD  = 144 MG/L = 18,020 //BOD/Day
                    SS  = 180 MG/L = 22,520 //SS/Day

         Assume:   95% BOD and SS removal efficiencies

         A.    Biological Sludge Production

              Effluent:
                        BOD = 7 MG/L = 876 //BOD/Day
                         SS = 9 MG/L = 1126 //SS/Day

              Sludge Produced:
                        BOD = 18,020 #/Day - 876 ///Day = 17,144 //BOD/Day
                         SS = 22,520 ///Day - 1126 ///Day == 21,394 //SS/Day

              Assume:
                        0.5 //VSS Produced per //BOD Removed

                        17,144 //BOD/Day x 0.5 //VSS///BOD = 8572 //VSS/Day

              Biological Sludge Production = 21,394 //SS/Day -I- 8572 7/VSS/Day
                                           = 29,966 //Dry Solids/Day

         B.    Chemical Sludge Production for Phosphorus Removal

              Influent:
                        4 MG  P04/L = 1.3 MG P/L

                        80% Removal Required.

              Effluent:
                        1.3 MG P/L X 0.2 = 0.26 MG/L

                        P Removed =1.0 MG/L

                        Stoichiometric Relationship for Aluminum (AL)  to P is:

                                       0.87/1 by Weight

                                       3-8-2

-------
     Assume:   2.2 AL/1.0 P Ratio because  of competing reactions and
               Low P Concentration.  Aluminum Sulfate (AL,, SO^) = 9% AL
                                        2.3  AL   -   26"° ^2 S°4
                       0.9 AL           1.0  P         1.0 P



                    96 0 AT  ^O
                    *. \J m V £VLj /* \J\S f   __   _  f. _-  _,  ..  — »   __  -
                       1.0 P
                                                          #AL, P0,/Day
               Since additional alum was added  in  excess  of the
               Stoichiometric requirements, AL(OH)~  will  be formed.

                    Stoichiometric Requirement

                    0.87 AL      1.0 AL  SO.       ._ Mr  AT
                    1 Q p     X        2   4    "   10 MG  AS
                    1>U P         0.09 AL                   Z
                    Excess Alum =26.0 MG/L  -  10 MG/L  =16.0 MG/L

                    AL(OH)  Produced = 16.0  MG AL  SO,   X  156 =
                                                 ^  *      600
                         4.2 MG AL(OH).
                                      '3/L

                                      jduce

                         15 MGD = 525 #AL(OH).
Pounds AL(OH)3 Produced =4.2 MG/L X 8.34 X
                                             3/Day
     Total Chemical Sludge Production:
     3255 #AL2P04/Da  + 525 #AL(OH)3/Da  = 3780  # Dry  Solids/Day
C.   Total Sludge Production = Biological + Chemical

     29,966 #/Day + 3780 ///Day - 33,748
          Use 33,750 # Dry Solids /Day

     Assume:   Solids Concentration from the
               Clarifier = 2% = 20,000 MG/L

                    _  Solids Production, ///Day _
                    ~ Solids Concentration, MG/L X  8.34

                    _ 33.750 ///Day
                      20,000 MG/L X 8.34

                    =0.20 MGD

                              3-8-3

-------
              Summary :
                        Flow  =  0.20 MGD
                        Solids Concentration = 20,000 MG/L Total Solids

                        VSS normally equals  75% of TSS in a Biological Sludge.
                        Due to the addition  of Chemical Sludge  Assume
                        VSS = 73% TSS

                        Solids Production = 33,750 #TSS/Day
                                          = 24,640 //VSS /Day

8.3      UNIT PROCESSES

         Figure  8-1 presents eleven unit processes for sludge stabilization,
         dewatering, drying and disposal. The size and cost of each process
         appears in the following pages.   The design criteria and assumptions
         are based on design recommendations appearing in Metcalf and Eddy,
         Inc., Wastewater Engineering, McGraw - Hill Book Co., 1975.

8.3.1    Aerobic Digestion

8.3.1.1  Aerobic Digester Design

         Design Criteria:
                        SRT = 20 Days                       -
                        Solids Loading = 0.024 - 0.14 #VS/FT /Day
                        Oxygen Requirements  = 2 #02/#VSS

                        Energy For Mixing

                             Mechanical Aerators - 0.5-1.0 hp/1000 FT

                             Air Mixing - 20-35 SCFM/1000 FT3

         Volume of Sludge
              Assume:   Specific Gravity = 1.03
                                 1.03 (620.02)
                                                   = 26>26°
         Volume of Digester          ,                          o
                        V = 26,260 FT /Day X 20 Day = 526,000 FT

         Check Solids Loading

                        #VS/FT3/Day = 24,640 //VS/Day = ^     check
                                       526,000 FT
                                        3-8-4

-------
         0_  Requirements

              Assume:   40% VSS Reduction
                        //02/Day =  24,640  //VSS/Day  (0.40)  (2.0  //02/#VSS)

                                =  19,720  //00/Day
         Volume of Air
              Assume:   10% Transfer Efficiency
                                                    £

                        Air Requirement =                      -  7870  CFM
                        Air/1000  FT   of  Digester

                        7870  P"R*M                     "^
                           526     =   15 CFM/1000  FT  TOO  LOW FOR ADEQUATE MIXING

         Mixing Requirements  Govern

                        30 SCFM/1000  FT3

                        Air Requirement  = 15,780 SCFM

8^3.1.2  Aerobic Digested  Sludge

         Assume:  4% Solids Concentration
                  40% Volatile  Solids Reduction
                  24,640 ///Day  X  0.40 = 9860  #VSS/Day
                  Total Solids  =  33,750  #TSS/Day - 9860  #VSS/Day  =
                        23,900  #TSS/Day

                   Flow -   23,900 ///Day        _
                   F1°W ~  40,000  MG/L X  8.34   ~ °'°72 MGD
         Summary :
                   Flow =  0.072 MGD
                   Solids  Concentration  = 40,000 MG/L
                   Solids  Production  = 23,900  //Dry Solids/Day

8.3.2    Anaerobic Digestion

8.3.2.1  Anaerobic Digester Design

         Assume:
                   Heated  Digester
                   Solids  Retention Time = 15  Days
                   40% Volatile Solids Reduction
                   Specific Gravity CF Sludge  =1.03
                                        3-8-5

-------
         Sludge Volume -  (1.03) (^'^(O^)   '   26,260 FT3/Day
         Digester Volume =  (Sludge Volume)  (Solids  Retention Time)

                         =  (26,260 FT3/Day)  (15  Days)

                         »  394,000 FT3

8., 3.2.2  Anaerobic Digested Sludge

         Assume:  4% Solids Concentration

         Summary :
                   Flow = 0.072 MGD
                   Solids Concentration = 40,000 MG/L

                   Solids Production = 23,900  //Dry  Solids /Day

8.3.3    Sludge Lagoon

         Flow = 0.072 MGD = 9630 FT3/Day
         Solids Retention Time = 1 year = 365  days

         Volume of Lagoon = 9630 FT3/Day (365  days)

                          = 3,520,000 FT3

         Assume :
                   No Solids Reduction
                       Effluent Solids Concentration
                   _-   _  23.900 //Dry Solids/Day
                   now -  (100)000 MG/L)  (8.34)
                        = 0.029 MGD

         Summary :
                   Flow « 0.029 MGD
                   Solids Concentration = 100,000 MG/L
                   Solids Production = 23,900 //Dry  Solids
                                                  Day
8-3.4    Sand Drying Bed
                                                   3
         Assume:   Loading Rate = 20 //Dry Solids/FT /Year

                   Solids Production = 23,900 ///Day =  8,725,000 ///Year

                   Drying Bed Surface Area = 1,725,000 J^Year
                                             20 ///FT /Year

                                           = 436,250 FT2
                                           = 10.0 Acres
                                        3-8-6

-------
         Assume:    30%  Solids  Concentration
                                         23.900
                                           i
                    TT i      c  01  j
                    Volume of  Sludge =
                                        1240 FT3/Day
8.3.5     Incineration
         Assume:    80 Hours/Week Operating Time

                    Solids  Production  =  33,750 #/Day = 236,250 #/Week

                    _   ,  _        236,250 #/Week
                    Feed  Rate  =    oh „	Tr,—T
                                  80 Hours/Week

                              =   2950  #Dry Solids/Hour

         Assume:    Sludge  Feed  Characteristics

                    Solids  Concentration = 200,000 MG/L
                    VSS = 73%  of Total Solids

         Assume:    0% Moisture  Content  in Ash

                    Density =  2000 #/YD3

         Summary:   2.3 Tons of  Ash/Day


                                  =2.15 YD3 Ash/Day
                    2000  #/YD"
                                 =  58  FT  Ash/Day  for Disposal

8.3.6    Centrifuge

         Assume:   40 Hours/Week Operating Time

                   Solids Production = 23,900  #/Day
                   Flow = 0.072 MGD = 504,000  Gallons/Week

                   _   , _     504.000 Gallons/Week
                   Feed Rate « 	^—=	77;—f	
                                  40 Hours/Week

                             =  12,600 Gallons/Hour

                             =  210 GPM

         Sludge Cake Summary:

                   Flow = 0.014 MGD
                   Solids Concentration = 200,000 MG/L
                   Solids Production = 23,900  //Dry  Solids
                                                 Day


                                       3-8-7

-------
8.3.7    Vacuum Filter
                                         2
         Assume:   Yield Rate =3.5  #/FT /Hour
                   40 Hours/Week Operating  Time

                   Solids Production =  23,900 ///Day  =  167,300 ///Week
                                                          167,300 ///Week
                   Surface Area  of Vacuum Filter
                                                   C40 Hours/Week)(3.5 ///FT2/Hour)

                                                  =  1200 FT2
         Sludge Cake  Summary:
                   Flaw  =  0.014 MGD
                   Solids  Concentration =  200,000 MG/L
                   Solids  Production  =  23,900  //Dry Solids
                                                  Day
8.3.8    Thickener
                                                 2
         Assume:    Solids  Loading Rate = 10 ///FT /Day

                    Solids  Loading =  33,750 ///Day

                    Surface Area of Thickener - 33,750 ///Day
                                                10  f/FT /Day

                                              = 3375 FT2

         Assume:    6%  Solids  Concentration
                    No  Solids  Reduction

         Summary:
                    Flow =  0.067 MGD
                    Solids  Concentration = 60,000 MG/L
                    Solids  Production = 33,750 // Dry Solids
                                                   Day
                                       3-8-8

-------
8.4
SLUDGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
         Utilizing the Information developed  in  the Unit Process  Section, nine
         Sludge Treatment Alternatives were evaluated.  The alternatives are as
         follovs:
         Alternative

               1


               2
               7


               8
               Unit Processes

               Aerobic Digester
               Sludge Lagoon

               Aerobic Digester
               Vacuum Filter

               Thickener
               Vacuum Filter
               Incineration

               Aerobic Digester
               Centrifuge

               Thickener
               Aerobic Digester
               Sand Drying Bed

               Anaerobic Digester
               Sludge Lagoon

               Anaerobic Digester
               Vacuum Filter

               Anaerobic Digester
               Centrifuge

               Thickener
               Anaerobic Digester
               Sand Drying Bed
          Solids Requiring Disposal

Tons Dry Solids/Day
FT3/Day
        11.95


        11.95


         2.15



        11.95


        11.95



        11.95


        11.95


        11.95


        11.95
 3720


 1870


   58



 1870


 1240



 3720


 1870


 1870


 1240
          All of the nine alternatives shown above could be used at any of  the
          proposed treatment plant sites for sludge treatment.   Each alternative
          requires the disposal of solids,  which will be covered in the next
          section.
                                        3-8-9

-------
         Table  8 -1 presents  the capital cost, annual  operation  and maintenance
         cost,  salvage value  and the present worth for each unit process.

         Table  8 -2, "Alternative Sludge Treatment Cost," presents the  total
         present  worth of  the sludge treatment alternatives.  The alternatives
         are ranked on the basis of total present worth.

8 .5      SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES

8 .5.1    Composting

         Three  alternatives for sludge disposal were investigated.  The  first
         alternative is hauling the sludge to the Scarab composting site.   The
         present  worth of  the hauling costs are as follows:

                   Plant Site                   Present Worth

                   Winston Thomas                $ 161,700
                   Dillman                      $ 156,900
                   Ketcham                      $ 226,000
                   Salt Creek                   $ 349,600

         It was assumed that  the sludge would have to  be at a minimum of 20%
         dry solids, therefore, sludge treatment alternative #4  was used in
         calculating the total sludge treatment and disposal cost for
         composting.

 8-5.2    Soil Injection or Land Application

         The second alternative is hauling the sludge via existing roads to a
         centralized distribution point located south  of the Valley Mission
         Church in Lawrence County.  The present worth of the hauling cost  are
         as follows:

         Assuming sludge at 10% dry solids

                   Plant Site                    Present Worth

                   Winston Thomas                $ 682,400
                   Dillman                      $ 582,800
                   Ketcham                      $ 549,600
                   Salt Creek                    $ 412,300
                                        3-8-10

-------
         Assuming  sludge  at  20% solids

                   Present Site                  Present Worth

                   Winston Thomas                 $  342,500
                   Dillman                        $  292,400
                   Ketcham                        $  276,000
                   Salt Creek                     $  207,000

         The sludge is transferred  from the  hauling vehicle to an application
         vehicle at the land disposal site.   The  application vehicle would
         inject the 10% solids  sludge into the  soil and  spread the 20% solids
         sludge on the soil  surface.  The present worth  of the sludge
         application cost are as follows:

                   Sludge Concentration          Present Worth
                          10%                     $  736,300
                          20%                     $  734,200
8.. 5.3    Sludge Lagoons
         The third alternative is construction of sludge  lagoons  for  the
         disposal of the sludge.  The costs for lagoons with  20 years capacity
         and the costs for lining the lagoons were calculated.  The present
         worth of the lagoons are as follows:

                                                 PRESENT  WORTH
                   Lagoon Capacity          With Liner    Without Liner

                      20 Years              $ 2,975,400    $  1,781,500

8.5.4    Land Requirements for Injection or Surface Spreading

         Sludge disposal alternative #2, land spreading requires  a large  land
         area.  The calculations are as follows:

                   Sludge Production » 11.95 Tons Dry Solids/Day
                                     - 4362 Tons Dry Solids/Year

8.5.4.1  Application Rate

         Heavy Metals Criteria;

         Equation - Total Quantity of Dry Solids, Tons/Acres

                  	CEC (meq/lOOg Unamended Soil) X 1.63  X 10	
      Tons/Acre =         mgZn   - 50) + 2 S (  mgCu    25) + 8 X (   MgNi   )
                  [1 X Kg Sludge              Kg Sludge            Kg Sludge -25]

         Assume:  CEC » 25 meq/lOOg Unamended Soil
                                        3-8-11

-------
Use Winston Thomas sludge heavy metal analysis of September 17, 1975.

          Element                  Concentration, MG/KG Dry Weight

             Cu                           980
             Cr                           585
             Fe                          5940
             Ni                           282
             Cd                            29
             Zn                           430

Using these assumptions, the total quantity of dry solids equals 90
Tons/Acre.

Therefore, the annual application rate for the twenty year design life
equals 4.5 Tons Dry Solids/Acre/Year.

Use 5.0 Tons Dry Solids/Acre/Year

Agricultural Plant Growth Requirements;

Using equations in EPA's proposed sludge disposal guidelines, it was
calculated that the annual sludge application rate for plant growth
requirements would be approximately 5 Tons Dry Solids/Acre/Year.

Therefore, the land requirements for land disposal are as follows:

          T   .  .      4362 Tons Dry Solids/Year      _..-  .
          Land Area = •=-=	=;	e , ..  ,.  —7^-    = 873 Acres
                      5 Tons Dry Solids/Acre/Year

Because of the large land area requirements for land disposal, it is
recommended that Bloomington should not purchase the land at the Salt
Creek Site for disposal purposes.  It was assumed that the sludge
would be spread on farmland as it is done at the Bucher-Poole Plant.
Due to the lack of available data, it was assumed that the sludge
would be spread on farmland located on the Salt Creek Flood Plain from
the Salt Creek Plant site to areas located in Lawerence County.
Because the sludge is assumed to be hauled in 20 Ton loads by trailer
trucks, primary roads were chosen in determining the distances to the
disposal site from the various plant sites.

It is recommended that the sludge not be applied in excess of the
agronomic rate because of the possibility of nitrate leaching.  This
is also within  the limits of the proposed EPA sludge disposal
guidelines which will probably be enforced in the near future.
                             3-8-12

-------
8.5.5    Hauling Costs

          Table  8-3 presents hauling costs for land disposal and composting.
          It was assumed that Bloomington would contract with a hauling firm to
          transport the sludge and that a trailer truck with a 20 ton load limit
          would be used.

          Table  8-4 presents the cost for the application vehicle.  The capital
          and operation and maintenance costs were obtained from Mr.  Rich Schapland,
          Big Wheels, Inc., Paxton, Illinois.

                            Application Vehicle Cost

                            10% Solids Concentration      20% Solids  Concentration
                            	Sludge Injection	         Surface  Spreading	

Capital Cost of Vehicle             $ 37,000                      $ 33,000

Annual Capital Cost                   49,802                        44,418
  6.125% Interest
  5 Year Life

Annual Cost                            1,000                         1,000
  0 & M (insurance, tires,
  truck maintenance, etc.)

Fuel Cost                              7,040                         7,040
  8 Gallons/hour
  $.55/Gallon
  1600 Hours/year

Operator                               9,600                         9,600
  $6.00 Hour
  1600 hours/year

Total Annual Cost                     67,442                        62,058
  Year 20

Total Annual Cost                     62,242                        56,858
  Year 1

Total Present Worth                  736,300                       734,200
                                         3-8-13

-------
 8.5.6    Sludge Lagoon Costs

          Sludge lagoon costs are as follows:

                                   ANNUAL COST

                    Capital        O&M      O&M      O&M      Salvage
                     Cost         11 MGD     16 MGD     Gradient     Value

Without Liner     $1,228,200      39,000     46,000       350       958,000
With Liner         2,353,200      39,000     46,000       350     1,835,500

                                  PRESENT WORTH

                    Project                       Salvage        Present
                     Cost           O&M          Value          Worth

Without Liner     $1,597,000       477,500        293,000       1,781,500
With Liner         3,059,200       477,500        561,300       2,975,400

          The 20 year capacity lagoon would require 90 acres of land.
          Therefore, It was assumed that the lagoons could only be utilized at
          the Salt Creek site.

 8 .6      CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          Table  8-5 presents the Summary of Sludge Treatment and Disposal
          Costs.  The sludge treatment alternatives, aerobic digester-lagoon and
          aerobic digester-centrifuge have the lowest present worth for
          producing sludge at 10% and 20% solids concentration, respectively.
          Composting has the lowest present worth of the disposal alternatives
          but it requires treating the sludge to 20% solids.  Therefore, this
          combined treatment and disposal alternative is not the most economical
          alternative.

          The least cost combined treatment and disposal alternative at each
          site is treating to 10% solids and soil injection.  This is assuming
          that land is available for soil injection at no cost to the City of
          Bloomington.

          It should be  pointed out that the 20 year capacity unlined lagoon and
          the aerobic digester alternative is the least costly alternative at
          the Salt Creek Site but the land area requirements of the lagoons is
          too great for inclusion at the other sites.  However, if a lagoon site
          could be found within reasonable distance from the other plant sites,
          this could become a viable alternative at the other plant sites.
                                        3-8-14

-------
To provide the most flexibility and reliability, it is recommended
that the sludge be treated to 20% solids via aerobic digestion and
centrifugation.  This would allow disposal via composting, landfilling
and/or surface spreading.  Therefore, should the composting
arrangement fail, the City of Bloomington would have alternative
disposal mechanisms readily available.

Soil injection of the 10% sludge is the least cost alternative for
sludge disposal.  This is predicated on the assumption that
Bloomington will not purchase the disposal land.

However, due to the land area requirements and the unreliability of
land management arrangements, the more costly system is recommended.
                               3-8-15

-------
rH  C ,C

 CO  CU 4-1

 U  CO M

 O  CU O

H  M 3

   P-I
                  O
                  o
                                          O
                                          o
            o
            o
                             o
                             o
                 o
                 o
                                                      CO
                                                      O
                                                            "T    rH

                                                            00    vO
      CU

      00 OJ

      CO 3

      > rH

      rH CO

      CO >
                              o
                              o
                  o
                  o
     o
     o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
     o
     o
3

IS
O
3

H
2:
u
c/l
w
c£
(X
                               o
                               o
                               m
                  o
                  o
                  o
      o
      o
o
o
      o
      o
      o
      o
            o
            o
                      HI CO

                      1-1 O
                      O CJ
                               o
                               o
                               CO

                               ON
                  o
                  o
      o
      o
o
o
o
o
a\
o
o
      o
      o
                                                        O
                                                        o
                                                        CO
       CU

       00  CU

       CO  3
       > rH
                               O

                               O
                  CD-
                  CD
      O
      O
o
o
o
a
KO
      o
      o
            o
            o
  1

 00

 u
 J
 to

• S
    sl
    u3  *t>
       CO
O
00
                  o
                  o
                  -if
                  o
                  o
s

"3
O
o
VI
2<
in
rH
O
o

m
in
O
0
CN
rH
CN
O
O
0
.•a

o
o
m
rH
rH *
O
0
rH
CN

O
'O
o
o
CN
• rH
O
o
CO
CO
rH
O
o
^3-
f-^

                               o
                               o
                  o
                  o
      o    o

      S    8
       o
       o
      o
      o
      o
      o
      CO
rH
•H
O.
CO
U

01
o
CJ
o
0
o •
5
o
0
o
CO
m
ID
0
-.0
in
•t
iH
O
0
o
CN
O
8
CN
O
CN
0
O
o
OO
oo
o
0
o
00
00
o
rH
o
0
o
vO
                               •H

                                CU
                                01

                                00
                               TH

                               Q


                                U
                   CO

                   01

                   00
                   iH

                   Q


                   U
                                           tU
                                           no

                                           13
                   a


             r?  '5
            •H     U

             ><    CO


            O     01
                                                                   1-1

                                                                   01
             01
             oo
             •3
rH
« co
ZZ CO
< o
o o.
CO
O -H

O

rH B
% CO


U B
CU 01
'•? s
h« rt
(X, 01
hi
EH
-< CU
M

3
[I] rH
CO

CO 14
O
*> rH
CO
01
-H
*J
•H
rH
-H
U
CO
(X

U
B
01
S

CO
01
H
CO
3
B

jg

B
CX

CO
til
Q

CO
CO

CJ
o
hi
PM


















sr
ON
rH

n
hf
01
J3
0
U
O
«k
hi
01
*4H
n
B
to
hi
EH

r-,
00
O

0
B

O
01
H
















CN

B

rH
O
CJ



cn
B
3
rH
0
CJ





n
•
rH


^^
O r-l
CM

3
t— t
0
CJ


^j D
B
(U *J
•H CO

« 0
M
CJ «U
u
5C 

** M
O A*







X-N

0


CO


C?
£

3
rH
0
u


+


F*»
•^
rH
x_x


CN


a
3
rH
O
CJ


1

as


o


















^.-^
S
*»x.
CD
rH
N..X


VD
1-5
§
rH
O
O




IU
3
rH
eg
>


ClO
<0
!>
rH
eg
CO


oo

B


rH
o
o

1



B
rH
^™N O
CO CJ
0 +
m.

0
"*•' C


U*1 rH
BS
3 i
rH
O X
CJ U

o


01 J-l
3 B
rH 01
CO CO
> 01

01 PM
00
C« rH
> eg
rH U
J5.2
                              „    *    ,    I
                               B     U    B    U
                               CO     E    CU    CO

                              CO    M    CJ    >
                   H
                   01



                   U
                  •r!

                  e
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                      CJ
                                                                          o  o  o  o  o
                                                                         u cj u u u
                                                                              3-8-16

-------
                                   TABLE  8-2

                        ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE TREATMENT COST
Alternative    Unit Processes

     1         Aerobic Digester
               Sludge Lagoon

     2         Aerobic Digester
               Vacuum Filter

     3         Thickener
               Vacuum Filter
               Incineration

     4         Aerobic Digester
               Centrifuge

     5         Thickener
               Aerobic Digester
               Sand Drying Bed

     6         Anaerobic Digester
               Sludge Lagoon

     7         Anaerobic Digester
               Vacuum Filter

     8         Anaerobic Digester
               Centrifuge

     9         Thickener
               Anaerobic Digester
               Sand Drying Bed
Total Present Worth

   $ 1,788,800


   $ 3,818,900


   $ 6,393,000



   $ 3,342,300


   $ 4,085,700



   $ 1,951,900


   $ 3,982,000


   $ 3,505,400


   $ 4,488,000
Rank
NOTE:     TOTAL PRESENT WORTH DOES NOT INCLUDE COST FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL,  i.e.,
          LAND SPREADING, LANDFILL AND COMPOSTING TRANSPORTATION COST.
                                       3-8-17

-------
                                              oo
                                              vO
                               00
                               00
                               SO
    to 
                                  SO
                         £\
                                  oo
                                  o
                               sO
                               00
                      M

                      C  >* —
                      O  tO IN
                     H O -^
                                  o
                                  o
                                  00
                  o
                  o
                  00
                  so
o
o
00
SO
o
o
00
o o o  o
o o o  o
•^ 00 sD  CO
  •I   w  •>  •*
CN CN o>  CN
oo oo -a  .-I
SO U~l U^  >^
o
rH
-*
                                                                                                                                   o  o o o
                                                                                                                                   o  o o o
                                                                                                                                   LH  

 ^H ^^
00
0
00

O
m


-a-
o
t^ *-^
-^ to ,
a co
1 0
B
0
H
^%.
CO
CO CO c*1
ij


r^
rH
i— t
CN



CO





CN
in
o"
CN

SO


CN
O




00
in
oo
so
m
•a
m
i—i

00
CN

r*
r*«




-a

SO
ESENT WORTH
Thomas
K C
O-i O
CO
c
-H
3








B
1
r-H

•H
O







CU
CU
B r-l
CO CJ
.C
O *J
4J i-l
CU CO
^ CO







                      C  >"*•
                      O  CO CN
                     H CS ^
                     H  co
                     fc O
                                                                    CO
                                                                    a
                                               o
                                               o
                                                                                                in
                                                                                                -9
 CO
 CU     CU
>—t  O  *J
                                                                    •o
                                                                     u    -o
                                                                    rH     CO
                                               ao  >> •—  B  co
                                                  —  CO  O  >*
                                               eg  «ft  e H  at
                                               00     O ~^ Q
                                               T3  O H CN
                                               SO    rH O
                                               rH  r~ O   • O
                                               CO  rH CN  CN
                                                                                                -a-

                                                                                                -a-
   U
   H
                         £
                                  O
                                  f
                                  H
                                               co
                                              ,c
                                               o
                                                     CU
                                                     CU
                                                     I-l
                                                    CJ
                                            I
                                                                            3-8-18

-------
                                   TABLE  8-2

                        ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE TREATMENT COST
Alternative    Unit Processes

     1         Aerobic Digester
               Sludge Lagoon

     2         Aerobic Digester
               Vacuum Filter

     3         Thickener
               Vacuum Filter
               Incineration

     4         Aerobic Digester
               Centrifuge

     5         Thickener
               Aerobic Digester
               Sand Drying Bed

     6         Anaerobic Digester
               Sludge Lagoon

     7         Anaerobic Digester
               Vacuum Filter

     8         Anaerobic Digester
               Centrifuge

     9         Thickener
               Anaerobic Digester
               Sand Drying Bed
Total Present Worth

   $ 1,788,800


   $ 3,818,900


   $ 6,393,000



   $ 3,342,300


   $ 4,085,700



   $ 1,951,900


   $ 3,982,000


   $ 3,505,400


   $ 4,488,000
Rank
NOTE:     TOTAL PRESENT WORTH DOES NOT INCLUDE COST FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL, i.e.,
          LAND SPREADING, LANDFILL AND COMPOSTING TRANSPORTATION COST.
                                       3-8-17

-------
       00    00

       rH    in


             o>
                    M)
                          in
                                 CO
                                 CO
                                                                               00
                                                                               O-
~~  ra   O  +~\
                                                                                            00     .-H
                                                                                            -it     rH
   J
CO
o
CO
-a-
T3
 re
 to
 c  >i ^
 o  re  CN
H O  •-<
-a-
rH
CN
-a
rH
CN
H  re
t. o
o
o
00
vO
                   O
                   o
                   oo
O     O
O     O
00     00
VO     ^O
O O  O O
o o  o o



0
rH









M 00
re ^ o

 >H ^ »
0
m


-a-
o

~~- re -a -a-
«. o ^- m
CN

•^ 1
10
01
rH
•rl >, r^
S « rH
1 Q rH
C CN
O
H



CN
CTN
m
f
en
-a-


VC
CM

VO
^
CN





CO
O
00
rH





O

a\
*.
0


o

.
-a-
0
CN





IT)
O
I-N.
i-H





vO

vC
*
o
m


00


ro
IT,
i— 1





CT>
r^-
CN
t— i


H
os
o
3 CO
M

JZJ o
fr] r?
« H
W
M C
OH 0
4J
CO
C
iH
3



















X.
01
01
c 6 ^
§re u
.c
rH U U
rH 4J (H
•rl 01 »
(3 Jx( W












2
0
HH
E-i

S
P
U
z
o
o

(/)
a
M
>J
O
C/]

5^
O
CN








^
00
in
M
m
CN


CN


r--
CM
rH





^O
vC
O
rH





O
-a-
00
»
I—)
Csl


O
cs
,
Cft
o
iH





O

o^






CM vO
^ in
lA ^J"
• n
o m
CN .H


vO 00
CTi CN
• i
CN r^
O r^
rH





CO -tf
m 
                                 -a-
                                     re
                                    o

                                    o
                                    o
                                    CN
                                                 TJ
                                                  01
                                               U  IH
                                           T3 rH  «
                                    rH     re -rl  01
                                     3ro  o 32  >-
                                     re  o  j  i  —
                                    33  >•  ~~~-  C  CO
                                       ~-  CO  O  >*
                                     a)  a=  c H  re
                                     oo    o ^-  Q
                                    •a  o  H CM
                                     DO     rH  O
                                    rH  r-«  O  •  O
                                    W  rH  CM O>  CN
                                                                                            m
                                                                                            «*
                                                                                            m
   U
   H
    hJ
    CU
              c
             •H
                           re
                          .e
                           o
                                              |
                                                                                §
                                                                               j:
                                                         3-8-18

-------
                    00
                    o
      SI
     ol
          00
          00
   0
   H|
                    r»
                    rH
                    O
                        r-
                        o







-3-
i
oo

M
tJ
s














H
s
O

O
z
rH
rJ
1

|

STING
O
PM
1
O











§
H

H
^
O
CJ

en
0
t-H
iJ
O
V)

X
o
(N









fo
£





^_
«•



«•

w
01
rH
•H
£
1
c
0
H
0}
•a
a)
>\ s
ml -a-
ol en




(S
n
a
0)
>•
r^
O
CM
f-H

\o
ro
«1 0
Cll VC



>
10
O




>,





CM
P^
00
vC
rH

VC
en
st
oo




m
o
r^




-3-
o
rH
 o *o
vO \D O*
in tM •«•
rH CS CO





^
Q>
01
C B M
5 8 U
rH (J AJ
rH 4J rH
•H 0) CO
Q M M









 ^ j
  H Bl
  fe a I
m
-9-
m
-3-
          •3-
          m
          CM
01
01    01
rH  O -U
          OO


          VO
  en

  H
                                     3-8-19

-------
                             *             *
                          o o o     o o o
                          o o o     o o o
                                        . *
                                     o o  o
                                     o o  o
                                                        o  o o o  o
                                                        o  o o o  o
                                                        -3-  VD ON 00  O"\
           0
           H
 o
3
                          o  o  o
                          o  o  o
                       o  o o
                       o  o o
                                         ooo
                                         o  o  o
                                         ON  OJ  O
               o o c  o  o
               o o o  o  o
 OJ  4J
 01  rl
 01  o

 rl  3
a.
                          OO  v£>  rH
                          rH  r-  \o
                          -cr  o  I-H
                                      m  o *c
                                      00  rH CN
                                      CN  O CM
O
u
                                                                                  •»  *
                01   OJ
                00 U
               -a  —i
                           C T3
                           0  to
                          •H  CD
         C  0)  4-1
        M  U  [0
            CO  O
        rH  UH  D.
        TH  rl  g
         O  3  O
        en  c/3  c_>
                           U  O. OO
                           CMC
                           •m     *»H
                           C  OJ  4J
                           rH  U  »
                               CO  O
                                       C  "O
                                       O  CO
 B  01  4J
rH  CJ  0}
    CO  O
rH  UJ  O.

•H  rl  B
 O  3  O
Vj  U3  U
                c  -a
                O  CO
               •H  0)
                U  U
                CJ  CL  00
                01  C/5  B rJ
               -t-i    -H
                C  01
                                                                    c  c
                                                                    o  o
                                                                    O  O
                                                                    00  M
        to  CO   CO
        0  OJ   01

        e**  **
        0 O  O
        U CN  (N
o o o
o o o
-CO c»1 r~)
00 CN CN1 -


o o o
o o o

OO CN CM


o o o
000
00 co CO
CO CN CM


O O O O O
o o o o o
uu r" 1 I' 1 sr *d"
co CN CN n r-
oo ^j ^* m w"t

                H  E

                aj  o)
                00  4J
                •O rH
                3   01
 00  00 00 00  00
         a a  o

         CJ  CJ   CJ
                        a a  o
                                          o  o  o
                                          kw  U  H
                                          CJ  OJ  OJ
                                          a  o a

                                           U  O  O
               Q a  Q  Q a

                O  CJ  O  CJ  O


                o  o  o  o  o
                *4  h  *J  h  V4
                4)  (U  D  
-------
               3
               o
                                                  1
                                                                       a
                                                                      co
               o
               B
                                          c
                                          o
M

s
•H
O
C
                                 00
                                 C
                                                           co
                                                           o
                                                           a.
               o
00
 0) C
 00 O
•o o
 3 00
i-l efl
CO hJ
                                                        00
                                                    "O  C
                                                     a -H -a
                                                     (0  >> 0)
                                                    CO  M PQ
                                                       Q
         c

         JS
         o
         •H
               l-l

               S!
I8
33
ca -H
> Pw
                                                                                              eu
                                                                                              oo
                                                                                              £
                                                                                              u
            U 0)
            •H 4J
            43 CO
            O 0)
            Vi 00
            
-------
                                CHAPTER 4
                    ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES


                                     TASK _9

                         PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS


9.1       IMPACT ON THE ECOLOGY

9.1.1     General

          The ecosystem of the area will be adversely impacted during
          construction and operation of the proposed wastewater treatment plant
          only if the mitigative measures recommended in Task 11 are not
          practiced.  It is recommended that a member of the Bloomington Utility
          Board make frequent inspections during construction operations to
          ensure that the recommended mitigative measures are implemented.

          The caliber of adverse physical environmental impacts which can result
          from poor engineering practices and which should be avoided in the
          proposed project are described in an article appearing on page 3 of
          the July 1969 Bloomington Newspaper, "The Balancer," which reports
          sewer lines, siphon boxes and manholes constructed in the Bean Blossom
          Flood Plain were not buried and covered properly.  As a consequence,
          during heavy rains the pipe lines dammed up water which became
          stagnant and served as a hatching area for mosquitos.  The pipelines
          were uncovered and heavy siltation of the creek occurred below the
          facilities.

          In the following paragraphs, the possible sources of physical damage
          to the aquatic and terrestrial environments due to construction and
          operation activities will be considered.  Table 9-! compares the
          physical impacts by alternative sites for the wastewater treatment
          plant.

9.1.2     Aquatic Ecology

          Rare and Endangered Aquatic Organisms

          No aquatic organisms appearing in the area of the proposed project are
          considered rare or endangered as defined in The Federal Register
          (July 1, 1975) and the U.S. Department of Interior (1974). Table 9-2
          lists the aquatic organisms which have been found in the subject area.

          Impacts of Interceptors and Outfalls on the Aquatic Environment Storm
          water runoff carrying silt from areas excavated for interceptors,
          outfalls and other facilities associated with the project could affect
          the biota of Clear and Salt Creeks.  The smothering influence of silt
          could affect the primary producers as well as all other levels of the
          food chain.  Filter-feeding zooplankton are harmed because their
          feeding apparatus becomes clogged.  Aquatic plants are affected
          because silt suspended in the water blocks out light and inhibits
          photosynthesis.  Dying plants consume oxygen and lower dissolved
                                        4-9-1

-------
oxygen (DO) of the water.  A decrease in DO could be harmful to fish
when they are smothered as a result of silt particles clogging their
operculum cavity and gill filaments.  Silt settling on fish eggs
decreases oxygenation of the eggs, which die.  This effect on fish
populations is the most severe effect of silt production.

Because the depth of soil over the bedrock is much greater in the
alluvial portion of Clear Creek near its confluence with Salt Creek,
the quantity of silt in runoff is greater there than in the upper
portions of the creek.  This situation contrasts to the waters of
Clear Creek further north where topsoil is not as thick and runoff  is
not as silt-laden.  Observation made of the creek in August of 1975
confirmed that: near the confluence of Salt and Clear Creeks the water
was very muddy.  Between Bloomington and Ketcham road, Clear Creek was
relatively clear.  Heavy siltation of the creek during construction
activities would worsen the already bad siltation problem in the
southern end of Clear Creek and create a new and adverse condition  if
it occurred in the northern reaches of the creek.  Silt production  can
be minimized if the recommended engineering practices mentioned in
Task 11 are followed.

Crossing of the creek with interceptor lines and rerouting the creek
are construction activities which are potential sources for
alterations in the natural aquatic ecology of the area if good
engineering practices are not followed.  Because the creek bed is
solid limestone the dredging and blasting required for these
activities is not expected to produce a great deal of silt.  While  the
trench is being dug, habitats for benthic organisms in the immediate
area will be disrupted; however, after the encased pipeline is
installed the trench will be refilled with riprap consisting of the
caliber of heavy stones which now line the creek bed.  These stones
will be recolonized by organisms seeded from the water passing over
them.

Proof of the ability for Clear Creek to recover from localized
devastation is shown by two historical occurrences:

1.   The installation of the tertiary lagoon in the Winston Thomas
     Sewage Treatment Plant

2.   Rerouting the creek to accomodate expansion of the Winston Thomas
     Sewage Treatment Plant

Prior to 1969, when the tertiary lagoon was built, the poor water
quality of the creek was reflected in the low species diversity for
invertebrates! and absence of fish.  Since the lagoon has been
installed and the quality of sewage effluent flowing into the creek
has improved, species diversity of invertebrates has increased and  the
more tolerant Cyprinidae such as the stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum)
and the creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) have been found near the
outfall (D.G. Frey - personal communication).

-------
When the creek was rerouted, the water channel was simply transferred
from one bedrock channel to a new one with no apparent disruptions of
the creek south of the rerouting.

Impacts of Operation on the Aquatic Ecology - Effluent

The physical effects of the effluent will depend on where the outfall
is located and the degree to which the sewage is treated.  According
to Indiana State .regulations, the following levels of treatment will
be required by 1977 for discharges to Salt Creek and Clear Creek.

                                   Salt Creek          Clear Creek

BOD (Biological                    10 mg/1 or 95%      5 mg/1 or 97.5%
  Oxygen Demand)                   removal             removal

Suspended Solids                   10 mg/1 or 95%      5 mg/1 or 97.5%
                                   removal             removal

Phosphorus                         1 mg/1 or 80%       1 mg/1 or 80%
                                   removal             removal

Ammonia Nitrogen                   6.5 mg/1 in summer  1.5 mg/1 summer
                                   no limitation       3.0 in winter
                                   in winter

The requirements for a greater degree of treatment for effluent
discharged into Clear Creek is due to the lower dilution rate which
occurs there.  When comparing the potential physical effects of the
effluent discharged into Clear Creek and Salt Creek, the two primary
considerations are:

1.   The decreased flow which would occur in Clear Creek if the
     effluent were no longer discharged into it

2.   The chemical characteristics of the effluent when it reaches
     a water intake for the city of Bedford, 13 miles downstream from
     the Lake Monroe dam

Canoeing of Clear Creek is impossible during low flow conditions
which normally occur during the summer.  On four sampling dates
between February 22, 1975 and April 2, 1975 (a high flow period for
the creek) the flow of Clear Creek averaged 200 MGD
(Pullman G. Douglas, 1975).

If the flow from the city's sewage treatment plant was removed from
Clear Creek and discharged into Salt Creek, Clear Creek would be
unnavigable by canoe sooner than it is now.  If the outfall is moved
farther south on Clear Creek, the flow from Bloomington to the new
location will be reduced from its present level.  This reduced flow
                              4-9-3

-------
rate which could occur if effluent were removed from Clear Creek  is
significant from another standpoint:  it would no longer dilute the
pollutants which drain into the creek from a variety of sources.
Hartzel et al.  (1971) reported that pollution of Clear Creek above
the Winston Thomas Sewage Treatment Plant outfall came from the
following sources:

1.   Oil from a creosote plant

2.   Indiana University via the Jordan River which is located on
     campus

3.  Faulty septic tank drainage fields

4.  Runoff from Bloomington
On April 2, 197L, water quality parameters which were more severe
above the sewage treatment plant when compared to those below it
included:

1.   Bicarbonate alkalinity

2.   pH

3.   Nitrate

4.   Resistivity

These parameters were improved below the outfall due to the effect of
dilution.  Parameters which were more severe below the plant included
dissolved oxygen, calcium, and total phosphate.  Removing the effluent
from Clear Creek or upgrading the treatment to the projected level
required for 1977 would generally improve the water quality of Clear
Creek.  However, those pollutants which enter from above the point of
discharge of the Winston Thomas plant would no longer be diluted and
their concentrations would become higher than they are now below the
discharge of the Winston Thomas Plant.

Two questions have been raised concerning the effect sewage will have
on the City of Bedford's water intake on Salt Creek.  The first is
whether the effluents could raise the nitrage level in the water to a
level which would be toxic to humans drinking it.  The nitrate
concentrations above and below the present Winston Thomas Treatment
Plant on April 2, 1971, were 5.6 above the discharge and 2.0 ppm below
the discharge, and 3.9 and 6.6 ppm on April 9.  On April 12, 1975 at
7 P.M., the nitrate concentration was 3.2 ppm at Clear Creek, 0.29 ppm
on Salt Creek and 0.3 ppm at their confluence.  These were high flow
conditions.  During low flow conditions, the nitrate levels may be
                              4-9-4

-------
 considerably higher.  In addition to the effluent, another source of
 nitrate is the sludge injected into the land, which could be washed
 off during floods.  This is a potential problem only at the Salt Creek
 site where the sludge injection system is proposed and where frequent
 flooding occurs.  The amount of nitrate which could be washed off
 during floods can be controlled through manipulation of the
 application rates.  As discussed in Section 11.2.1, it is recommended
 that if the Salt Creek site is selected, a study be carried out to
 determine the application rates.  Pollution of surface or ground water
 with other materials as a result of the sludge injection system would
 not be expected (Ken Dotson EPA, Cincinnati, personal communication).
 After the effluent is discharged into a creek, the nitrate
 concentration will drop as a consequence of denitrification and
 nitrate reduction which occurs naturally as the creek flows southward.
 There is no possibility that the nitrate concentration could reach the
 50 ppm level which has been associated with infant methemaglobinemia
 (Maxey-Rosenau, 1965).

 There has also been some question about toxic chlorinated organics in
 the effluent reaching the intake for the City of Bedford's water
 supply.  The chlorinated organics form as a result of the chemical
 reaction of chlorine, added to the sewage for disinfection purposes,
 and the organics discharged into the sewage by industries and
 university laboratories.  No definite statement can be made at this
 time concerning this potential problem except that natural degradation
 of the compounds is more likely to occur in Clear Creek which is well
 aerated and further from the reservoir than will occur in Salt Creek
 which is less aerated and closer to the intake.  In addition, the
 greater degree of treatment required for sewage discharged into Clear
 Creek may result in the decomposition of the organics which could
 react with chlorine and will decrease the quantity of chlorine
 required for disinfection.  It is recommended that the raw sewage and
 chlorinated effluent from the Winston Thomas Sewage Treatment Plant be
 analyzed by the gas chromatographic mass spectro-photometric method to
 identify toxic chlorinated compounds that may be formed during the
 chlorination process.  If they are detected, alternative disinfection
 systems can be designed into the proposed treatment plant.
 Alternatives which could be considered include:

 1.   Ozonation

 2.   Chlorination - dechlorination

 3.   Bromine chloride

 4.   No disinfection

*"... uncontrolled and excessive use of chlorine for wastewater
 disinfection may result in potential harm to both human and aquatic
 life (A/WPR, April 28, 1975, p. 166) ...Alternative means of
 disinfection control (dechlorination) must be considered where public health
 hazards and potential adverse impact on the aquatic and humand environments
 coexist, but disinfecting should not be required in those instances where
 benefits are not present."  (A/WPR, August 25, 1975, p. 332).

                               4-9-5

-------
9.1.3     Terrestrial Ecology

          Rare and Endangered Terrestrial Organisms

          A search of the .scientific and other literature was conducted to
          determine if rare or officially designated "endangered." species might
          occur in the area.   Table 8-3 lists terrestrial vertebrates of
          potential occurrence which are listed as "threatened" and/or
          "endangered" by the U.S.  Department of the Interior, Office of
          Endangered Species  and International Activities (1973,  1974).  Because
          critical nesting habitat  for the two birds is abs€-.nt from the area,
          and caves which would attract the bat (Hall 1962)  are unknown in the
          areas potentially affected, it is believed that effects of
          construction would  be neglible at any site proposed.

          Impact of Interceptors and Outfalls on Terrestrial Ecology

          Interceptor and connector sewers necessary for the several
          alternatives under study  would require trenches of depth and width
          appropriate to provide drainage by gravity.  If the Salt Creek site is
          chosen, it will require interceptors.  The interceptors will require
          trenches about 2m (6 feet) wide, no less than 2.7  m (9 feet) deep, and
          extending for varying lengths, but in no instance  less than several
          kilometers.

          One hundred foot construction right-of-ways and 50 foot permanent
          right-of-ways are required for interceptors.   After the trench was
          closed, vegetation could  become reestablished along the right-of-way,
          and in fact would be essential to prevent damage from erosion and to
          limit penetration of frost.

          It would be necessary to  maintain a road for  vehicles along the entire
          length of the right-of-way to permit inspection and repair to the
          facility.  Manholes would protrude at intervals.  Consequently,
          construction of any sewer so large as the several  proposed in
          alternative plans in the  present project must be assumed to have
          significant effect, much  of which will not diminish for the useful
          life of the sewer,  and much lasting long after the sewer line has lost
          its utility.  The following paragraphs discuss in  some detail uhe
          effects probable from constructing such sewers.

          The effects of clearing a wide swath through  fields and woodlands, or
          along the riparian vegetation bordering such  a stream as Clear Creek,
          are manifestly significant, whether or not they can be quantified in a
          particular instance.  Vegetation would be destroyed.  Consequently,
                                        4-9-6

-------
the area would become untenable, at least during construction, for
many kinds of animals dependent on that vegetation.  Any such project
as those considered here clearly has unavoidable influence on vast
areas.  For example, a right-of-way only 100 feet wide would occupy
about 12 acres per mile (i.e., a right-of-way 30 m wide and 1.6 km
long would occupy 4.9 ha).

If the interceptor is built to the Salt Creek site, it should clearly
affect riparian communities to the almost total exclusion of uplands,
and the right-of-way would traverse cropland at almost every point
where it was not in woods.

The riparian vegetation which would be removed by construction is
suitable habitat for a variety of game species of recreational
importance, as well as some species which are apparently incompletely
harvested  Ce.g., raccoons, Procyon lotor).  More hunter pressure is
apparently placed on upland game birds (e.e., ring-necked pheasants,
Phasianus  colchicus) in the adjacent croplands, and destruction of
forest growth would probably increase the attractiveness of the area
traversed  by the sewer to hunters during a brief part of the year.

Clear Creek is a moderately severely polluted stream, presently
ill-suited for most aquatic sports for much of its length.  However,
it is presently used during the period of high water in the winter for
canoeing;  it has been characterized as the "only" sizable reach of
water suitable for canoeing in a radius of 30 miles or more from
Bloomintgon.  The riparian growth, while difficult to traverse on
foot, offers a potentially rewarding experience to hikers along the
stream.  The Cedar Cliffs preserve, owned by the Nature Conservancy,
is in fact worthy of protection as a wild area; and it is recommended
strongly that no construction be considered which would degrade the
area.

The presently proposed sewer routing, and any other along Clear Creek
that seems to be economically feasible, would have little adverse
effect on  agriculture.  Digested sludge probably would be a beneficial
soil adjuvant in the area, and consequently its availability would
encourage  agricultural use of bottom lands.

The importance of forest industries in the region appears to be small
at present, though some large and consequently merchantable trees have
been noted in the riparian community.  However, the destruction of
timber associated with construction of the proposed sewer would be
deleterious in proportion to its extensiveness.
                             4-9-7

-------
          The use  of  Clear Creek  for recreational purposes might  be  fostered if
          adequate sewage treatment were to be  instituted to  ensure  its
          attractiveness throughout the year.   Use of  the creek for  aquatic
          sports,  including  fishing, might well induce the construction  of
          summer homes  or year-round residences along  its course.  Such  use
          would probably depend upon the availability  of convenient  sewer
          connections.

          Information on potential industrial development which might be
          encouranged by constructing the sewer is not known.

          Man can  influence  succession in many  ways.   Some of  these  involve  the
          establishment of almost permanent disclimaxes.  Egler and  Foote  (1975)
          provide  a hook-length summary of techniques  for stabilizing the
          vegetation  of rights-of-way, and review the  scientific  literature.

          One economically advantageous course  of management of the  right-of-way
          would provide for  establishing shrubs  along  the boundaries of  the
          affected area and  limiting growth in  the center to grasses and other
          herbaceous  vegetation too low to interfere with the  passage of off-
          road vehicles.  Experience elsewhere  suggests that such
          self-sustaining plant communities could be established  in  this area by
          making appropraite plantings initially.  However, experiments  have not
          to our knowledge yet been performed which would definitively
          demonstrate the feasibility of such techniques, and  it may be
          necessary to  limit growth in part by  mechanical and/or  chemical means.

          However,  if vegetation on rights-of-way is maintained, we assume here
          that a stable plant community can in  fact be  established, and  that the
          growth-form of the plants will be various, ranging from grasses and
          low shrubs  to tall trees.  The habitats afforded by  such a community
          will be  more productive of game and other animals than  if a sharp
          delimintation of forest from an artifically-maintained grassland type
          existed,  because of the phenomenon of  edge effect (Leopold
          1933:131-132, Ghiselin 1975).

9.2        Impact on the Visual Aesthetics

          While the design of the plant and the  arrangements may differ  slightly
          from site to  site, the visual impact  of the  plant site will depend
          largely  upon its position wihin the landscape with .respect to  both
          terrain  and natural vegetation, as well as upon the  number and
          position of potential viewers, and the duration or frequency of the
          view.  Since each  sense is not entirely independent  of each other, the
          odor associated with a plant might easily influence  the visual
          register of the plant.

          Of all the  potential sites, only one,  the existing Winston Thomas Site
          is located  within  an existing or planned development corridor.  One
          might theorize that this plant has been there for such a long  time
                                        4-9-8'

-------
          that the average person wouldn't even be visually bothered by a
          different plant site configuration.  Nonetheless, it is here where
          trailers, residences, and apartments are located in relatively close
          proximity on the hills overlooking the site to the west of Clear
          Creek.   A good part of the view from this residential development
          along Rogers Road is visually screened from the site by the natural
          tree line found between the residences and along the railroad and
          Clear Creek.  In addition, views are possible from the Gordon Road
          trailer development as well as from traffic passing along Old State
          Route 37, the main north-south artery.

          Both the Salt Creek and the Dillman Plant Sites would be visible from
          State Route 37 Bypass, the Dillman Site for a shorter duration than
          the Salt Creek Site.  The latter is, however, more distant from the
          viewer, in this case from a vehicle, than would be the Dillman Site.
          The Dillman Site is, however, tucked into a narrow landform depression
          at a point where the highway alignment changes quickly and, therefore,
          probably eliminating any long duration vistas toward the site, which
          might be more prevalent at the Salt Creek Site.

          The Ketcham Site is the most visually removed of all the sites.  Both
          Dillman and Salt Creek are located well outside the limits of planned
          growth corridors, so they shouldn't be surrounded by development which
          might intensify their future visual impact.  The Salt Creek site does,
          however, sit adjacent to the boundary of a potential seasonal
          development which would overlook the site.

9.3       Impact  on the Traffic Pattern

          Traffic impacts are expected to be minimum with peak truck traffic
          expected during sludge removal.  Most of the plant sites are located
          relatively close to major arteries; with Dillman, Ketcham, and Salt
          Creek having access via State Route 37 Bypass; and Winston Thomas and
          Rogers  via Old State Road 37.  In this regard, the impact will be
          relatively more significant in the more urbanized locations, however,
          all of  these major highways have significant traffic capacity to add a
          few more trucks, approximately fifteen round trips per day.

          The Dillman Site cannot be reached without a new bridge over Clear
          Creek since the present bridge is one lane wide and limited to five
          tons.  Construction truck traffic, especially cement trucks, would
          have trouble getting to this site unless a new bridge were to be
          constructed.  The fact that a new bridge would be constructed here as
          part of the creek relocation would result in a positive impact.

          The Ketcham Road Site probably has the most inadequate and hazardous
          highway access of all the sites.  Not only is Ketcham Road narrow, but
          its intersections with State Route 37 and Fluckmill Road are
          hazardous.  In addition, the railroad underpass may be too low to
          allow for construction truck traffic to pass under it.  The only other
          access  way to this site is via Victor Road, a narrow, curving, rural
          residential road.

          The Salt Creek site offers few, if any, potential traffic impacts.

                                        4-9-9

-------
References
     Egler, F. C.;  and S. R. Foote, 1975.  The Plight of the Right-of-way Domain,
     Victim of Vandalism.  Futura Media Services, Inc., Mount Kisco, N.Y.  2 vols.

     Ghiselin, J. 1975.  The Edge Index:  A Method for Comparing Terrestrial
     Species Diversity.  Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 56(2):14.  (Abstr.)

     Gray, H. H.; Howe, P. A.; Randolph, J. C.; Roberts, M. C.: and White, N. L.
     1975.  A Technical Report on a Selected Portion of the Lake Monroe Watershed.
     Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Center for
     Urban and Regional Analysis Bloomington.

     Hall, J. S. 1962.  A Life History and Taxonomic Study of the Indiana Bat,
     Myotis sodalis.  Reading Publ. Mus. Sci. Publ. No. 12.  68 pp.

     Hartzel, M. H.; Hobbs, H. H.; Paterson, K.:  and Seechausen, S.; 1971.  The
     Headwaters of Clear Creek Drainage - A Comparative Study - A Class Report
     for Dr. D. G.  Frey, Unpublished.  U. of Indiana, Bloomington.

     Hawn, G.; and J. A. Huber.  1975.  A Study of the Diversity of the
     Macroinvertebrates of Clear Creek After Sewage Outfall.  A class Report for
     Dr. D. G. Frey, Unpublished.  U. of Indiana, Bloomington.

     Leopold, Aldo.  1933.  Game Management.  New York (Charles Scribner's Sons):
     xxi + 481 p. ill.

     Maxcy, K. F.;  and M. J. Rosenau.  In Preventive Medicine and Public Health,
     P. E. Sartwell, Ed.  (New York, Appleton - Century - Crofts, 1956).

     Pullman, Douglas G., 1975.  A Survey of Clear Creek and Salt Creek Near
     Their Confluence South of Bloomington, Indiana - A Class Report for
     Dr. D. G. Frey, Unpublished.  U. of Indiana, Bloomington.

     Restle, Barbara, 1969.  State To Investigate Bloomington's Sewer Installation,
     The Balancer,  July P. 3 Bloomington, Indiana.

     Shelford, Victor E. 1963.  The Ecology of North America.  Urbana (Univ.
     111. Press):  xxii + 1-610 pp., 195 ill.

     U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
     Office of Endangered Species and International Activities.  1973.  Threatened
     wildlife of the United States.  Resource Publ. 114.  289 pp.

     U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
     Endangered Species and International Activities.  1974.  United States
     list of endangered fauna.  22 pp.

     U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.  1975.  Threatened
     or Endangered Fauna or Flora Tuesday, July;  1975.  Federal Register.
                                        4-9-10

-------
c - — •
CU t, O C
O. O -H O
O 14-j 4J *H
T-H U 4J
en TH 3 u
CO T3 00 3
T3 ---i O C >H
C 4-1 |H *H 4-1
3 C Pu IH CO
0 01 3 C
i-l 4-J 4-t Q O
O O i-H CJ
Cu -H





§ §
O O
c c

e e



                                                                              o

                                                                             vO
                                                                  o

                                                                 IN
                                                                      O


                                                                     O
                        o  -o
                           cu
                       4->  OP
                              •H  3
                               tO T3
                              •H  O
                                 PL, -H
    O ~-' cn
                               14H  CU      ptj
                               O  IH
                                   CJ J3  73
                               4-1      4-1  CU
                               eu  IH TH  u
                               o)  to 3  3
                               In  0)      T3
                                   T-H      01
                                   CJ      pti
                                                      o
                                                      o
                                                          o
                                                          o
                                                          o
o
o
"i  os
o  <
Pi  PL,
tn
S  Z
PL,  04
    U
OS  H
                        01   CU
                        00 ^
                        V4   tO
                        tO   4-1
                       J=   C
                        O  M
                        CO
 e  to
 o  3
 I-l
tt,  T3

 0)  O
 (J  UH
 C  "O
 to  0)
4J  PQ
 CO
•H  O
Q  H
 a   o  o
•H      14J
4-1  4-1  CU
 c   c  pa
 cu   01
4J   (=  4J
 o  -u  e -—•
PL,   to  01  01

     M  rH  to
Jd  H  14H  4-1
 CU      <4H  C
 01  i-l  W M

CJ   I-,  T3 T3
     3  0)  IH
4-1  4-1  00 O
rH   to  IH MH
 tO  Z  to T3
en      js  o)
     IH  CJ P3
 C   O  CO
 O  t4H  *H
        o
                                                                              E
                                                                             o
                               T3
                                to
                             •   o
                            O   IH
                           Z  rH
            00    T5
            C  CO  01
            •H t-H  IH
            CO  CU -H
            01  C  3
            O  C  CT
                               T3
                             •   01
                            O   CO  g
                           Z   tO  10
                CO
                00 T3
                C  0)
               •H
                CO
                to
                                           3
                                cj  cu  6  cr
                                C  4J  IH  01
                               w  en  cj  ocj
                                       CU T3
                                       IH  01
                                    O  IH  3
                                    IH  to  cr
                                    01  01  CU
                                   O!  T-H  «
                                                       0)
                                                      >H
                                                                  CO          CO
                                                                  01          01
                                                                  >H         >H
                                       tti  CU
                                       c
                                                                  0)
                                                                  00
                                                                  o
                                                                  PS
                                                                             13
                                                                              tO
                                                                              o
                                                                                         a
                                                                                         s:
                                                                                         o
                                                                                       4-9-11

-------
     Fish
                                    TABLE  9-2

                    AQUATIC ORGANISMS FOUND IN LAKE MONROE AND
                             EXPECTED IN SALT CREEK1
Largemouth bass
Bluegill
White crappie
Black crappie
Yellow perch
Yellow bass
Carp
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead
Channel catfish
White sucker
Spotted sucker
Redear sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Longear sunfish
Green sunfish
Warmouth
Orange-spotted sunfish
Redhorse
Rockbass
Smallmouth bass
Flathead catfish
Northern pike
Micropterus salmoides
Lepomis macrochirus
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Perca flavescens
Morone mississippiensis
Cyprinus carpio
Ictalurus melas
Ictalurus natalis
Ictalurus punctatus
Catostomus commersoni
Minytrema melanops
Lepomis microlophus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis megalotis
Lepomis syanellus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis humilis
Moxostoma sp.
Ambloplites rup_estr_is
Micropterus dplomieui
Pylodictis oliyari^
Esox lucius
 From Gray et al 1975
                                         4-9-12

-------
                             TABLE 9-2   (Continued)

                        Nannoplankton Algae and Protozoa
Melosira italica
Meloslra sp.

Dinobryon divergens
Dinobryon bavaricum

Stephanodiscus sp.

Merismopedia tenuisslma
Merismopedia minor

Ankistrodesmus sp.

Cryptomonas sp.

Fragilaria crotonensis

Chroococcus limenticus
Chroococcus minor

Mallomonas akrokomas
Mallomonas sp.

Coelastrum sp.

Asterionella formosa

Anabaena lemmermanni

Coelosphaerium kutzingianum

Strombidium viride
                                       4-9-13

-------
                             TABLE 9-2  (Continued)

                                   Zooplankton
Protozoa
     Codonella
     Ceratium
     Difflugia cristata
     peritrich

Rotifera
     Ascomorpha
     Asplanchna
     Branchionus
     Colurella
     Conochilus
     Filinla
     Gastropus
     Kellicottia
     Keratella cochlearis
     Polyarthra euryptera
     Polyarthra vulgaris
     Rotatoria
     Trichocerca
Cladocera
     Alona sp.
     Alonella sp.
     Bosmina coregoni
     Ceriodaphnia lacustris
     Chydorus spaericus
     Daphnia laevis
     Daphnia retrocurva
     Diaphanosoma leuchtenbirgeanum
     Holopedium gibberum
     Leptodora kindtii
     Pleuroxus denticulatus
     Pseudosida bidentata
     Sida crystallina

Copepoda
     Cyclops (2 sp.)
     Limnocalanus
     Diaptomus

Ostracoda
                                        4-9-14

-------
                             TABLE 9-2  (Continued)

                                  Phytoplankton
1.    Cyanophyceae
          Chroococcales
               Chroococcus
               Coelospaerium
               Dactylococcopsis
               Gloeocapsa
               Gomphosphaeria
               Marssoniella
               Merismopedia
               Microcystis
          Chaemae s iphonales
               Pleurocapsa
          Oscillatoriales
               Anabaena
               Lyngbya
               Oscillatoria

2.    Chlorophyceae
          Chloroccoccales
               Ankistrodesmus
               Crucigenia
               Lauterborniella
               Oocystis
               Pediastrum
               Scenedesmus
               Tetraedron
          Tetrasporales
               Gloeocystis
          Volvocales
               Volvox
          Zygnematales
               Closterium
               Cosmarium
               Gonatozygon
               Micrasterias
               Spirogyra
               Staurastrum
3.    Chrysophyccae
          Dinobryon
          Mallomonas
          Ochromonas

4.    Xanthophyceae
          Asterogloea
          Ophiccytium

5.    Bacillariophyceae
          Centrales
               Cyclotella
               Meloslra
               Stephanodiscus
               Terpisnoe
          Pennales
               Amphiprora
               Amphora
               Asterionella
               Cymbella
               Fragilaria
               Gyrosigma
               Navicula
               Neidium
               Nitzschia
               Surirella
               Synedra
               Tabellaria
                                        4-9-15

-------
                             TABLE 9-2  (Continued)

                     Aquatic Organisms Found in Clear Creek
Monera
     Sphaerotilus

Algae
     Chlorophyta (green algae)
          Volvocales
               Chlamydomonas
          Tetrasporales
               Tetraspora
          Ulotrichales
               Ulothrix
               Stigeoclonium
               Chaetophora
               Coleochaete
          Cladophorales
               Cladophora
          Oedogonlales
               Oedogonium
          Zygnematales
               Zygnema
               Spirogyra
          Chlorococcales
               Ankistrodesmus
          Desmidiales
               Closterium
               Cosmarium
     Euglenophyta (euglenoids)
          Euglenales
               Euglena
               Peranema
     Chrysophyta (yellow-green algae & diatoms)
          Chrysomonadales
               Synura
          Pennales
               Tabellaria
               Diatomella
               Meridion
               Diatoma
               Fragilaria
               Synedra
               Asterionella
               Ceratoneis
                                         4-9-16

-------
                             TABLE 9-2  (Continued)
               Cocconeis
               Brebissonia
               Gyrosigmia
               Anomoeneis
               Amphipleura
               Navicula
               Cymbella
               Amphora
               Gomphonema
               Gomphoeneis
               Aphanotheca
               Nitzschia
               Bacillaria
               Denticula
               Centronella
          Cyanophyta (blue-green algae)
               Anacystis
               Oscillatoria
               Lyngbya
               Spirulina
Vascular Plants
     Najadaceae (pondweed)
          Potomogeton
Protozoa
     Sarcodina
          Amoeba
     Ciliata
          Vorticella
Coelenterata
     Hydrozoa
          Hydra
Platyhelminthes (flatworms)
     Turbellaria
          Dugesia
Aschelminthes
     Nematoda
     Rotifera
                                        4-9-17

-------
                             TABLE 9-2  (Continued!


Tardigrada
Annelida
     Oligochaeta
          Aeolosoma
          Tubifex
          Lumbricus terrestris
     Hirudinea
     Glossophonidae
     Piscicolidae
          Pisicola
Mollusca
     Gastropoda (snails)
          Lymnaea
          Goniobasis
          Campeloma
          Physa
          Helisoma
     Pelecypoda (bi-valves)
          Sphaerium
          Musculium
Arthropoda
     Chelicerata
          Arachnida
Arthropoda
     Crustacea
          Malacostraca
               Isopoda
                    Asellus
                    Lirceus
               Amphipoda
                    Ganmarus
                    Haustoriidae
               Decapoda
                    Cambaru8 laevis
                    C_. d_^ diogenes
                    Orconectes p. propinquus
          Insecta
               Apterygota
                    Collembola (springtails)
                                        4-9-18

-------
              TABLE 9-2  (Continued)
Pterygota
     Ephemeroptera (mayflies)
     Ephemeridae
          Hexagenia
     Heptageniidae
          Stenonema
     Baetidae
          Neocloeon
     Odonata (dragonflies)
          Anisoptera
          Aeschnidae
          Gomphidae
     Zygoptera
          Agrionidae
               Nehallenia
     Plecoptera (stoneflies)
          Perlidae
               Atoperla
          Isoperlidae
               Isoperla
     Hemiptera (true bugs)
          Corixidae
          Notonectidae
          Gerridae
     Neuroptera
          Corydalidae
               Corydalus
     Coleoptera (beetles)
          Elmidae
               Stenelmis
          Haliplidae
               Peltodytes
          Hydrophilidae
          Psephenidae
               Psephenus
     Trichoptera (caddisflies)
          Rhyacophilidae
               Hesperophyla
          Hydropsychidae
               Drydropsyche
          Hydrophilidae
          Limnephilidae
                          4-9-19

-------
                             TABLE 9-2   (Continued)
                    Diptera  (flies)
                         Tipulidae
                         Chironomidae
                              Chironomus
                         Tipulidae
                              Hexatoma
                         Simulidae
                         Culicidae
                              Culex
Chordata
Osteichthyes
     Cyprinidae (carps & minnows)
          Campostoma anomalum
          Pimephales notatus
          Semotilus atromaculatus
          Ericymba buccata
     Centrarchidae (sunfish)
          Lepomis cyanellus
     Percidae (perch)
          Etheostoma spectabile
          _£._ flabellare
          E. nigrum
Amphibia
     Urodela (salamanders)
          Plethodontidae
     Anura (frogs & toads)
          Rana catesbeiana

     Reptilia
          Squamata (lizards & snakes)
               Natrix s. sipedon
                                       4-9-20

-------
                                    TABLE  9-3

                           TREES OF THE RIVER BOTTOMS


Common Name                             Scientific Name


Black walnut                            Juglans nigra

American hornbeam                       Carpinus caroliniana

Oak                                     Quercus sp.

Chestnut oak                            Quercus prinus

Elm                                     Ulmus sp.

Hackberry                               Celtis sp.

Sassafras                               Sassafras albidum

Sycamore                                Platanus occidentalis

Wild black cherry                       Prunus serotina

Water locust                            Gleditsia aquatica

Silver maple                            Acer saccharinum

Basswood                                Tilia americana

Ash                                     Fraxinus sp.


             RARE AND ENDANGERED TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES POTENTIALLY
                           OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA


Common Name                   Scientific Name                    Remarks


Peregrine falcon              Falco peregrinus sspp.             Possibly transient

Kirtland's warbler            Dendroica kirtlandii               Possibly transient

Indiana bat                   Myotis sodalis                     Possibly summer
                                                                 resident
                                         4-9-21

-------
Common Name






True Solomon's seal




Hydrangea




Wood-sorrel




Poison ivy




Jewel weed




Black-eyed Susan




Ironweed
       TABLE 9-3  (Continued)




HERBS AND SHRUBS OF THE RIVER BOTTOMS






                  Scientific Name






                  Polygonatum commutatum




                  Hydrangea sp,,




                  Oxalis sp.




                  Rhus radleans




                  Impatiens sp.




                  Rudbeckia hirta




                  Vernonia sp.
                                        4-9-22

-------
                                      TASK 10

                         INDUCED DEVELOPMENT - LAKE MONROE


10.1       INTRODUCTION

10.1.1     Regionalization Issue

           The issue of induced development and its secondary impacts on Lake
           Monroe assumes the eventual development of sewerage service.  The
           issue of how this service will emerge or develop and what form it will
           take is also the issue within the regionalization issue.  Without a
           regional interceptor around the lake and a near term demand of 3.0 MGD,
           there would really be little need to locate a plant sized to serve the
           Bloomington Region at the lake.

           Both the Bloomington and the Lake Monroe Regional Waste District 201
           Plans assumed that the Lake Regional System and single regional
           treatment at Salt Creek was the best alternative.  The reaction
           following this conclusion was that widespread environmental damage
           would result from the increased development at the lake.

 10.1.2     Other Questions and Considerations

           The Consultant, based upon independent analysis and many unanswered
           questions about the market potential, timing, and other factors, has
           found it extremely difficult to theorize induced impacts at Lake
           Monroe.  There are no real assurances that many of these proposed or
           potential developments around the lake are actually viable
           undertakings.  On this basis, the economic feasibility of the regional
           sewer system for the lake is questionable, as is the matter of how
           such a system could somehow be constructed so as to logically and
           sequentially serve development proposals as they fall due.  It is also
           difficult to corroborate the Lake Monroe Regional Waste District
           rationale for near term sewerage service in light of the lack of firm
           commitments.

           Also worthy of consideration is the possibility that sewer development
           itself may well not be the overriding consideration on whether the
           Lake Monroe area grows or not.  In fact, considerations of the market
           for second homes, the money market, and potential income tax reform
           might override the sewer question.

           One thing that is obvious is that the nature of the regional system as
           proposed benefits the large scale developer who can afford the interim
           treatment facilities needed, costs of pumping and injecting into the
           force main, and what is anticipated to be a rather expensive system to
           operate.
                                        4-10-1

-------
            There are enough other uncertainties attached to expectations for
            development around the lake to further cloud the issue, the main one
            being the fact that the State of Indiana is the biggest and most
            successful developer around the lake.

            Further complicating this analysis is  the lack of readily available
            data, the multiplicity of public and private interests which are often
            times strongly Intertwined, and the lack of any overall coordinated
            water and land use goals and policies.

            The potential growth of the lake area  will for the most part depend on
            future expectations in seasonal and recreational housing.  Trends
            within the latter market are probably  far more significant with
            respect to inducing development than the construction of a regional
            sewer system around Lake Monroe.  Conversely, without the market,
            there will in aLI probability be no demand for such a sewer system.

            Present knowledge of the potential market for seasonal and
            recreational development at Lake Monroe is indeed limited, even as
            limited as current information regarding the multitude of lake side
            private projects talked about,  but never evidently entering the
            planning and scheduling stages.   Balanced against the total market
            considerations must certainly be the physical,  chemical, and
            recreational carrying capacity of the  lake itself,  and the watershed
            draining into it.   Hopefully,  the ongoing land capability plan will
            better address some of these issues.

            There are a multitude of federal and state agencies in a position to
            influence the development in and around the lake either directly or
            indirectly.   These include the U.S.  Forest Service, the U.S.  Army
            Corps of Engineers, the Farmers Home Administration,  and EFA at the
            federal level.  At the state level,  the Department  of Natural
            Resources and Department of Health are in a position to influence land
            development potential.   At the local level,  the Lake Monroe Regional
            Waste District and the Monroe County Planning Commission are in a
            position to directly influence the rate and direction of growth.

10 .2       THE UNIQUE ROLE OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

            The State of Indiana,  through its Natural Resources Department,
            occupies a very special and privileged  role in the  real estate aspects
            of Lake Monroe development.  The State indirectly influences lake
            recreational usage by controlling public access points to the lake and
            lakeside facilities, since they are the only lakeside developer having
            direct access to the lake from the shoreline other  than the U.S.  Army
            Corps of Engineers.

            This consideration means that the State may be in a position to
            influence development and change within the Lake Monroe watershed to
            an even greater degree than some of the proposed seasonal
            developments, particularly when one investigates the  complete lack of
            a definitive timetable for the latter.


                                         4-10-2

-------
How did the State get into this unique pisition?  The Corps of
Engineers and the State shared in the cost of developing the lake with
the Corps retaining ownership of abutting lands.  For the most part,
this ownership corresponds to a specified lineal height above the
flood pool elevation.  In some cases this lake buffer strip is rather
narrow.  In other cases, additional lands were purchased to protect
and control waterside views, etc.  While many argue that the buffer is
too narrow and possibly not totally enforced, in fact, there are no
properties abutting the lake that have direct access to the lake
because of this buffer, except those leased by the State.

The State leases its recreational areas, boat ramps and campgrounds
from the Corps of Engineers on a long term basis.  In turn, the State
subleases this prime waterfront property to private developers.  A
good example at Lake Monroe is the Four Winds Marina initially built
by Ramada Inns and recently sold to Aircoa.  The Four Winds Marina is
a resort hotel with recreational facilities and water facilities
including direct lake access.  At present, there are only two ways of
enjoying the lake, either going to a public access point or to the
Four Winds.

If there are no major restrictions on subleasing of leased recreation
areas, the major portion of which consists of open land, then it would
be inconceivable for another commercial-resort type of development
locating at the lake and competing with Four Winds without similar
lakeside access unless the development were non-water oriented.  If
the lake access is taken away, there should be little, if any,
incentive to locate a resort near Lake Monroe.

The State was asked if it had a master plan for development of its
property around the lake.  The reply indicated that the Department of
Natural Resources felt the Lake Monroe Regional Waste District 201
Plan was the Lake Master Plan.

The State's influence in a real estate sense is not just confined to
its properties, but has application and impact upon seasonal and
second home development expectations around the lake.  An example in
this regard is The Pointe.  The Pointe is a planned condominium
development being constructed along the northwestern shoreline of Lake
Monroe.  The shoreline is fairly wooded and The Pointe does not have
lake access.  In fact, the tree line along the shore all but hides the
view of the lake from intermediate and lower slope positions below the
tree line.  The developers of The Pointe have spent considerable
monies and taken great pains to develop key front end recreational
draws such as a tournament golf course, club house and pro-shop.  Each
phase or village within the development will have tennis courts and
swimming pools as the major attractions.  Even with these attractions,
the developers made arrangements with the Four Winds Marina (which
sits on land subleased from the State) for access to the lake for
boating and swimming.
 Telecon, with Carl North, Department of Natural Resources, State
 of Indiana.
                             4-10-3

-------
          Assuming there will be a limit to the number of private agreements
          that the Four Winds Marina can make, the combined draw of The Pointe
          recreation and water access will make it extremely difficult for other
          developers to compete with it, since later developments will probably
          not be able to emulate The Pointe's fortuitous position, i.e., not
          able to overcome this competitive advantage, unless the State
          subleases additional lands.

          If there are to be no more subleases and arrangements for private lake
          access, then all subsequent developers will have to appeal to a market
          of persons prepared to drive a considerable distance to a lake that
          they cannot see or directly use, except at public facilities, the use
          of which will probably be self-governing due to congestion that will
          discourage use somewhat.

10.3       SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

          Basic to the question of servicing Lake Monroe is the question of how
          such a system might develop.  Sewer systems are not developed in a
          vacuum years in advance of actual need.  Nor are systems conceived,
          designed, funded and constructed overnight.  The regional system
          proposed around Lake Monroe in the 201 Plan consists of a force main
          with each individual proposed development served by a lift station,
          lifting the sewag;e up the hill.  A force main is pressurized, and
          access is limited to points where sewage may be injected into the
          system.  This would tend to effectively limit the size of developments
          around the lake t:o large ones.  It is not likely that small
          developments would be able to pass through pump station and other
          associated costs onto the cost of housing as effectively as large
          scale developers.

          Except for public recreation areas and facilities and The Pointe
          seasonal development, there is no current or near term demand for a
          regional collection system around the entire lake.  Of the
          developments proposed around the Lake, few if any are located near
          enough to one another to easily support a regional collection system.
          The collection system would have to pass through large sections of
          open land with little prospect of picking up additional flows along
          the way.  Few, if any of these seasonal projects, can at this time
          produce even a tentative time table or development schedule.  In fact,
          no one can say with certainty, if or even when, these projects will
          ever be constructed, although it seems safe to conclude that The
          Pointe will be completed.

          This means that the lakewide system as proposed in the LMRWD 201 Plan
          would have to develop internally with each development culminating in
          either a package treatment plant or connection to the regional
          collection system, if accessible at that time in that area.  This will
          increase the total economic cost of the system since the temporary
          sewage treatment costs will have to be quickly written off.  The
          financing of such a system has to be tenuous when one considers that
          potential customers along the way may not be ready to participate at
                                        4- 10-4

-------
           the time the collector system is being financed,  or that if one or two
           developments along the system have financial difficulties or fold, the
           costs  would then be picked up by few users.

           The U.S. Forest Service is in a position to  influence the routing and
           timing of interceptor development, and it has gone on record as
           intending to withhold permission for sewer line easements across its
           property.  In some cases,  this will merely mean rerouting, in others
           it might mean that no service can be provided.

           The west side of the lake  has been shown to  be more suitable for
           development because it is  more accessible; the general terrain is more
           amenable for development;  and temporary sewerage service is now
           available there.  Three of the five seasonal developments proposed on
           the south side of the lake could pump their  sewage up and discharge
           effluent out of the lake basin without having to construct an
           expensive collection system.   Such an opportunity is not possible on
           the north and west side of the lake.  The proposed development around
           the causeway near Paynetown recreation area  is physically located
           closer to the existing Winston Thomas treatment plant than to the
           proposed Salt Creek site,  but drains toward  the lake.

           Even if the sewers were to be constructed, there is no guarantee that
           every  seasonal development proposed for the  lake will in fact be
           constructed.  Rather, this will depend more  upon the market demand and
           the money market for seasonal housing.

10.4       PROJECTED LAND USE PATTERNS/ZONING

           No real pattern has developed to date around Lake Monroe.  The lack of
           an overall coordinated land use plan for Lake Monroe is detrimental to
           orderly development in light  of the intricate web of governmental,
           quasi-governmental, and private interests in and around the lake.
           There  is not a single level of government that is not intricately
           involved in Lake Monroe's  development; and yet there is not one single
           agency or mechanism that can  guarantee or ensure such coordination at
           this time.

           The actual responsibility  for land use planning and the legislative
           controls rests with the Monroe County Planning Commission.  The Lake
           Monroe Regional Waste District, a single purpose agency responsible
           for utility planning and development, has taken the role of the lead
           agency in fostering coordinative land use planning.  This agency
           contracted with the Indiana University of Public Affairs to prepare an
           environmentally oriented land capability plan for eventual use by
           local  officials.  This plan reportedly will  show how to best plan for
           the long term use and enjoyment of the land  compatible with continued
           beneficial use of the lake.  Unfortunately,  this material is only
           approaching the stage where it can be utilized in land policy planning
           efforts; and this report must precede those  efforts.
                                         4-10-5

-------
The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance is the land use control document  in
effect around the lake.  This document was prepared after the Lake
Monroe 201 plan, but the zoning pattern does not particularly
correspond to or reflect the sewer plan, except in some isolated
spots.

The land surrounding Lake Monroe is zoned for a wide variety of
activity patterns.  Most of Salt Creek and Polk Townships are located
within a Forest Reserve Zone.2  The intent of this zone is to include
rough terrain and also publicly owned forest land.  While these
townships are almost exclusively zoned for reserve usage, which is
quite restrictive in its standards, huge tracts of land within this
reserve are set aside for business, presumably to allow for planned
developments and commercial recreational activities within these two
townships.  The largest business districts correspond roughly with the
Graves-Monroe-Inland Steel tracts near the north end of the causeway,
and Tan-Tara on the south side of the causeway.  Neither of these
projects now have a definitive time schedule.  It would appear that
the force main needed to serve these units will require an easement
across Federal Forest Land, unless the Moore Creek inlet on Lake
Monroe is to be crossed nearer the Paynetown recreation  area.  The
county zoning plan requires a minimum lot size of 4.5 acres in this
forest reserve, and the county health department requires a permit for
lots under ten acres in size.  Within the business district,
residences may be built at a density of 6 units per acre with public
sewers.

Most of the remainder of the lakefront within Clear Creek and Perry
Townships is zoned for residential usage with .4 acre lots allowed
with community water systems and on-lot sewerage;, and .8 acre lots
with on-lot water and sewer systems.   The only substantial sized
business district here adjoins the Fairfax recreation area .and
Harrodsburg.  What fostered this delineation of these two districts in
this location is not known.  The Consultant has no knowledge of
specific developments proposed here.   It is interesting that the only
planned unit development under construction in the county was not
zoned similar to the many other potential seasonal developments
located around the lake which were zoned for business.

Another curious zoning district configuration is the noticeable lack
of an agricultural district within the Lake Monroe area except for the
property immediately surrounding The Pointe.   Considering the
potential for sewering this area, it would appear that this would be a
prime area for additional development.  The intent of the agricultural
district is, according to the County Zoning Ordinance,  to provide
areas in which little or no urbanization has occurred or is likely to
occur in the near future.  Lots used for residences in the
agricultural district would have to be the same size as in the Forest
Reserve District, 4.5 acres.
 Monroe County Zoning Ordinance

                               4-10-6

-------
          The remainder of  the land is residential!;?  zoned.  The  intent  of  the
          residential zoning is either to include, areas that can  be  served  by
          water and sewage  utility systems, principally near state highways and
          present urban centers, or to include areas  that have been  subject to
          urbanization on a scattered pattern, principally along  county
          highways.

          Under the terms of the county zoning ordinance, approximately  16.5
          square miles of land around the lake is zoned for residential  use; 3.5
          for agricultural; 25 square miles for forest reserve; and  about 3
          square miles for  business.  Under the present zoning umbrella, some
          13,200 lots could be spread out on these 16.5 square miles supporting
          some 32,000 to 40,000 people, with on-lot sewers and septic tanks
          flowing into rather unsuitable receiving soils.

1Q5       PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS

          The lake is assumed to have an absolute limit in terms  of  recreation
          carrying capacity although this limit has not yet been  ascertained.
          Some sources have indicated that based upon certain standards  of  boats
          per acre of water, the lake is now overutilized.  The Department  of
          Health has evidently held off issuing permits to discharge effluent
          into the lake.  Statements have been made that the lake is
          environmentally phosphate sensitive.  Land activities such as  clear
          cutting for development and exposing unstable and easily erodable
          steep soils, if uncontrolled, will only increase the potential for
          soil erosion and  sedimentation.  Once areas are developed, additional
          nutrients will be derived from fertilizer runoffs, etc., even  if  the
          sewage problem is solved.  Development not sewer connected will only
          increase the potential for groundwater seepage and lake pollution.  As
          more development  occurs, it is probable the usage of the lake will
          increase.  With increased boating, the chance for wave  and bank
          erosion and oil spill finding its way into the reservoir becomes  more
          likely.

          With few exceptions, the general landform, geology, topography soils
          and rather poor road structures would not be considered conducive to
          normal construction and development.  The road pattern  is  almost
          exclusively restricted to the ridges, since the impoundment covers the
          former valley floor.

          Lake Monroe's soils are severely restricted in terms of development of
          new highways, basements, and on-lot septic systems.  The major
          limiting factor is the steep slope, and the next is shallow bedrock
          conditions.  The  Lake Monroe terrain is quite rough and steep, and
          highly credible.  The area's present land use is predominantly
          woodland.  Any changes in land use are bound to have more  of a
          physical Impact here than elsewhere on less sloping lands.
                                        4-10-7

-------
          It is anticipated that ongoing land capability studies and future
          models will better pinpoint the specific limiting parameters of the
          environment at Lake Monroe,  The environmental capability plan is a
          forerunner in this regard, and is expected to culminate in the
          adoption of additional environmental constraints and controls on
          development designed to protect the quality of the lake and its
          environs.

1Q.6       DISCUSSION OF SECONDARY IMPACTS

          The secondary impacts from the proposal generally fall into one of two
          categories, physical or fiscal impact.  The physical impacts relate to
          changes as they result from cutting of vegetation, clearing and
          improvement of land, paving over of pervious soils, reworking the
          landscape, changes in density of population and their effects on
          traffic, sewage flow, water usage, increased demands upon lake usage,
          fertilizer runoffs, etc.  The fiscal impacts include all the increased
          demands upon municipal services and facilities resulting from the
          development.

          Fiscal impacts are normally evaluated in a cost-benefit analysis
          wherein the incremental changes in revenue of a development are
          evaluated against the incremental Increases in the cost of government.
          Normally, in a community development cost-benefit analysis, the number
          and type of housing units planned are of paramount importance, since
          this has a direct bearing upon the family size, the number of children
          and their impact upon the school system.  The latter usually comprises
          the major share of total municipal expenditure, sometimes reaching 75Z
          of the total expenditure.  Data shows that, for example, apartments
          will generate less school children for each similar size unit than a
          single family house.  In addition, the larger the housing unit the
          greater the expectation for more school age children.   The remaining
          municipal costs often are considered on a per capita basis.

          Rut second and seasonal home developments do not fit well into a
          normative cost-benefit analysis.  Each such analysis must be tailored
          to each specific plan, and a picture of local services and financial
          structure.  In seasonal developments, school age children become less
          of an issue since so few of these units will become occupied year
          round by families with small children that will enter the local school
          system.  Without entering Into a detailed set of calculations, resort
          and seasonal developments accrue taxes to the school system without
          the concomitant Influx of students, and therefore usually overshadow
          other municipal cost considerations, such, as road and bridge
          maintenance, other public works, hospitals, fire protection, police
          protection.

          The shortcoming of most cost-benefit analyses is their preoccupation
          with the operational stage of development while often ignoring the
          initial capital expenditures that such developments may foster, suck
          as new road, storm sewers where not previously present, etc.
          3
           Cost Revenue Impact Analysis, Urban Land Institute, June 1975.

                                        4-10-  8

-------
           Without a fairly definite plan to peruse, it is difficult to forecast
           the magnitude of demand for services and facilities that might be
           generated by these proposed lakeside developments.  In fact these
           developments could be augmented or diminished overnight to change the
           picture rapidly.  With seasonal housing, the length of occupancy and
           type of covenants and restrictions on subleasing are also critical in
           determining equivalent demands upon municipal services.  The Lake
           Monroe area does not appear as an area having much in the way of a
           four season attraction, having little to offer in the winter.
           Therefore, less than full year-round occupancy probably could be
           anticipated.

10.7       IMPACT OF NOT SEWERING LAKE MONROE

           The impact of not developing the force main interceptor and providing
           regional sewer service will fall mainly upon the expectations of the
           larger developments proposed around the lake.  It is the large scale
           developers who stand to benefit by such a system, and conversely, get
           hurt if it is not built.

           The physical nature of this regional system encircling the lake would
           essentially limit individual lot by lot hook-up, since a pump station
           would be needed.  This means that certain population levels would need
           to be reached before pumping can become economical to the lot owner or
           small developer.  The lack of service would probably be no more
           limiting than a regional force main.

           The Pointe development did not wait for the regional system and
           thecefore gained permission to build package treatment plant and
           discharge into Clear Creek.  Design plans are now underway to add
           the Fairfax Recreation Area to the Caslon package plant, thereby
           eliminating the most significant sewage discharge to Lake Monroe.
           This plant might relieve the development pressure from other lake
           locations for the interim period, since it could serve this area
           that has the more amenable landform and better potential for
           development.
                                         4-10-9

-------

-------
                                     TASK 11

               MITIGATIVE MEASURES FOR MINIMIZED PHYSICAL EFFECTS


11.1      CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

11.1.1    Revegetation

          For right-of-ways, it is desirable to maintain low growing vegetation
          that will allow for easy access to the area and at the saae time
          prevent undesirable native vegetation from overgrowing the area.
          Dr. Marion T. Jackson, Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State
          University, offered the following information on plant species which
          could be used to revegetate the area.

          "1.  If it would survive that far south, Sweetfern, Myrica
               asplenifolia, would be a strong choice.  It is characteristic of
               the Indiana Dunes area where it covers extensive areas,
               particularly in combination with bracken fern, Pterldium
               aquilinum.  Myrica is presumed to be a nitrogen fixer, which
               would enhance its value as a site-recovery shrub species.

          "^*  Corylus americana (American hazelnut) and Ribes cynosbati
               (pasture gooseberry) are shrubs with wildlife value, and possible
               cover species.  Both occur in extensive stands when well
               established.  Corylus grows quite tall on better sites, but
               usually reaches less than a meter on poor soils.  Both species
               are found throughout Indiana.

          "3.  Ceonothus americanus (Jersey tea) does well on dry sites where it
               grows less than a meter tall.  It has possibilities as a cover
               species, but I doubt that it would exclude tree seedlings or
               other later successional species.

          "4.  Two species of shrubby dogwoods offer promise.  Roughleafed
               (Cornus asperifolia) is a wet site species for the most part
               where it grows quite tall.  Gray dogwood (C. racemosa) is found
               in both wet and dry sites, but is more common in N. Indiana than
               in the south.  It is generally of a shorter stature (1-2 m) than
               roughleaf dogwood.  Either would be an interesting species for
               trial plantings.

          "5.  Coralberry (Symphpricarpos orbiculatus) occurs in extensive
               stands in both full sun and under thin forest canopies.  The
               limber shrub is usually less than a meter tall.  This species
               seems to be one of the strongest candidates for utility corridor
               plantings.
                                      4-11-1

-------
          "Other possibilities  include Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle)
          although I personally prefer native to exotic species.   Also, the
          honeysuckle often gets out of hand and spreads flagrantly.   Some of
          the greenbriers (Smilax)  could be used, but they often grow in nearly
          impenetrable tangles.  Perhaps such species could be used to impede
          the corridor construction crews!"  Reference:  Jackson, M., 1975,
          personal communication.

          Before the construction begins, the Consultant recommends that an
          Indiana botanist such as Dr. Jackson be consulted.

          In the case of revegetation to prevent erosion of areas disturbed by
          major excavation and  grading activities, the objective is to select a
          grass or group of grasses which germinate quickly.  Pasture grasses
          which are known to grow well in the area include alfalfa, red clover,
          broome grass, tall fescue and orchard grass.

11.1.2    Pipe Crossings in Stream Beds

          Type of Site:;

          1.   Rock strata, gradually sloping banks, rocky stream bed.
               Generally found  in upper drainage area.

          2.   Alluvial stream, high banks, significant depth to rock strata
               under stream bed.  Generally found in lower drainage area.

          Comments:

          Type 1 is a young stream, with high velocities during floods, steep
          slopes.  Large rocks  are transported by flow, and bars may form at
          various locations and move along the stream.

          Type 2, in alluvial material, is probably meandering.  Difficult to
          predict future stream channel alignment.  Bed is made of fine
          material.  Significant scour during runoff events.

          Suggestions for Minimizing Environmental Impact

          1.   Conduct construction operations during dry weather when stream
               flows are low, on the average.

          2.   Store excavated  material on stream banks, outside of stream bed
               and above anticipated flood level for mean annual flood.

          3.   If stream is flowing, consider a downstream rock dam, possibly
               with a filter layer on the upstream face, to prevent downstream
               movement of material.
                                      4-11-2

-------
          4.    In Type 1 stream, excavate pipe into rock strata, blasting if
               necessary.  Use selected fill, topped with native stream bed
               stone.   Keep top of pipe 1 ft. below normal stream bed, as a
               minimum.

          5.    For Type 2 stream, especially if banks are high, consider the use
               of a pipe bridge, rather than burying pipe.  These streams are
               generally unstable and scour or meandering may expose buried
               pipe.  Keep pipe bridge foundations away from stream bank as far
               as possible.

          6.    If pipe is buried in a Type 2 stream, bury deep enough that
               general scour during floods will not disrupt pipe.

          7.    During trenching, consider dikes to divert one-half of the stream
               around construction, fill, and perform construction on other
               side,  A better method would be to divert entire stream around
               construction area until backfill is completed.  If dikes are
               used, hydrology of area should be re-evaluated to determine
               optimum duration of construction.  Stability of materials should
               be evaluated with respect to erosion and slippages.

          8.    Replace stream bed in as near its original condition as possible.

          9.    Protect disrupted banks with mulch or temporary lining (jute
               mesh, etc.).  Seed with native vegetation.  Re-establish vegetation
               as soon as possible.

          10.  In severely disrupted areas of the stream bank, consider the use
               of rock riprap to prevent erosion.

11.1.3    Pipes Laid Parallel to Stream Banks

          In general, follow good construction erosion control practices.

          1.    Keep excavation as far from stream bank as possible.

          2.    Use ditch checks in sloping areas to prevent erosion along pipe
               trench.  Checks may be of any less credible materials such as
               clay.

          3.    Seed, mulch, and re-establish native vegetation as soon as
               possible.

          4.    Use temporary linings such as jute mesh in steep areas.

          5.    Use temporary sediment basins to collect sediment in areas where
               runoff is concentrated.  Hay bales could be used in some
               instances to form temporary dikes.
                                      4-11-3

-------
          6.   Avoid disrupting or intercepting natural drainage areas.  Bury
               pipe deep enough to return bed to original elevations.

          7.   Keep excavated material away from stream channel, and revegetate
               d isrup t ed areas.

          8.   Leave existing vegetation on all areas where possible until
               necessary to remove to grade for construction.

          9.   Stockpile topsoil to be spread on surface when preparing final
               grade.

          10.  Use temporary seeding on areas that must be scalped but will not
               be finished for a period of time.

11.1.4    Channel Relocations

          This is a difficult problem, because when a stream channel in alluvial
          material is disrupted, it will usually cause a reaction at some other
          location, such as headcutting, general channel erosion, deposition, or
          new meandering.   There is no particular problem in nonerodable stream
          channels except  for the disruption of the aquatic habitat and sediment
          production.

          In an alluvial channel, the relocated channel should have the same
          characteristics, as far as possible, as the channel which has been
          replaced.  For example, if the new channel is shorter than the old
          channel, the friction slope will increase and erosion will occur.
          Thus, a solution would be to add riprap to increase friction losses in
          the new channel  and protect the bottom.  Generally, riprap channels
          are quickly rehabitated by aquatic organisms and haive a somewhat
          natural appearance.  The use of smooth concrete channel linings for
          relocated channels should be avoided.  Ideally, the relocated channel
          should have as near as possible the same length, bank width, and bed
          features as the  old channel.  Since this is not possible, one should
          isolate the main considerations and study each separately and as a
          combination.  The principal considerations for diversion locations
          are:

          1.   Outlet conditions

          2.   Topography

          3.   Land use

          4.   Agricultural operations

          5.   Soil type

          6.   Length of slope

-------
          The design of a diversion involves:

          1.   The above generalities

          2.   Velocities as high as possible but not eroding

          3.   Grades dependent on site

          4.   Peak runoff capacity dependent on site

          5.   Appropriate friction coefficients

          6.   Available construction equipment

          Finally, they should be inspected annually and after heavy floods.

          Suggestions for Minimizing Environmental Impact

          1.   Conduct operations during dry period when stream flows are low.

          2.   Replace old channel in kind, and design based on river mechanics
               to transport sane sediment load.

          3.   Store excavated materials outside flood levels (mean annual
               flood).

          4.   Consider use of open graded rock dam with filter material on
               upstream face to prevent downstream movement of sediment.

          5.   After construction, seed, mulch, and revegetate disrupted areas.
               Use temporary linings or riprap as necessary to prevent erosion
               in channel.

          6.   Use standard erosion control measures as necessary:

               Ref:  "Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
                    Implementation"  EPA-R2-72-015, U.S. Environmental
                    Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.  August 1972.

                    "Erosion Control on Highway Construction Projects"  Project
                    20-5, Topic 4-01, Natural Cooperative Highway Research
                    Program, Highway Research Board, Washington, B.C., Draft
                    January 1973.

11.1.5    Tunneling Operations

          Environmental impact should not be serious.

          Generally:

          1.   Dispose of excess material in an acceptable manner to prevent
               erosion and downstream sediment problems.  Example, outside
               stream flood plains, revegetate, no steep slopes.

                                      4_ 11-5

-------
          2.    Revegetate disrupted areas,  or protect with artificial materials
               to prevent erosion.

11.2      PLANT OPERATION ACTIVITIES

11.2.1    Sludge Disposal by Land Application

          Minimizing the adverse environmental impact which could result if
          excessive amounts of sludge were applied on land is contingent on
          proper application rates.  It is recommended that a research project
          be conducted to determine the best application rates for sludge
          produced at the plant when it is constructed for the different soil
          types on which it will be applied.

11.2.2    Odor Control

          Control of odors at wastewater treatment plants is of utmost
          importance particularly when communities are located near the
          treatment plant.,  This has been an occasional objection to the Winston
          Thomas treatment: plant.  Sources of odors include the following:

          1.    Grip and grit chambers both in and out of service.

          2.    Septic wastewater screenings and grease at wetwells.

          3.    Pre-aeration tanks in which odorous gases are stripped from
               wastewater.

          4.    Primary settling tanks where gasification of sludge may be caused
               by infrequent sludge withdrawal and floating solids.

          5.    Biological facilities in which aerobic conditions may not always
               be maintained.  Causes such as clogged diffusers in aerators or
               surcharged air-intake channels should be identified.

          6.    Tank walls, open channels, boxes and pits which are cleaned
               infrequently.

          7.    Secondary settling tanks with accumulations of floating solids.

          8.    Over chlorination.

          9.   Oxidation ponds with odorous sludge accumulations.

          10.  Digesters of the anaerobic or aerobic type in which optimum
               conditions have not been maintained.

          11.  Sludge holding and thickening facilities in which the contents
               are not aerobic.
                                      4-11-6

-------
12.  Sludge dewatering facilities processing odorous sludges.

13.  Incinerators that have exit gas temperatures below 1400°F.

The existing plant is overloaded.  The new plant will not be
overloaded; and, furthermore, it will use the activated sludge process
with denitrification which will lend itself to better controls and
efficiency of operation.  If odors should develop at the new plant,
the following mitigative measures will be used:

1.   The first control strategy will evaluate physical and chemical
     control measures that are permanent and effective in reducing
     odors below the detectable level at the plant property line.
     These may consist of:

     a.   Oxidation by chlorine, ozone, or hydrogen peroxide.

     b.   Chemical precipitation of sulfides.

     c.   Treatment of liquors such as supernant, centrate, filtrate,
          and thickener overflow with lime powdered carbon, or
          chemical oxidants.

     d.   Adjustment of loadings upon all biological facilities to a
          level not in excess of design capacity.  This may include
          requiring pre-treatment of strong industrial wastes to an
          acceptable strength.

     e.   Maintaining optimum operating conditions in all treatment
          facilities.

     f.   Installation of environmental enclosures as required.
          Filter and scrub air prior to discharge to atmosphere.

2.   The second control strategy will evaluate corrective measures to
     be implemented should an odor episode occur such as killing of
     biological processes by toxic substances.  These corrective
     measures may include:

     a.   Staffing and equipment to identify sources and causes of
          odors either at the plant or at the discharge source
          responsible for the odor

     b.   Masking of odors

     c.   Emergency chemical treatment

     d.   Interim modification of plant operation
                            4-11-7

-------
11.2.3    Disinfection of Treated Sewage Effluent

          Because of the possibility that chlorinated effluent could contain
          toxic compounds which would reach the water supply of Bedford, 13
          miles south of the Lake Monroe dam, it may be desirable to choose an
          alternative disinfection system.  It is recommended that chlorinated
          sewage from the Winston Thomas plant be analyzed by gas
          chromatographic mass spectropholometric (GC-MS)  techniques to
          determine if potentially toxic compounds are present.  The results
          should be compared to unchlorinated sewage at Winsiton Thomas to
          determine which compounds result from the addition of chlorine.  The
          Environmental Protection Agency's laboratory in Athens, Georgia may be
          commissioned to do the GC-MS work.   If toxic compounds are detected
          alternative disinfection agents which should be considered include:

          1.    Ozone

          2.    Bromine chloride

          3.    Chlorine - sulfur dioxide (i.e., chlorinatiori - dechlorination)

          4.    No disinfection

11.2.4    Visual Impact

          The visual impact: of the plant sites can be mitigated by redesigning
          the landscape features,  creating berms from site excavated materials
          and by strategically locating these berms where  they will minimize the
          more unsightly visual elements of the plant site.   Much of this can be
          done in conjunction with rechanneling, floodproofing and soil erosion
          and sedimentation control activities.  In addition, trees and natural
          vegetations make ideal foils to hide unsightly views.  The added
          benefit resulting from carefully designed mitigative efforts will be
          better noise control, since noise travels on a lirie-of-sight.

11.2.5    Clear Creek Recreation

          Reference has been made to the fact that Clear Creek is sometimes used
          for non-white water leisure type canoeing, and as  such, is one of the
          few creeks in the area with enough  flow for canoeing.  While the
          Consultant was unable to substantiate this claim,  it is quite certain
          that with the Salt Creek site configuration in low flow periods such
          as  the summer, there will not be enough water in Clear Creek to
          support canoeing since most of the  flow now in the summer consists of
          effluent.  The only way to remedy this would be  to augment Clear Creek
          flow upstream with dams, etc., which is not likely to happen.
                                     4- 11-8

-------
11.2.6    Zoning
          The non-structural mitigative measure with the greatest potential for
          easing land use frictions which are more apparent during the
          operational stage is the standard zoning ordinance and the floodplain
          ordinance.   Most sewage treatment plants are located in or near the
          flood plains, since a low-lying location is necessary to facilitate
          gravity flow and to provide for ready discharge to a waterway.  This
          location is less than ideal for residential locations since they
          normally can less afford expensive flood protection devices.  A
          floodplain ordinance can restrict and control floodway and floodway
          fringe development.  Such a provision is incorporated into the City of
          Bloomington's zoning ordinance which would affect the Winston and
          South Rogers sites.  The county zoning ordinance, applicable to all
          other sites, does not have a similar provision.

          Rarely is a sewage treatment plant located in the middle of an
          existing residential development.  Usually the plant is located prior
          to residential development.  One aspect of zoning that can be used to
          ensure that this situation is controlled to require that sewage
          treatment plants, because of their unique operating conditions, come
          in for a special exception or a conditional use permit.  Usually this
          requires that special preconditions be met in the course of plant
          location such as extra wide setbacks and yards, and the special
          exceptions procedure usually requires a public hearing and public
          notification of adjoining property owners as a prerequisite to any
          hearing.  The Bloomington Zoning Ordinance is silent with respect to
          sewage treatment plant locations and does not precondition or make
          special exception to plant location, while the county zoning considers
          the sewage treatment plant as a special exception and requires open
          and unutilized yards having 300 feet depth as its sole condition.

          Probably the most pertinent aspect of zoning in relation to mitigating
          the effects of sewage treatment plants would be to zone the site and
          immediate area for other than residential uses to ensure that people
          do not build at the edge of sewage treatment plants.  This would
          protect people from making poor locational decisions that they may
          later regret, and then use pressure to work for the removal of sewage
          treatment plants, pump stations, or other utility facilities.

          The Dillman and Ketcham Road sites are protected from residential
          encroachment.  Both are located within a rather large industrial
          district that does not allow location of residences therein.  At Salt
          Creek, the land is zoned for residential usage, which under the
          provisions of the Monroe County Zoning Ordinance allows for a variety
          of residential housing types ranging from single family to apartment
          units depending upon the availability of public sewerage.  While it
          seems unlikely that residences would be constructed in this poorly
          drained bottom land, the current zoning ordinance would, on the face,
          allow such a condition to develop.
                                      4-11-9

-------
The Rogers Site is apparently not zoned.  The County Zoning Map shows
it within the city's jurisdiction, and the City Zoning District
boundaries terminate at Gordon Road.  This should be rectified.

The development pattern around the Winston Thomas site is fairly well
established and would probably not be affected by any change in zoning
designations, although redesignation of the low density residential
strip bordering the northern boundary of the site might better be
classified as light manufacturing, the present site designation.
                            4-11-10

-------
12.1     Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources to the proposed
         action should it be implemented.

         Two classes of irreversibillty and Irretrievability need to be identified
         in evaluating the commitment of resources.  Class I is the irreversible
         and irretrievable decisions that cannot be reversed such as the expenditure
         of energy.  And Class II commitments are the decisions to commit resources
         which are not likely to be retrieved or reversed during the useful life
         of the project.

         Class I commitments resulting from the construction of the proposed
         sewage treatment plant include the capital costs, energy, and labor
         necessary to construct and make operational the proposed facility.

         Class II commitments for the proposed STP include: the operational
         requirements of chemicals, energy, mechanical equipment, labor, the
         use of 60 acres of land zoned as industrial and the tax loss associated
         with alternate uses of the site.  Clear Creek will be relocated and
         channelized to provide maximum utilization of the Dillman Road site.
         The habitat for typical wildlife such as birds, rabbits, field mice,
         etc. will be diminished.
                                    4-12-1

-------
13.1     The relationship  between  local  short  term uses  of  man's  environment and
         the maintenance and  enhancement of  long  term productivity.

         The construction  and operation  of the proposed  South Bloomington Sewage
         Treatment  Plant will result  in  efficient treatment  of  sewage  generated
         in the South Bloomington  Service Area and a general improvement  in the
         water  quality of  Celar Creek and Salt Creek.  To accomplish this im-
         provement  in surface water quality  a  commitment of  energy and  resources
         necessary  to operate the  proposed facility  (flow through the  STP is
         projected  to be 15 MGD by the year  2000) and the removal from  the tax
         roles  of approximately 60 acres of  land  zoned industrial will be
         required.
                                    4-13-1

-------
                              CHAPTER 5
                  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


1.  A 15 MGD two-stage activated sludge  sewage treatment  plant with
    rapid sand filters and sludge treatment  via aerobic digestion
    and centrifugation should be constructed at the  Dillman Road
    site to serve the South Bloomington  Service Area.

2.  The present 1.9 MGD diversion from the  south service  area via
    a force main to the Blucher  Poole STP should continue.

3.  The processed sludge from the proposed  STP should  not be applied
    to farmland until:  1) the extent of the PCB problem  in Bloomington
    has been determined 2) corrective actions are  taken that reduces
    the PCB levels to those determined to be safe  for  agricultural
    application.  When the PCB problem is resolved,  land  spreading
    of the sludge on farmland at agronomic  rates consistent with
    Federal and State of Indiana regulations for land  application
    is one recommended alternative.   The composting  operation that
    presently utilizes some of the Winston  Thomas  (W.T.)  sludge
    should be sampled to determine if heavy  metals or  PCB's due to
    the W.T. sludge are at concentrations such that  application of
    the composted material should be  restricted to certain uses
    until the heavy metal and/or PCB  problem is resolved.  If PCB's
    or heavy metals are present  at an unacceptable level  in both
    processed sludge and the compost  product, then landfilling of
    the south service area sludge should be  practiced  until the
    nature of the sludge changes (due to pretreatment  requirements
    or changes occur in the composition  of  the sludge) so that the
    alternatives of composting and land  spreading  can  meet the
    standards promulgated by Federal  and State agencies.

4.  Regionalization of the South Bloomington Service Area and the
    Lake Monroe Regional Waste District  as  proposed  in the Bloomington
    201 plan is not cost-effective.   The Dillman Road  STP could provide
    service to the communities of Smithville and Sanders  via an 80,000
    GPD interceptor if it is determined  that this  is the  most cost-
    effective alternative.  (An  approval facilities  plan  would have
    to be completed for the LMRWD prior  to  any grant award for design
    and construction of these facilities.   Furthermore, it must be
    demonstrated that properly operated  and  maintained septic systems
    cannot function as designed  due to existing soil and  bedrock con-
    ditions.)

5.  Other areas in the Lake Monroe District  can be adequately served
    with existing and proposed facilities,  e.g. Paynetown, served by
    an existing package plant and the Caslon plant serving the Pointe
    and Fairfax.  The Caslon plant could also be expanded (if cost-
    effective) to handle a flow  from  Harrodsburg and from development
    along Old State Route 37. Another possibility,  if Harrodsburg
    would be served by the plant, would  be  to move the Caslon package
    plant to an alternate location at the confluence of Clear Creek
    and Little Clear Creek.


                                5-1

-------

-------
                     CHAPTER 6

FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL AGENCY COMMENTS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The written comments in this chapter were received or trans-
mitted during the preparation of the draft EIS.  The order
of the comments is as follows:

A) Federal, B) State, C) Local Agencies and Interest Groups,
and D) letters from individuals.
                         6-1

-------
A)  FEDERAL  COMMENTS
         6-2

-------
           Uniteb &tate* Senate
               MEMORANDUM


     Please note the attached letter from
a constituent which I am forwarding for
your consideration.  It would be greatly
appreciated if you would check into this
matter.  Upon completion of your inves-
tigation, please advise me of the status
of this case in duplicate and return the
original letter in an envelope addressed
to the attention of Parry. Sragow.

     Thank you for your assistance.

                   Sincerely,
                   Birch
                   United States '•Senator
    6-3

-------
                     INDIANA  UNIVERSITY

                             Department of I'liysics
                             SWAIN ItAI.L—WEST I I I
                        BLOOM I.N'CTON, INDIANA 4740
                                                              «L. NO. «i2— 337-265C
                                             November 13, 1975
Senator Birch Bayh
363 Old Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C.  20510

Dear Senator Bayh:
             enclosed a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Hirt of the EPA, Region
V, in Chicago.  It is important that the full interests of the community be
considered in this matter.

     As mentioned in the letter to Mr. Hirt, some members of the Bloomington
Utilities Service Board have placed a high priority upon the economic
consequences of the delays in initiating our wastewater treatment project.
The delays reflect a long public discussion and a broad concern with the
ecological impact of the location of the treatment plant.  A priority that
is governed solely by economic concerns and not responsive to the environ-
mental considerations is, in our opinion, misplaced.

     It is important that you understand that the costs for this project
have not increased solely because of inflation.  More detailed engineering
studies and changes in the treatment ^oe± have also affected the cost esti-
mates.
     The Envi?:onmental Impact Statement being prepared >by EPA will resolve
our particular problem and bring the public debate to a conclusion.  The
citizens of the United States must have an agency that works in a responsible
manner to preserve the best interests of our land.  The economic and ecolog-
ical factors must be viewed together and properly balanced.  The Congress
has given this responsibility to the EPA and defined the Environmental Impact
Statement as one of the instruments to be used to meet this obligation.  The
EIS must be prepared carefully and completely if it is to serve its purpose.

                                        Sincerely yours,
       David L. Dilcher                 Hugh j  Martin
       Member, Utilities Service Board  Member, Utilities Service Board
       Dept. of Plant Sciences          Dept. of Physics
       Indiana University               Indiana University
       Bloomington, IN  47401           Bloomington, IN  47401. -
DLD/HJM:mlc
enclosure
                                       6-4

-------
                  E'"'IRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                        DEC 10 1975
Honorable Birch Bayh
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Bayh:

The Environmental Protection Agency is fully aware of the need to
address all pertinent issues in the siting of new sewage treat-
ment facilities for the South Bloomington Sewage Service Area as
indicated in the Nov. 13, 1975 letter from David L. Dilcher and
Hugh J. Martin.  To aid us in our environmental evaluation the
consulting firm, Gilbert Associates of Reading Pennsylvania, was
hired and is completing an analytical report on key issues related
to the proposed projects.  When the draft environmental impact
statement is issued, the final report of Gilbert Associates will
also be available, and a public hearing will be held to consider
all comments on these documents.

I aa also enclosing a copy of the Nov, 3, 1975 letter from other
members of the Utilities Service Board and our response of Nov* 20,
1975.  Based on the concerns of the citizens of Bloomington, it is
clear to us that the EIS process provides a viable mechanism for
resolution of these important concerns.

Your interest in this matter is appreciated and copies of the draft
and final EIS will be mailed to you when they are available.
                                  Sincerely yours,
                                       A/.
cc:  Office of Legislation
    Planning & Standards Branch
    OCIR
Valdas V. Adamkus
Acting Regional Administrator
                             6-5

-------
Respectfully referred to:
          E.P.A.
          Waterside  Mall
          401 M. Street, S.W.
          Washington,  D.C.  20460
Because  of the desire  of this office to be
responsive to all inquiries and communications,
your consideration of  the attached is
requested.  Your findings and views, in
duplicate form, along  with return of the
                       i
enclosure, will be appreciated by
                Senator Vance Hartke
               	ii.s.s.
                Attns Janis McClintock
                      447  Federal Building
                      Indianapolis,  Indiana
                                        46204
        6-7

-------
TOOK
v^Vx vyjLv.

  November 3, 1975
  The Honorable Vance Hartke
  313 Old Senate Office Building
  Washington, DC  20510

  Dear Senator Hartke:

  The Utilities Service Board of the City of Bloomington recently requested  the
  Environme*^*1-! Protection Agency to provide .information .concerning, -the, direct
  and indirect costs lpf.,,the,..Envirojimental. Impact Statement that EPA jLs.  currently
  preparing 'on Bloomington' s proposed wastewater treatment "facility.  (See the"1* ''
  attached" letter of August 21, 1975, from Utilities Project Coordinator Richard
  S. Peoples.)  As you can see from Mr. Harlan Hirt's response of September  19, 1975
  which is also attached, EPA does not seem disposed to divulge this information,
  which we feel should be a matter of public record.

  As citizens of Bloomington who are very interested in this project and as  federal
  taxpayers who are concerned with the total environmental and economic costs of
  the new wastewater treatment facility, we sincerely believe we have the right
  to know what the direct and indirect costs of the Environmental Impact Statement
  will be.  As one of our elected federal representatives, we would appreciate it
  if you would look into this matter to help us secure, this information.
  Sincerely,
  mjh

  Enclosures

  cc:  Mr. Harlan Hirt
                                          6-8

-------
                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                         DEC 11 1975
Honorable Vance Hartke
447 Federal Building
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Dear Senator Hartkez

This is in response to your request for information  concerning
a letter you received from several members of th«  Utilities
Service Board (USB) of the City of Bloonington,  Indiana.  The
Environmental Protection Agency has responded to the Cook In-
corporated letter of Mov. 3, 1975 signed by several  members of
the US3. Our response is detailed in the attached  Nov.  20, 1975
EPA letter.

During November a second letter from two other members  of the
DS3 was received by EPA.  I am attaching this letter and  the local
newspaper article which accompanied it. These letters illustrate
the differing viewpoints which exist on the USB  regarding the
preparation time for the draft EIS. EPA is concerned about project
delays but also recognizes the need to fully evaluate all alter-
natives in the proposed project and the associated environmental
impacts.

When the draft EIS is issued, the final report of  Gilbert Associ-
ates will also be available, and a public hearing  will  be held to
consider all comments on these documents.  Based on  the concerns
of the community it is clear to us that the. EIS  process provides
a viable mechanism for resolution of these important concerns.

Your interest in this matter is aopreciated and  copies  of the
draft and final EIS will be mailed to you when they  are available.
                                  Sincerely yours.
                                  R.  J.  Schneider
                                  Acting Regional  Administrator

                                       7G
         LEE  HftHH-TO*J  /fA/i>.. T&ttV Mf^KS   t*


-------
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE* CY
                                                        0£C   41975
Mr. Gary R. Kent
Director of Utilities
City of Bloomington Utilities
P.O. Box 1216
Bloooington, Indiana  47401

Dear Mr. Kent:

This letter is a response to your November 20,  1975  letter concerning
preliminary findings with respect to the Environmental Impact Statement
for the South Bloonington-Lake Monroe Service Area.   As you know EPA
has received a draft report from the consulting firm of Gilbert Associates
on the proposed wastewater treatment facilities.  While some revision
of this report is necessary and ongoing, a clear position with respect
to comparing the Salt Creek Site and the Clear  Creek Sites can be stated.

We will not support construction of the new sewage plant for the South
Blooaington Service Area at the Salt Creek Site in the Draft EIS.  We
have determined that three Clear Creek Sites (Winston Thomas,, Dillman
Road and Ketchun Road) are preferable to the Salt Creek Site on an
environmental, economic and geographic basis.  Preliminary present worth
analyses indicate that the Salt Creek Site is more costly than the three
Clear Creek Sites by several million dollars.
                                                        i
Furthermore, selection of the Salt Creek Site would  result In less
centralization of sewer interceptor facilities, extensive disruption of
the Clear Creek stream banks, a poorer quality  effluent, a less reliable
sewage treatment facility, and might cause an acceleration of the
development of the Lake Monroe Area prior to a  full  opportunity by the
local planning commission, with appropriate citizen  input, to discuss and
evaluate land use options for the Lake Monroe Area.

I wish to point out that the above position la  not a final determination
by EPA which can only be taken in the Final EIS after reviewing and
responding to agency and public comment.  Our present analyses indicates
that the Salt Creek Site is not cost-effective  and is not the optimum
environmental alternative.  We cannot advise you on  the manner In which to
respond to your purchase option on the Salt Greek Site.  This letter can
only identify the position that will be presented in the Draft EIS.
                                         6-10

-------
                                                    DEC  41975
Mr. Gary R.  Kent
Page Two
When the Draft  EIS Is Issued, the final report of Gilbert Associates Will
also be available and a public hearing will be held to consider all
comments on these documents.

                                  Sincerely yours,
                                  Valdas V. Adankus
                                  Acting Regional Administrator
                                     6-11

-------
                             November 20, 1975
Cook Incorporated
925 South Curry Pike
P. 0. Box 439
Blooraington, Indiana 47401

Gentlecten:

Ue have received your latter of November 3, 1975 regarding
costs of preparing the SIS for the Bloowdngton project and
are responding within tha procedures of the Freedom of In-
forraation Act.

Ky staff advises that tha Utilities Service "oard and others
involved in the Bloomin^ton EIS have provided excellent co-
operation.  We dafinitaly want to continraa in that spirit of
cooperation.  Unfortunately, r-ost of tha information. yon ara
requesting is not available without consujaing a sraat deal
of effort in additional study and would require a mmber of
8tiV]octi79 fi3suRption3 which would lo.ive a ^ood bit of douht
as to th* ras'.ilt*  £a ainply do not have tha r-aapover to con-
duct such n study.

The only readily available feet in response to your requast
is that our contract on the EIS io for $32,690.  VJe estioate
we cay Jarvota approximately one tr.an-year of in-house effort
at an estimated cost of about $16,000.

Although we recognize that compliance with the National En-
vironmental Policy Act does involve delays when Inpact State-
ment preparation is initiated late in the planning process,
it was our judgment that the Sloosdngton proposal required
an EIS to satisfy the statute.  Wa also feel thnt the poten-
tial savings in environmental irepact and dollar costs out-
weigh the potential costs of lost tine.

I trust f:hat through continuing cooperation we can bring tha
process to a rapid conclusion and nove forward to design and
construction at an early date.

                                 Sincerely yours,
HDTIirf.p™ 11/20/75
                                 Ilenry L. Longest II
                                 Director,, Water Division
                          6-12

-------
.                           UN1TED STATES         •
Ti                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                        23° SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
                        CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60G04
                                September 19, 1975
        Mr. Richard S. Peoples, Project Coordinator
        City of Bloomington Utilities
        P. 0. Box 1216
        Bloomington, Indiana 47401

        Dear Mr. Peoples:             •        •             .

        In your letter of August 21, 1975, you requested direct and
        indirect cost data to all parties related to the prepara-
        tion of the Bloomington-Lake Monroe Indiana Draft and Final
        BIS.  First, let me identify that the decision to do an
        EIS on a proposed project is not based on direct or indirect
        costs, but on whether or not the proposed Federal action
        (in this case a grant award for construction of wastewater
        treatment facilities) is a major Federal action signifi-
        cantly affecting the quality of the human environment (NEPA
        Section 102(2)(c)).  Furthermore, the final regulations
        for Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements of EPA,
        40 CFR Part 6, April 14, 1975, Sections 6.200 and 6.510,
        identify criteria for determining when to prepare an envi-
        ronmental impact statement.
                                                    i
        With respect to the Bloomington-Lake Monroe, Indiana pro-
        ject, it was apparent to EPA, based on the NEPA Act and our
        regulations, that unresolved environmental concerns, such as
        the optimum location for a new wastewater treatment facil-
        ity existed and could most efficiently be resolved through
        the environmental impact statement process.  As you know,
        both the Bloomington Utilities Board on April 4, 1975 and
        the Mayor of Bloomington on April 10, 1975 officially re-
        quested an EIS for the proposed project, being aware that
        the EIS process generally takes 8-12 months until a grant
        award can be made.

        Once a Federal agency or a Federal court has declared that
        an EIS is required, the time period necessary to complete
        the EIS process is considered an essential step for the
        project to proceed.  (The courts have, in fact, stopped
        construction of nuclear power plants, etc., until satisfac-
        tory EIS was prepared.)
                                  6-13

-------
                      .  -2-

The EIS process also provides the public a greater oppor-
tunity to identify their concerns and have their concerns
addressed in a written document subject to review by the
public, local, state and Federal agencies.

In the environmental impact statement EPA will address
costs through the cost effective analysis required under
P,L. 92-500.  The cost effectiveness analysis with proper
concern for environmental impacts will be the basis upon
which a specific recommendation for wastewater treatment
facilities will be made.  Direct and indirect: costs assoc-
iated with the project will not be identified unless they
relate specifically to the cost effective analysis re-
quired under P.L. 92-500.

                          Sincerely yours,
                          BarIan D.  Hirt
                          Chief, Planning Branch
                          6--14

-------
B)  STATE COMMENTS
        6-l5

-------

-------
STATEr
                                                           INDIANAPOLIS, 46204
   DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

            JOSEPH D. CLOUD
               DIRECTOR
    September  12,  1975
    Mr.  Dale  Luecht
    Project Officer
    Environmental Protection Agency
    230  South Dearborn Street
    Chicago,  Illinois   60604
    Dear  Mr.  Luecht:

    We have reviewed  the proposed wastewater  treatment  facilities  to  serve  the
    South Bloomington-Lake Monroe area and find that  no known historic  sites
    will  be effected.

    This  area has not been surveyed and if you find that your project has a
    direct effect or  is in close proximity to any older structures, please
    contact us at the earliest possible time.
I understand that you have already been in contact with the Glenn A.
Archaeology Laboratory about archaeological sites in the area.  Any
recommendations they forward should be included in your assessment.

Very truly yours,
                                                                         Black
    J/bs-ephlD.  Cloud,
          !»r
       irtment of Natural Resources

    JDT;:EG:jm
                                                       rr F i v
                                              rLAJ.ViVl.JVjr
                                              f'l. •
                                      6-16

-------
C)  LOCAL AGENCIES' AND  INTEREST GROUPS' COMMENTS
                   6-17

-------
            CITY OF BLDDMINbrDN  UTILITIES

                            P. D. BOX 1216

                      BLDDMINGTON, INDIANA 47401
                          TELEPHONE AC 812 339-2261

                         November 20, 1975
Dale Luecht
Planning
U.S.. E. P.A.  Region  V
230 South  Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois   60604

Dear Mr. Luecht:

     During  the  past  few months, we have stressed the
importance of the completion of the draft EIS prior to
December 12,  1975 as  the City has  invested and stands
to lose  some  $20,000  on land options at the proposed
Salt Creek site.  I realize that it is impossible for
you to issue  the draft EIS by December 12th.

     It  is imperative that we receive as much advise
and assistance as possible from your agency prior to
the expiration of these options.  Therefore, we are
hereby requesting that you consider our situation and
its urgency.   We do need guidance from (E.P.A. so that
the City can  decide whether it should exercise, renew,
or drop  the  options on the Salt Creek site.

     Any assistance you can give will be most appreciated

                     Sincerely,
                     Gary R. Kent
                     Director of Utilities
GRK/sew
cc: Utilities  Service  Board
    Richard Peoples, Project Coordinator
                      6-18

-------
                 T'TY  DF BLDDMINGinN  UTILITIES

                                 P. 0. BOX 1216      j

                           BLODMINGTON, INDIANA 47401
                               TELEPHONE AC t\i 339-Z261

                               August 21,  1975
Dale Luecht
Planning                          .
U.S. E.P.A.  Region V            .. .-   .
230 South  Dearborn
Chicago,  Illinois  60604 .     •

Dear Mr.  Luecht:

It would  seem  appropriate that the citizens have an opportunity
to know the  cost for an Environmental Impact Statement.   There
appears to be  three vital areas which need to be explored in a
study of  this  type:
       Cost  to  the  Federal government for the study.   This
       should  include employee time for an Environmental
       Impact  Statement and cost of any outside consultants.
       Cost  to  the  state and local bodies who have instigated
       the project.  This section should include items such
       as principle and interest on funds expended on the
       project.   Parts of prior engineering or design, which
       may have  been discarded by the Environmental Impact
       Statement, should be included.
       Increased  cost of construction
       during  the  period required for
       Environmental Impact Statement.
resulting from
preparation of
inflation
the
                              6-19

-------
Dale Luecht
August 21,  1975
Page 2
For the sake of good order, we, the Utilities Service Board  of
Bloomington, Indiana respectfully request that the Environmental
Protection Agency include a section in its Environmental  Impact
Statement entitled Summary erf Direct and Indirect Costs for  the
Envi ronmental  Impact Statement.
                          Sincerely,
                          Richard S.  Peoples
                          Project Coordinator
RSP/ses
cc: Utilities  Service' Board
    Environmental  Impact  Statement  (file)
                                   6-20

-------
                      INDIANA  UNIVERSITY

                             Department of Ph\tics
                             SWAIN HALL	WEST ! 1 '
                         BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA 47401
                                                              TEL. NO. . ! 2— 337-2650
                                        November  13,  1975
Mr. Harlan Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch
EPA Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL  60604

Dear Mr. Hirt:

     You recently received a letter from several members of the Bloomington,
Indiana, Utilities Service Board expressing their concern with the delays and
costs associated with the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement
for our wastewater treatment plant.  We want to make it clear that this
position is not supported by all members of the board.  The initial request
for an EIS was made by the Utilities Service Board knowing full well that
costs and delays would be incurred.  To now make an issue of the dollar costs
can only serve to thwart the reasons for the initial request.

     The location of the wastewater treatment plant has been a controversial
issue in our community for several years and has remained so despite extended
public discussions.  Both economic and ecological concerns were expressed.
In our nation's past, decisions of major importance were often based on
economic considerations alone.  The Environmental Impact Statement insures
that both economic and ecological factors are considered in decisions involving
public funds.  A proper balance between these factors is necessary if, in
the future, we are to sustain the quality of life we enjoy and preserve the
land we occupy.

     We appreciate the work that EPA is doing on this project and the respon-
sibility that is assumed when preparing an EIS.  A hastily-prepared statement
would not be adequate.  To dismiss the concerns of any segment of the community
would not be proper.  The time required for careful preparation of the EIS
will be only a small fraction of the time that we must live with the actions
that are to be taken.

                                        Sincerely yours,


                                             j
             David L. Dilcher           Hugh J. Martin
             Member, Utilities Service  Member, Utilities Service Board
                Board                   Department of Physics
             Dept. of Plant Sciences    Indiana University
             Indiana University         Bloomington, Indiana
             Bloomington, IN A7401      47401

DLD/HJM:mlc                            6~21
Copies to:  Senators Bayh, Hartke; Representatives Meyer, Hamilton

-------
   fctalenvirbnmei   t
                     By DON JORDAN
                      H-T Outdoor Editor
   Environmental protection is coming under fire from all quarters
 of business and industry these days with critics beating the same
 dam with the same tune that protecting the environment costs too
 much.
   F'art of the difficulty environmentalists have in countering these
 charges is that the large majority of business-oriented individuals
 put price I ags on everything But how do you put a price tag on the
 environment?
   Many enviornmental thinkers point to  the what they call "ex-
 ternalities" of continued growth without environmental concerns
 figured
   LYNTON K. CALDWELL. lU's environmental  and political
 science  leader, is fond of pointing out these externalities of ex-
 pansion when the total environment is not considered.
   When William Cook  of the Bloomington Utilities Service Board
 recently  blasted  an  environmental  impact  statement being
 prepared by the U S  Environmental Protection Agency, lie in-
 sisted that economics is part of the the environment.
   Environmentalists accept that argument, but Cook went one step
: farther, claiming that economic considerations must always come
 first, then environmental protection is fine.
   But what about those externalities9
   Dollar figures  can  be  placed on providing schools,  streets,
 sewers, water lines, sidewalks, transportation. These factors must
 also be considered as part of the environment, and all have large
 price tags afixed And, when all of these environmental factors are
. included, costs incurred by government in drawing up impact
 statements fade in comparison.
   COOK CLAIMED THE IMPACT statement for the new south
- sewage  plant will end up costing  millions. But what will be the
 ultimate cost to the citizens of Bloomington and Monroe County if
 an environmental mistake is made in selecting the site for the
 plant?
   Utilities Director Gary Kent has pointed out that when new
 service areas are picked up by the city, funds used to purchase the
 utility lines from developers come from utility revenues.
   'in other words, all customers served by the utility end up paying
 for new service. Such practices result in millions of dollars over
 long periods of time.                                      >
   Likewise, when new utility services like the new sewage plant are
 built,  it is the customers who always end up paying the bills. Utility
 rate increases result and tax increases are eventually needed to
 provide those myriad other services demanded by new residents.
 Tcix base increases seldom provide increased income over the long
 run when new services must be maintained into infinity.
   BY  NARROWLY DEFINING the environment,  business and
 industry leaders detail economic considerations and seldom talk
 at out the environment as a whole.
   Who asks  about the environment of Bloomington and  Monroe
 County as a whole — not just that narrow economic spectrum ?
   Unfortunately, the asking of that question is in this area lefl in the
 hands of private citizens or environmental groups like Sassafras
 Andubon Society, Sierra Club, Izaak Walton League and others.
 This is unfortunate, but necessary, since government officials are
 many times not  sensitive to preserving the  environment that
 makes this area attractive.
   Claude Ferguson recently pointed out that he likes this area and
 wouldn't move to a metropolitan area like New York or Washington
 for double his salary.  Likewise, said Ferguson, his wife wouldn't
 leave her favorite turkey wood for any salary.
   PEOPLE HAVE MOVED to the Bloomington area because they
 like the total environment oi the area. The sprawling forests and
 riijgelines provide a relief from the tensions of modern society.
   When considering economics as a part of the environment of this
 area,  it would be good to wonder how far we can go in changing it
 before people in other areas say: "I wouldn't take double my salary
 to move from here to someplace like southern Indiana."
   When those words are uttered is when the real economic crisis
 w II hit southern Indiana.
6-22

-------
"COOiV
   November 3,  1975
   Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
   Chief, Planning Branch
   U.S. E.P.A. Region V
   230 South Dearborn Street
   Chicago, Illinois  60604

   Dear Mr. Hirt:

   At the di^^tion of the Utilities Service Board of the City of Bloomington,
   Mr. Richard S. .Peoples, Utilities Project Coordinator, in a letter of August
   21, 1975, requested a summary of direct and indirect costs for the Environmental
   Impact Statement that the Environmental Protection Agency is currently preparing
   on our proposed wastewater  treatment facility.  In your response to Mr. Peoples
   of September  19, 1975, you  state:  "Direct and indirect costs associated with
   the project will not be identified unless they relate specifically to the cost
   effective analysis required under P.L. 92-5QQ."

   As you are well aware, the  Environmental Protection Agency has requested a
   great quantity of information from the Bloomington Utilities Department, the
   consulting engineers Black  & Veatch, and other interested parties.  To our
   knowledge all of this information has been provided with willingness; nothing has
   been withheld or refused.   Since the direct and indirect costs of the Environmental
   Impact Statement are a genuine concern of local residents, we feel that the
   Utilities Service Board's request for this information from the Environmental
   Protection Agency is both legitimate and reasonable.  Your response to Mr.
   Peoples' letter, however, seems to indicate that the Environmental Protection
   Agency does not believe that the people of Bloomington have the right to know
   this information.  As citizens of Bloomington who are very interested in this
   project and as federal taxpayers t;ho are concerned with the total environment
   and economic  costs of the new wastewater treatment facility, we respectfully
   disagree.

   When a study  such as an Environmental Impact Statement is undertaken, the cost
   of the study  is just as important as the other data that is collected.  We feel
   that the value and merits of an Environmental Impact Statement should be measured—
   at least in part—by the cost of collecting the information.  An Environmental
   Impact Statement takes time; in this day, time, unfortunately, can be measured
   by the rate of inflation.   Without knowing the cost due to lost time, might not
   the economic  environment of an entire community be jeopardized?  Here in Bloomington,
   for example,  the possibility of a moratorium on growth in the southern drainage
   area exists because the present wastewater treatment plant is overloaded and
   antiquated.   Inflation since 1972 has increased the cost of Bloomington's proposed
                                             6-23

-------
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
November 3, 1975
Page 2


wastewater facility from $27 million to  $40 million.  This  inflationary cost
increase suggests that each month used to  study  the environment  costs $360,000.
We realize that it is impossible to place  a price  tag on the environment;  however,
we believe that it would be in the best  interests  of all people  if the Environmental
Protection Agency would thoroughly review  its  Environmental Impact Statement
process, keeping in mind the economic ramifications of  such studies.
                                        >
In our particular case here in Bloomington,  we sincerely feel that withholding
this information about the direct and indirect costs of the Environmental  Impact
Statement seriously hampers the spirit of  cooperation that  the people of this
community have attempted to foster between themselves and the Environmental
Protection Agency.  With this in mind, we  once again request that  the Environmental
Protection Agency provide us with a statement  that details  the costs  related to
the Environmental Impact Statement currently being conducted on  Bloomington"s
proposed wastewater treatment facility.

Sincerely,
njh

cc:  Senator Birch Bayh
     Senator Vance Hartke
     Congressman John Myers
     Congressman Lee Hamilton
                                         6-24

-------
               INCOKFUKAii^iJ
                                                          WOV13I975
November 3,  1975
The Honorable  John Myers
103 Cannon House Office Building
Washington,  DC 20510

Dear Mr.  Myers:

The Utilities  Service Board of the  City of Bloomington recently requested the
Environmental  Protection Agency to  provide information concerning the direct and
indirect^yists of the Environmental Impact Statement  that  EPA is currently
preparing on Bloomington 'o proposed uastewater treatment facility.  (See the
attached  letter of August 21,  1975, from Utilities Project Coordinator Richard
S. Peoples.)  As you can see from Mr. Harlan Hirt's response of September 19,
1975, which is also attached,  EPA does not seem disposed to divulge this infor-
mation, which  we feel should be a matter of public record.

As citizens of Bloomington who are  very interested in this project and as federal
taxpayers who  are concerned with the total environmental and economic costs of
the new wastewater treatment facility, we sincerely believe we have the right
to know what the direct and indirect costs of the Environmental Impact Statement
will be.   As one of our elected federal representatives, we would appreciate
it if you would look into this matter to help us secure this information.
Sincerely,
Enclosures  fy  /

cc:  Mr.  Harlan Hirt
                                    6-25

-------
                  CITY OF  BLDDMINGTDN  UTILITIES

                                   P. D. BOX 1216

                             BLDOMINGTQN, INDIANA 474D1
                                TELEPHONE AC 812 339-2261

                                 August 12, 1975
Dale Luecht
PI anning
U.S.  E.P.A.   Region  V
230 South  Dearborn
Chicago,  Illinois   60604

Dear Mr.  Luecht:

Attached  are  the  position papers for the individual  Utilities
Service Board members concerning the improvement program as
outlined  in the  Bloomington South Facilities Program.

I must apologize  for  the delay in getting this document to you
as  the positions  were presented by the Board at the  June 3,  1975
Utilities  Service  Board meeting.

If you have further questions for the Board or need  clarification,
please direct your  questions to me and I will see that they  are
transmitted to the  Board.

                         Sincerely,
                         Gary R. Kent
                         Director of Utilities
GRK/ses
cc:  James R.  Quin,  Gilbert Associates, Inc.
    Utilities Service  Board members
                                         PUNNING BRANCH

                                         FflENO~-
                           6-26

-------
                        UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD

                             JUNE 3, 1975
The Utilities Service Board members gave the following recommendations
as to site alternatives for the proposed treatment plant site:
DAVID DILCHER:  Dilcher affirmed his belief that Dillman Road is the best
site for the location of the proposed sewage treatment plant.  He stated
that this site best satisfies the needs of the City and the Region for
the following reasons:

     1.  It accomodates a gravity flow for the main lines and interceptors
         adaptable for picking up both City and Regional waste.

     2.  It is removed from residential areas and can be properly screened
         With proper county zoning, residential development can  be
         restricted.

     3.  It would provide a higher level of treatment for the effluent.

     4.  It would provide a more constant and easily controlled  treatment
         because the two-stage plant planned for this site is less
         susceptible to upsets.

     5.  It would be less distruptive to the Clear Creek Valley.

     6.  The Lake Monroe Region could tie in,in total or in part.

     7.  The cost would be equivalent to or less than the Salt Creek site
         in the long run considering the lower operations and maintenance
         expense.

     8.  It would not encourage stringer type development along  a long
         outfall sewer and will allow the development of city-centered
         f a c i 1 i t i e s .

     9.  Space would be provided for expansion to 40 MGD.

    10.  It would best serve the Region by providing easy pick-up from the
         Smithville and Paynetown areas and it would not require such long
         interceptor sewers as the Salt Creek site.

    11.  There is the distinct possibility of a force main from  the south-
         west section of the Lake being extended up Clear Creek  Valley to
         Dillman Road.


                                     6-27

-------
                         UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD

                              JUNE 3,  1975
WILLIAM COOK:  Cook indicated that he accepts  the Black & Veatch summary
that the Salt Creek site is the most desirable.   The selected plan in-
cludes a gravity sewer from the existing South Plant along Clear Creek
to a 20 MGD plant at the Salt Creek site.

The selected proposal  is as described under Section Ten of the Facilities
Plan except that the initial  design flow is 20 MGD. This site is the most
desirable based on environmental  concerns  and  cost effectiveness.   In
addition, the plan is  well  adapted to providing  service to the Lake
Monroe Region.   If service  were to be extended to the Lake Monroe Region
the selected plan would be  modified by the construction of a 5 MGD plant
addition approximately fifteen years after the initial  start-up.

Availability of land is a great difference between the  Salt Creek and
Dillman Road sites.  Unlimited land is available at the Salt Creek site
for disposal of wastes, composting, and future plant expansion.

The Salt Creek  site could service Lake Monroe  and also  the southern
Monroe County area.  Since  we supply their water Cook feels we should
consider providing sewage treatment.  He feels that we  must provide for
the future so that growth will take place  in southern Monroe County.  Cook
mentioned that  in the  Land  Suitability Study the southwest section is the
greatest portion of land available for any kind  of development at Lake
Monroe.  Cook indicates disagreement with  Dilcher as far as cost of
operation is concerned.  He stated there would be a $200,000 operations
savings on a year-to-year basis of operation at  the Salt Creek site which
would result in lower  sewer bills for residents.


JACK MARTIN:  Martin listed his reasons in support of the Dillman Road
site.  He feels that a higher degree of sewage treatment is offered by
the two-stage plant proposed  for the location.  Because the effluent
discharged from Dillman Road  eventually passes Salt Creek a higher degree
of treatment is indicated and with less impact for Salt Creek.

The main difference Martin  sees between the Dillman Road and Salt Creek
sites is that the Dillman Road site is the most  cost effective for the
near future.  The arguments for Salt Creek are based upon predictions for
the distant future and projections about what  will happen in different
areas of the City and  the Lake Region.  Because  construction costs for
Salt Creek are  three million  dollars more  than for Dillman Road, Martin
feels it would  take a  great number of years for  Salt Creek to become more
                                        6"28

-------
                         UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD

                              JUNE 3, 1975
cost effective than Dillman Road.  The areas of clear cost differential
according to Martin are:  (1) the difference between the one-stage Salt
Creek plant and the two-stage Dillman Road plant, and (2) the difference
between the outfall sewer required by Salt Creek and a snorter sewer
required by Dillman Road.  If drying beds were constructed at Dillman
Road the sludge disposal costs would be about the same.   The degree of
treatment offered at Dillman Road would result in 97.5% removal  of BOD
and suspended solids as opposed to 95.7% removal offered at Salt Creek.
The two-stage plant would employ additional people in the daily plant
operation.   Martin stated that the costs are based on a 20 MGD plant
flow which is a higher flow than has been projected for the first
twenty years.

Martin went on to state that he finds the question of a Regional plant
a rather difficult concept.   In looking at the argument that a central
plant is the most effective way to treat sewage, it seems unrealistic
that sewage must be moved so far to implement that concept.  In applying
this to our present situation, Martin stated that with the exception of
the southwest part of the Lake the Salt Creek site is relatively
inaccessible to the rest of the Region and Bloomington.   Martin indicated
that his belief was that perhaps a separate plant should be considered
for the southwest part of the Region.

Martin then outlined his uncertainties concerning the projections for the
Region.  He feels that looking at a 40 MGD plant to service a Bloomington
population of 200,000 is looking too far into the future.  He finds the
Region predictions troublesome for the fact that if the plant is built at
Salt Creek to service the Region and the projected growth fails to occur
then the plant will be serving a very small base of people. Martin stated
that Region growth predictions are based on:  (1) growth in a basically
rural area projected to increase by 1007, (2) growth in the Lake Monroe
recreational areas is predicted to double, and (3) large growth of those
building developments around the Lake.  Martin disagrees with the rural
area growth stating that it would be difficult to determine the high
density areas.  He concluded his remarks by restating his feelings that
the arguments for the Salt Creek site seem to be much more uncertain
and difficult to assess than arguments for Dillman Road.


RICHARD FEE:  Fee stated that as a result of ten years experience he feels
that the most suitable site is the one located as far downstream as possibl
the Salt Creek site.  He indicated that the former sewage treatment plant
was located just two miles north of the present Winston Thomas site so if
we are not to make the same mistake again we should move as far downstream
                                -3-    6-29

-------
                         UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD

                              JUNE 3,  1975
as possible.   Fee feels that the Salt Creek site would be better suited
to meeting changing dilution requirements, sludge disposal  requirements,
and degree of treatment in future years.
   response to the argument that string-type development will  be
   :ouraged, Fee gave two reasons stating why he feels this will  not
     1.  The pipe is neither in the flood plain nor inaccessible to
         normal  development.

     2.  The land around it is not suitable for development.   There
         are too many quarries on the west and it is economically not
         feasible to build there.
ROBERT SCHMUHL:  Schmuhl  stated that he favors the Salt Creek site.
According to Schmuhl  initial  costs would be higher at Salt Creek but long
term operating and maintenance costs and the cost for equipment replace-
ment would be lower.

Schmuhl feels that there would be a greater expanse of available and
suitable land at Salt Creek.   This would be beneficial because more
efficient sludge disposal and sufficient space for additional facilities
would be provided.  At Dillman Road there would be no room for construction
of additional facilities if further advanced treatment processes were
mandated in the future.
AILEEN SCHALLER:  Schaller stated that because the total costs between
the Salt Creek and Dillman Road sites are not much different that cost
cannot be a basis for decision.

Although no permanent environmental damage will result from either site,
Schaller feels there are two areas of possible concern:  (1) the outfall
sewer, and (2) the Lake Monroe Region.  With careful  attention to
revegetation, long range damage will be prevented in the area of the out-
fall sewer.  As for damage to the Lake Monroe Region, the plant will not
be crucial to development but will instead be of use to the Region.

Regarding other environmental concerns, Schaller stated we must not over-
look the aesthetic and odoriferous considerations.  She stated that the
plant should only be located along a major entry corridor to the City as
                                       6-30
                                -4-

-------
                        UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD

                             JUNE 3, 1975
a last resort.  The Dillman Road site would be on constant display, while
the Salt Creek site will use less of our dwindling energy year in and
year out.

Physical characteristics should also be considered in choosing a plant
site.   The plant should be located on level ground relatively free of
rock.   There should be adequate room for expansion and on-site sludge
disposal.  Undeveloped land should be available for a buffer zone. There
should be natural screening of the plant.

In closing Schaller stated that the Salt Creek site meets all of the
preceding criteria while the Dillman Road site meets none.


Further discussion of the plant sites followed the Board members pre-
sentations.  Fee recognized additional pluses for the Salt Creek site as
being the lessened effects of an accident due to greater dilution possibl<
He also mentioned that the plant would probably be resized down to 15 MGD
by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Utilities personnel were then asked to give their opinions as to the plan'
site choice.  Director of Utilities Gary Kent stated that major consider-
ations should be the cost of operation as far as local dollars are concen
the balance of commodities in operation, the ability to serve the potenti.
growth and the plant layout.  He indicated that some costs are questionab
for both sites but he favors the Salt Creek site.  Utilities Treatment
Engineer Mike Phillips added that he felt the Salt Creek site was best fr
the operating standpoint and Project Coordinator Rick Peoples concurred.

Fee moved, Schmuhl seconded a motion that the Salt Creek site be
recommended to the Environmental Protection Agency as the site chosen by
members of the Utilities Service Board and by Black & Veatch engineers to
be the most suitable for the proposed treatment plant.  The vote was four
to two in favor of the Salt Creek site.
                                     6-31
                                -5-

-------
                                               RECEIVED
                                                ''^ 2: 1076
                EVALUATION OF GILBERT
     A direct comparison between the Gilbert Report
and the Facilities Plan prepared by Black & Veatch is
extremely difficult.  However, our preliminary review
reveals a number of areas where serious questions exist.
Among these are:
          1.  On page 5-1, a misunderstanding of the
     nitrogen discharge requirements of the State of
     Indiana is apparent.  On Clear Creek the winter
     requirement should be 3.0 and not 6.5.  On Salt
     Creek the summer discharge should be 7.9 rather
     than 3.0.
          2.  The additional cost of facilities to
     provide second stage nitrification at Clear Creek
     sites is estimated on page 6-14 of the report at
     $1,722,000.  It would seem that this second set
     of aeration, sedimentation and sludge handling
     facilities should cost about 20% of the liquid
     treatment cost (page 6-14) or about $3,400,000.
          3.  The cost of operating and maintaining a
     two stage nitrification plant on Clear Creek is
     estimated at only 8% more than operating a single
     stage nitrification plant at Salt Creek, despite
     the fact that the Salt Creek plant must nitrify
     only during the summer months while a Clear Creek
     plant must nitrify twelve months a year.
          4.  Either no rock excavation is included
     or the quantity of rock is seriously underestimated
     for the necessary channel relocations for Clear
     Creek sites.
                           6-32

-------
           EVALUATION OF GILBERT REPORT
                     PAGE TWO

     5.  The cost of the gravity sewer to the Salt
Creek site shown on page 36-A is over-estimated.
The price for all sewers larger than 42" in diameter
is based on an over-sized pipe that is not needed to
carry the anticipated flow.  Current quotations on
sewer pipe are from 20 to 35% less than those used
for each pipe size.
     6.  In our experience, we have never found it
necessary to construct and maintain a permanent road
for vehicles along an outfall sewer.  (page 8-6)
     7.  On page 10-1, the report states that the
Salt Creek site is not adequate to sustain land
application of sludge produced there.  A call to
Joseph B. Farrell, Chief of the Ultimate Disposal
Section, of the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, of the U.S. EPA in Cincinnati, revealed
that the formula used in the Gilbert Report was not
current.  Using the correct figures would allow about
2 1/2 times the sludge loading proposed in the report.
     8.  The report states on page 10-20 that the
costs for the recommended haul and application of
sludge from Dillman Road and Salt Creek sites are
within 8% of each other, even though the sludge
application site is immediately across the creek from
the Salt Creek site, according to Plate 3.  In addition,
the report assumes that the owners of this property
will accept the sludge.
                         6-33

-------
                EVALUATION  OF  GILBERT  REPORT
                         PAGE  THREE
          9.   It is  extremely  doubtful that  a  new 15 mgd
     two  stage nitrification  treatment plant  can be built
     on  the  Winston  Thomas  site west  of the  existing
     facilities as  stated on  page 3-1.  In addition, the
     report  reveals  a lack  of  understanding  of the exist-
     ing  Winston Thomas  facility when  it refers to the
     obsolete, fixed-nozzle,  sprinkling filters as
     "Bio-filters."
          10.  The assumption  that pumping 1.9  mgd north
     to  the  Blucher  Poole plant will  provide  a less cost-
     ly  treatment scheme than handling it in  its natural
     watershed.  (page 1-4)  It does  not consider the fact
     that the  Blucher Poole plant will have  to be upgraded
     to  meet substantially  the same  standards  as discharges
     to  Clear  Creek.
          11.  Page  31-A of  the report  discusses the need
     for one pump station to  serve Smithville  while Plate
     3,  illustrating this facility,  shows two.
          12.  The statements  in Section 5 to the effect
     that two  stage nitrification by  a plant  on Clear Creek
     is,  per se, superior to  single  stage nitrification on
     Salt Creek, suggests that it is  considered that the
     State of  Indiana has not properly allocated waste
     loading to the streams of the State.
     If  a detailed  comparison between this Report and the
Facilities Plan would be of value, we at Black & Veatch
respectfully request that this Report be presented on a
basis comparable to the Facilities Plan.
                           6-34

-------
                                          Blooming-ton, Indiana
                                          May 3, 1975
Steve Riggins, President
Monroe County Plan Commission
County Courthouse Annex
Bloomington, Indiana

Dear Mr. Riggins s

A number of organizations concerned with implementation of the
Land Suitability Study of the Lake Monroe area, in process of
completion by the Indiana University School for Public and
Environmental Affairs, would like a place on the agenda of the
May 20th meeting of the Monroe County Plan Commission in order
to present two requests:

     l)  for formulation and adoption of a policy and plan for
         the use of the Lake Monroe Land Suitability Study, and

     2)  for consideration of applying for a Planning Grant for
         a similar study for the remainder of the County.

Enclosed is a statement which we are sending to the members of
the Monroe County Plan Commission, the Monroe County Council,
and the Monroe County Commissioners.

                          Yours sincerely,
                          Anne Rippy     /
                          809 S. Stull, representing the
                                        organizations
 cc:  Bob Snoddy
                           6-35

-------
TO:  TIDE MONROE COUNTY PLAN COU.ilSSION

FROM:  CONTACT, 13LOOMINGTON LEAGUE Oi-1 V/Ol.IEj! VOTERS, iiLOOi.Ij.,IGTO;J  rL.
       MENTAL DUALITY AND CONSERVATION COLLiIS^IOiI, SADoAl^fAS  AUDUBON SOCIETY
The Land Suitability Study being conducted by the Indiana University  School
of Public and Environmental Affairs covers approximately a 100  square mile
area around Lake Monroe and v/ill provide a valuable data base and  Land Capa-
bility Model for use in planning for that area.  It is an important first
step in terms of the study and planning needed for the entire Lake Llonroe
Watershed.

The value of such a study, however, v/ill not be realized until  the results
of the study are incorporated into planning and decision-making for that
region.  We ask that the Monroe County Plan Commission formulate and  adopt
a policy and plan for the implementation of the study.  Those involved in
making the study will demonstrate how to retrieve and interpret the data,
but we need a firm committment to its use to gain the benefits  inherent in
the study.

We believe that the time is appropriate, also, for undertaking  a compre-
hensive land use study for the remainder of Monroe County with  the joal of
incorporating the two studies with the zoning ordinance recently adopted
into a Comprehensive Master Plan for the County.

The need for such a study is apparent.  For example, the Indiana University
School of Business recently predicted a 25,000 population increase in the
south drainage basin of the. County within the next two decades.  Y/e need
to identify critical areas such as fragile lands, renewable resource  lands,
natural hazard lands, mineral resources, etc and protect them through
planning --- as well as seek an over-view of our land-use problems and  potential.

Funding for such a study is available through a Federal 701 Planning  Grant
which would pay 2/3 of the cost with the local governing body providing 1/5-
701 Planning Grant funds are allocated by the Indiana State Planning  Services
Agency which could conceivably give high priority to a project  which  would
include land-use planning for Lake Monroe as one of its components.

Many kinds of data are available which would minimize the cost  of  the study.
The Soil Survey of Monroe County is well advanced and expected  to  be  com-
pleted within two years.  The Indiana Geological Survey will provide  geo-
logical and hydrological data and both the Soil Conservation Service  and
the Geological Survey will provide expert services in interpretation  of
this data.  A recently completed study of the karst region of the  west side
of the County should prove valuable.  The services of the Region 10 planner
and cooperation with the planning services of the City of Blooniington could
also expedite planning and minimize costs.

We would appreciate early consideration by the Monroe County Plan  Commission
of an application for a Planning Grant.
                               6-36

-------
              RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE


ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND CONSERVATION  COMMISSION


           ON THE SITING OF THE PROPOSED


    BLOOMINGTON SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
               R F n
          i-ilJ. NO-,-
             1
                  6-37

-------
        RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
    AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION ON TliC SITING OF THE PROPOSED
         BLOOMINGTON SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES

1.  General  Background
     Almost  since its inception during the spring of 1972 the Environ-
mental  Quality and Conservation Commission (EQCC) has been studying
the environmental aspects of the placement of a new waste-water treat-
ment facility in southern Bloomington.  This is demonstrated by the
record of the EQCC meetings, whichis summarized in the Appendix.  The
EQCC has discussed the siting of the facilities during many civic
meetings, has supported several pertinent studies, and has participated
in studies carried out by others.  We have presented recommendations
and relevant information to the citizens of Bloomington, to the Common
Council, to various members of the City Administration, and to State and
Federal officials.  Relying on these experiences and the understanding
we have gained from them, we present this report as our analysis of
the environmental factors -associated with the siting of the proposed
facilities.
     From an environmental perspective, there are two major siting
options:  the proposed Salt Creek site and the alternative sites on
upper Clear Creek.  Possible alternative sites mentioned to date include
the present Winston Thomas site and sites on South Rogers Street, on
Dill man Road, and on Ketcham Road.
                              6-38

-------
                                 -2-
II.  Recommendations
     Based on their community involvement referred to above and on
their professional  expertise in such areas as physics, chemistry,  eco-
logy, and soil science, the members of the EQCC have unanimously con-
cluded that all of the Clear Creek sites are environmentally preferable
to the Salt Creek site.  Of the Clear Creek sites, the EQCC believes
that the total environmental impact of construction and operation  at
the Dillman Road site will be the least.  Therefore, the EQCC recommends
that the treatment facility be placed at the Dillman Road site.  This
report will present our reasons for this recommendation;  first, the
environmental issues differentiating all of the Clear Creek sites  from
Salt Creek; second, the environmental and social  issues which differ-
entiate Dillman Road from Winston-Thomas and South Rogers St.  There
are four main reasons for selection of a Clear Creek Site:
     a.  The terrestrial and aquatic destruction involved in running
         the outfall sewer to Salt Creek will be avoided.
     b.  The level of effluent quality from the Clear Creek sites  will
         be greater.
                          <
     c.  The Salt Creek site is within the floodplain of Salt Creek,
         directly below the spillway at the reservoir and located on
         a soil type known to be subject to waterlogging. (Soe Soil  Survey)
     d.  The possibility of adverse secondary effects of facilitated
         development at Lake Monroe because of placement at Salt Creek
         will be less severe.
The primary considerations differentiating Dillman Road from Winston
Thomas/St. Rogers St. are the adverse aesthetic impact of a wastewater
treatment facility placed in the more densely populated areas and the
                               6-39

-------
                                  -3-
social  impact of relocation  of several  families  living in a trailer
park on the proposed site.

III.  Comparison of the Environmental  Effects  of Clear Creek and
      Salt Creek Siting

A.  Outfall Sewer Effects
     Locating the waste-water treatment plant  at the distant Salt
Creek site requires a long  outfall  sewer.   There are five alternative
sewer routes from Bloomington to that  site:
     (1)  under Clear Creek;
     (2)  along Clear Creek, but higher upon the banks and slicing
          across the creek's bends;
     (3)  as in (2), but using a force main to cut across the broad
          westerly bend of  the creek;
     (4)  along Clear Creek to the  Ketcham Road  area, then across the
          hills via a force main to lower Little Clear Creek, then
          south along Little Clear Creek and Clear Creek;
     (5)  as in (4), but to upper Little Clear Creek.
The proposed outfall sewers to the Ketcham Road  and Dill man Road sites
follow route (2) above, but for much shorter distances.  Both the South
Rogers Street and Winston Thomas sites would require 9000 ft. force
mains running up the Clear Creek bed from the proposed southeast inter-
ceptor sev.^r.  It should also be noted that, should the Lake Monroe
Regional Waste District decide to have its wastewater treated at a
Bloomington Clear Creek facility, a force main running overland from
                                6-40

-------
                                 -4-
from Smithville to the Clear Creek bed will  have to be built.
     Outfall sewer construction and maintenance will  have detrimental
environmental effects; the longer the sewer  is, the worse these  effects
will be.  These effects can result from earth-moving  during  construction
and may also include permanent environmental  damage caused by  right-
of-way clearance and maintenance.  All of these effects are  magnified
by the proximity of a natural  area, Cedar Bluffs.   Following is  a
more detailed consideration of these factors.
     The right-of-way for construction of sewer alternative  (2), which
is the one recommended by Black & Veatch, is  100 feet wide and about
60,000 feet long.  An area of six million square feet will thus  be
subjected to physical abuse.  A trench averaging twelve feet deep will
be dug down the length of this right-of-way.   Much of the 4.3  million
cubic feet of earth that will  have to be removed is limestone, which
will have to be blasted out.  Some of this spoil will be bulldozed  and
graded to level the right-of-way for maintenance access.  It is  rather
difficult to believe that bulldozing and blasting on this scale  could
be done with an eye to "limiting environmental  disruption" (Black &
                          •!
Veatch, p. X-16).  It is more reasonable to  believe that construction
activity will result in the destruction of much terrestrial  and  aquatic
wildlife habitat, in addition to impairing the stream's aesthetic value.
     Despite the promise to grade and reseed  "as soon as practicable,"
it may work out that, considering the frequency of rain and  flash-
flooding in the area, erosion may set in before vegetative cover does.
In the case of alternative  (3), erosion may also result from unrevege-
tated sewer line easements in the hills above the creek.  In any case,
the resultant siltation of the stream could have an effect on  the  aquatic

                               6-41

-------
                                   -5-
biota more permanent that that caused  by  sewer construction  itself.
     The EQCC also has  reservations  about the effects  of  the twenty-odd
creek crossings proposed under alternatives  (1)  and  (2).   The provisions
for keeping the line from being dug  up by the action of the  stream are
not described in the Black & Veatch  report.  This  makes it impossible
to comment on them specifically except to hypothesize  that there  may
be permanent changes in the substrate  of  the creek which  could affect
stream biota, flow characteristics,  and aesthetics adversely.
     Though specific techniques for  right-of-way maintenance have not
been described by Black & Veatch, usual procedures involve defoliation
with herbicides.  This would constitute a chronic  perturbation to the
immediate and neighboring wildlife habitat as well as  a possible  source
of pollution from runoff.
     Another problem is the proximity  of  the Cedar Bluffs area to the
Clear Creek sewer route.  Sewer construction arid maintenance could affect
the integrity of this area through the resultant noise, dust, and impair-
ment.  While the sewer does not pass through the area, alternatives
place the line just across the creek from it.   On  the  basis  of the above
                          5
considerations, the EQCC recommends  that  the important potential  negative
environmental effects of the outfall sewer be  minimized  by minimizing
the length of the sewer, subject to  constraints  described below.

B.  Effluent Quality Effects
     The Salt Creek facility is to be  a one-stage  plant,  while current
state water quality standards require  that a Clear Creek  plant, because
of the low dilution capacity of the receiving  stream,  be  a two-stage
                              6-42

-------
                                 -6-
plant.  A one-stage plant is somewhat more susceptible to  rapid
changes in plant variables such as water volume than a two-stage  plant.
Rapid changes in water volume do occur in the Bloomington  area during  the
summer.  It is conceivable that at that time a one-stage plant could
discharge improperly treated effluent.
     More importantly, however, a one-stage plant will be  unable  to
discharge effluent of a quality high ehough to meet the standards
currently required for 1983 by Public Law 92-500.  Yet the Black  &
Veatch study which judges the cost effectiveness of the Salt Creek
and Dillman Road sites to be similar assumes a one-stage plant at the
Salt Creek site.  The EQCC questions the rationale behind  a twenty-
year cost effectiveness study predicated on water quality standards that
will be superseded by more stringent ones after only five years.   Clearly,
with respect to present water quality standards, a Dillman Road  plant
would be more cost effective thafi a Salt Creek plant, because the former
would discharge a higher quality effluent for the same cost; with respect
to future standards, a cost effectiveness study would have to consider
fines the City might have to pay due to the emission of an illegal
effluent by a Salt Creek plant.  The EQCC concludes that, environmentally,
and legally, a two-stage plant is better than a one-stage plant  and
that, economically, a two-stage plant at Dillman Road is better than a
two-stage plant at Salt Creek.
     An added benefit of a Clear Creek site with the relatively clean
effluent it is required to discharge is the potential recreational use
of Clear Creek as a canoe stream.  Such areas are not abundant around
Bloomington.  If the Salt Creek site is chosen, the flow in Clear Creek

                                 6-43

-------
                                     -7-
will be too low to permit its  use  for this  purpose.

C.  Hydrological  Effects
     The proposed method  of  sludge disposal at  the Salt Creek  site  is
subsurface soil injection over an  area comprising most of  the  site.
During the spring rains of 1975, this area  was  heavily waterlogged.  The
EQCC cautions that sludge injection into  land which  is subject to
periodic leaching by rain water, and which  abuts major receiving streams,
may result in periodic large influxes of  nutrients,  untreated  heavy
metals, and other matter  into  the  streams.   It  should be noted that this
creek water is a  water source  for  Bedford,  only thirteen miles down-
stream.  These problems are  not addressed in the facilities  plan.
     These possible detrimental hydrological effects may be  exacerbated
by the location of the Salt  Creek  site within a 100-year flood plain.
Until flood-plain alterations  potentially caused by  the Lake Monroe
dam are known, it would be wise to require  that the  facility's constr-
uction plans include safeguards to prevent  discharge, leakage, or
leaching of untreated wastes from  the plant area into the  creeks during
periods of high water.    '

D.  Secondary Effects of  Unplanned Development  in the Lake Monroe Area.
     Another major concern of the  EQCC is the possible adverse effect
on the Lake Monroe area  resulting  from development  in the  lake's
watershed stimulated by the  placement of  the treatment facility at
Salt Creek.  We anticipate this facilitation because, according to
         92-500
Public Law /   development cannot  occur without suitable wastewater
treatment.  While the dollar costs to Bloomington at. Dillman Road or
                                6-44

-------
                               -8.
Salt Creek are similar, the cost to LMRWD*1s  much  less  if  the  Bloom-
ington Plant is at Salt Creek.   The advantage of this Salt Creek  hookup
is that several existing sources of effluent  will  be  removed from the
lake.  This is the main environmental  benefit of this arrangement.
This is balanced by the possibility that cheaper sewage treatment will
permit more rapid development than  would otherwise occur.   In  principle
the development of private living structures  and even commercial  ones,
need not lead to the deterioration  of  the lake region,  providing  that
sufficient planning controls and enforcement  procedures are established
and maintained.  No such planning structures  and controls  exist in the
region at this time.  The Lake  Monroe  Land Suitability  Study recently
carried out is not intended to  guarantee the  planning needed in the
area although it can serve as background for  the development of such
a plan.  In view of this situation  EQCC is evaluating potential environ-
mental effects based on recent  and  current planning and construction
methods.
     The EQCC considers the primary functions of Lake Monroe to be
1)  flood control water impoundment, 2)  a recreational  resource,
3)  a major source of domestic  water for the  City  of  Bloomington  and its
environs.  It is the potential  deterioration  of these functions of the
lake with which we are concerned.  In  addition, much  of the land  around
the lake presently has an undisturbed, natural quality  which is important
in and of itself and also as it enhances the  recreational  value of the
whole region.
     Development without a regional land use  plan  and construction
 practice regulations  potentially could  detract  from the functions listed
 *Lakc Monroe Renional Waste District
                                   6-45

-------
above in the f61 lowing ways:
     1)  Conversion of privately owned  natural  areas  into  develop-
ments which will  decrease the amount of natural  landscape  for aesthetic,
wildlife and recreational use.  This effect will  be concentrated  in.
certain areas.
     2)  Improperly controlled construction destroys  foliage and  ground
cover, resulting in erosion,  increased  sedimentation  and potentially
decreased water quality.
     3)  Increased use of motor-driven  boats and motor vehicle traffic
on land will probably result  in increased amounts of oil-based products
and heavy metals entering the lake.
     4)  Motor boat traffic may result  in incre?sed shoreline erosion.
     5)  Unaesthetic construction on and around the lake's shoreline
will detract from the natural quality and recreational value of the
lake area.
     One very important variable which  must be considered in evaluating
possible development around Lake Monroe is the opinion of those people
who use the Lake.  Wise  (1975) has surveyed opinions of users and found
                          1
significant expressions in favor of preserving the semi-natural quality
of the area.  Most users prefer swimming, camping, and boat fishing as
recreational activities.  A substantial plurality favored fewer condo-
miniums and houses around Lake Monroe than presently exist.  Facilities
which those interviewed did not desire included motels, sporting goods
stores, condominiums, houses, and boat ramps.  ATI but 3% found the
forest around the lake attractive.  The attribute which people like best
is the beauty of the lake.  The attributes ]_iked  least are the crowding
and facilities.  EQCC's conclusion about public opinion is that the type
                               6-46

-------
                                -10-
of development likely to be facilitated by placement of Bloomington's
sewage treatment plant at Lake Monroe (houses, condominiums,  commercial)
is precisely the type of development which Lake users do not  want.
Further, such development might destroy those aspects of the  Lake envir-
onment which the users appreciate the most (attractiveness, forests,
fishing) and exacerbate problems which they already perceive  (crowding
and facilities).
     EQCC is concerned that the necessary regional  planning does not
exist to control such effects on the lake's primary functions as those
listed above.  We therefore believe that development should not be
facilitated by placement of the plant at Salt Creek.  He recognize the
environmental value of removing present sources of effluent from the  lake,
but are not certain that this value overweighs the other negative effects
which potentially might result.

E.  Summary
     The Salt Creek site will require a longer and thus more  environ-
mentally disruptive outfall sewer than any of the Clear Creek sites.
A Clear Creek plant will produce effluent of higher quality than the
proposed Salt Creek plant, whose effluent will be outside legal limits
shortly after commencement of operation.  Hydrological considerations
indicate that a Salt Creek plant may periodically cause stream pollution.
Finally, the Salt Creek site is more likely than a Clear Creek site to
lead to unplanned development in the Lake Monroe area, with all the
environmental deterioration this, implies.  Because the environmental
costs of the Salt Creek site are obviously much higher than those of
                                6-47

-------
                                   -li-
the Dillman Road site, and because the economic  costs  are similar, the
Salt Creek site can be eliminated from further consideration.

IV.  Comparative Evaluation of jthe jjeiar J>§ek jj>i_tes
     Differences among the impacts of the  various ciearCreek sites on
the physical  environment are minor compared  with the difference in
impacts between any of the Clear Creek sites and the Salt Creek site.
The outfall sewer to the Dillman Road site would be a  little longer
than the force main from the southeast interceptor to  the Winston Thomas
or South Rogers Street sites, and the outfall  sewer to the Ketcham
Road site will be a little longer still.  On the other hand, if the
new plant is  not built at the Winston Thomas site, that site can be
converted to  a park, though the  South Rogers site  would use part of the
present site  and decrease the value  of a park  there.   Selection of the
Winston Thomas site may lead to  better re-use  of existing materials.
Thus, in terms of physical environmental impact, the only clear advan-
tage at this  point is that of Dillman Road over  Ketcham Road.   Given
its higher economic costs, also  the  Ketcham  Road site  can be eliminated
from further  consideration'.
     The major drawback to the present location  seems  to be the con-
struction disturbances and the possibility of  increased odors  in the
vicinity which is heavily populated, and the possible  need to  relocate
several households.  The Dillman Road site is  not  presently densely
populated and for topographic reasons dees not seem threatened by nearby
settlement.  EQCC finds that, while  all  the  Clear  Creek sites  seem
preferable to Salt Creek, we would rank Dill man  Road ahead of  Winston
Thomas/S. Rogers St. primarily for social  reasons.
                                6-48

-------
                                -12-
 V.  The Need for an Environmental  Impact Statement
     EQCC recommends that if the Salt  Creek Site is  selected,  EPA
should definitely prepare an EIS to investigate not  only the points
made above but also many other specific  points  concerning possible
routes for the outfall  sewer, the advisability  of sub-surface  injection
as a means of sludge disposal, and specific treatment  plans.  The issue
most difficult for us,  as citizens, to predict  and understand  about
the problem of site selection is the question of secondary impact of
development in the Lake Monroe Area.  EQCC recommends  that,  because of
the complexity of this  problem, major  efforts should be made by EPA
to predict, evaluate and Suggest solutions to these  secondary  impacts.
A list of points needing investigation in an EIS follows this  section.
Some members of EQCC believe that an EIS might  be desireable irrespective
of which site is chosen and so points  related to both  sites  are included
on the list.
1.  Environmental desirability of returning Clear Creek to its  pre-
                          i
Winston Thomas flow level  in order to restore the original  biota;
comparative study of Little Clear Creek biota might be made to  determine
if change has occurred.

2.  Extent of direct destruction of wildlife habitat by outfall  sewer
construction.

3.  Quantitative assessment of Clear Creek siltation which might be
caused by sewer construction; effect on Bedford drinking water.

4.  Extent of indirect environmental  degradation caused by outfall
                             6-49

-------
                               -13-
sewer construction due to  activities  by  the  work  crew  such  as
driving equipment into and out of right-of-way, parking  automobiles,
etc.

5.  Identification of those areas where  blasting  must  be done  and
assessment of the impact of the resulting fallout and  noise on
nearby wildlife habitat and cultural  areas,  e.g., Cedar  Bluffs,
Ketcham Road cemetery.

6.  Differentiation of sewage treatment  alternatives with respect
to effluent quality, especially between  alternatives 2A  and 3A in
Facilities Plan; analysis of economic-environmental  tradeoffs.

7.  Extent to which revegetation is necessary following  sewer con-
struction, how soon it must be done, and how likely it is to be
successful, given the area's hydrology;  differentiation  between degrees
of  erosion expected with and without revegetation.

8.  Environmental impact of overland sewer routing, including conside-
rations similar to those given above for creek bed routing.  Judgment
on  the advisability of building alternatives 3, 4, 5,  and LMRWD
Smithville-Clear  Creek force main.
9.  Reevaluation  of economic-environmental costs of outfall sewer alter-
natives for Salt  Creek site, expecially with respect to alternatives
2 vs.  5A; analysis of environmental tradeoffs of greater overland as
opposed to less creek bed  routing for alternative 5A; amount of eco-
nomic  difference  LMRWD might fund as their share of Little Clear Creek
sewer  to  have  a  plant on  Salt  Creek instead of Clear Creek.
                                 6-50

-------
                               -14-
10.  Description of biota of wildlife habitat to be destroyed  at
Ketcham Road and Salt Creek sites and determination of its  rarity.

11.  Measures to be taken to ensure that holding ponds,  etc.,  will
not be flooded.

12.  Environmental  assessment of possible landfill  and soil  injection
sites to determine potential for water pollution due to flooding  or
leaching after rainfall.

13.  Comparisons of degrees of buffering needed and possible for  various
sites and various treatment and disposal methods to shield  local  residents
and visitors to natural and cultural areas from noise, odor, and  ugli-
ness of sewage treatment.

14.  Assessment of tradeoffs between biotic-geologic costs  and social
costs, the latter accruing from #13 above and from forced relocations
at some of the sites.   (See also #23)

15.  Current aesthetic values of undeveloped sites.
                          i
16.  Comparative analyses of economies of land use for various sewage
treatment and sludge disposal alternatives.
17.  Size of the work crew required for construction, where they  will
commute from and what social costs they might impose on the community.

18.  Social benefits with respect to reducing unemployment  of con-
struction of plant.
                                  *
19.  Comparative analysis of energy and resources required  for various
site, treatment, and disposal alternatives.
                                6-51

-------
                                 - i o-
20.  Environmental  effects of travel  over,  entry to,  and exit from
right-of-way by maintenance crews.

21.  Precautions that must be taken  to  prevent  the creek from digging
through to the sewer at crossing  points;  effects of these precautions
on biota and flow characteristics;  impact of altered  flow character-
istics on downstream creek ecosystem.

22.  Impact of possible herbicide use during right-of-way maintenance
on environment, both directly on  biota  and  indirectly due to possible
water pollution this might cause.

23.  Surveys of local residents as  to what  impact they feel  the Winston
Thomas plant and its proposed expansion or  removal  to South  Rogers
Street has or will  have on their  lives; income  distribution  of resi-
dents so affected and assessment  of  their political  power.

24.  Environmental  benefits accruing  to Clear Creek sites due to
potential recreational  uses of Clear  Creek  resulting  from maintaining
its present flow level.
                          i
25.  Possibility that a regional  plan should be a prerequisite for
selection of the Salt Creek site.

26.  Total environmental  analysis of  the  effects of unplanned development
around Lake Monroe facilitated by the Salt  Creek site, including poten-
tial biotic, geologic, and social costs accruing from any destruction
of forest, degradation of the water supply, and increase in  population
                            6-52

-------
density and potential  social  gains accruing fro'm economic growth;
tradeoff analysis  of these  costs and gains.-
27.  Environmental  and economic costs and gains accruing from
sludge disposal  by means  of treating it and selling it as fertilizer.

28.  Determination of any upper "ceiling which geologic restrictions
may place on south-planning-area population and deduction of largest
sewage treatment design capacity that will ever be needed.

JCR/nan
                         Acknowledgements
     James Chiesa,  S.P.E.A.  graduate student, has permitted use of
portions of an unpublished manuscript as well as volunteering editorial
help.  The following  report  was  cited in the text:
     Wise, Charles.   1975.   User preserences of policy alternatives:
        the case of recreational  user attitudes toward development
        and regulation  at Lake Monroe,  Indiana.  School of Public and
        Environmental Affairs Occasional Papers, No. 4.
   Soil' Survey, 1973.   Interim Soil  Survey, Vol. 2,  Information
and  Interpretation, Blooinington, Indiana.  U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,  Purdue Uni-versity.
                                 6-53

-------
                         APPENDIX






     Brief synopsis of items discussed during  Environmental




Quality and Conservation Commission meetings which pertain to




Lake Monroe, water quality,  and the sewage treatment plant.
                           6-54

-------
HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION'S INVOLVEMENT WITH LAKE MONROE
                       Based on 1972 minutes

May 10 -- reported that Rod Crafts and Barbara Restlc would travel to
Indianapolis to speak with John Cregor, an attorney who is the foremost
leading authority in the country on riparian rights, about the City's
power to control development in Lake Monroe,  The Water'Quality Commit-
tee wished to issue a warning about the possibility of Inland Steel
encroaching upon Lake Monroe and requested the Commission's support and
approval for enlisting the aid of other groups in the effort.  A motion
was made and approved that The Water Quality Committee should accumulate
as much factual information as they can before the next Commission
meeting with their suggestions as to what action the Commission can
take respecting Lake Monroe,

July 12 -- The resolution on Lake Monroe development was read and David
Docauer presented a background report on the resolution.  He said that
the resolution was^beginning step in seeking protection for Lake Monroe,
The vote was unanimous,  John Patton directed that the absent members be
polled to ensure a majority giving approval,

August 9 -- A notion made that: The Commission reques'' the City of Bloom-
ington to name a representative to sit in on the final hearing of the
Department of Natural Resources; to request from Inland Steel's attorney
a copy of the plans to be made available as soon as possible; and a
representative be named to appear at the hearing of the Stream Pollution
Control Board on Tuesday, August 15, 1972,  Whitehead offered an amendment
asking that Inland Steel give the plans of their development  within the
drainage basin of Lake Monroe and that they also name a representative
to come before the Commission to discuss the development.  The motion and
amendment were approved unanimously,

October 11 -«• Dick Hilliker, Representative of Inland Siael Development
Corp,, presented maps, gave a report on a proposed development around
Lake Monroe and discussed the development proposal with the Commission
and the audience,  A Water Quality Committee report submitted by Docauer
was accepted,  Donald ^Hiitehead and David Docauer agreed to write a
letter to the Stream Pollution Control Board and the University on
behalf of the Commission  stating their views on the ISDC's plans,

November 8 — Ted Najam, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor, read
a statement from the Office of the Mayor concerning the proposed Position
Paper prepared by David Docauer and Donald Whitehead on land development
around Lake Monroe; the present state of Lake Monroe and a projection
of its future in relation to presently proposed developments and future
developments.  The statement basically said that the Commission should
not make such statements without making it clear that it is not necessarily the
position of the City and "A statement of this kind with such broad
ramifications should be made only after there has been broad partici-
pation by all those City departments and commissions which have something
to contribute,"  Discussion followed, and some changes were made on
the position paper.  The paper was approved.  It was decided that Don
Whitehead would represent the Commission before the Common Council,

December 13 -- Donald Whitehead reported that the Common Council passed
a resolution accepting and concurring in the Commission's Position Paper,
Bron added that at the end of the discussion a suggestion was made by         '
Council President ChaMotte Zietlow for the formation of a body to look

                                   6-55

-------
into the ecological  factors that concern the lake and the long range
view.  Chairman Patton would contact  Zietlow to  request that the
Commission be included in such a body if it was  not already  constituted.
                                  6-56

-------
   SUMMARY OP ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION'S INVOLVEMENT WITH LAKE MONROE
                           Based on 1973 minutes

January 10 — The Commission's draft statement.on the Black and Veatch report
was presented.  In the discussion that followed, it was brought out that there
would be federal funding but the City does not require an impact statement,
Dave Rogers(President of the Board of Works)  said he worked with the Black and
Veatch Report and thought the comments of the statement appropriate.  Cn finding
Number two (Monroe Reservoir) he felt the comments were well taken, but said
that Black and Veatch were only asked to do a bare bones study so the report
does not take into account the impact of increased development.   The construc-
tion of waste water facilities would of necessity require federal grants,  which
would in turn require an impact study, though that study would be directed
primarily toward alerting the public rather than binding any specific agen cy
to a set course of action.  Mr. Rogers said also that Lake Monroe Reservoir  would
not provide all of Bloomingtcn's future water need.  The city plans to continue
to develop dependencies on Griffey Creek-Bean Blossom, though  dependence  on
Lake Monroe would continue to be very important.  He added that the state  makes
a good profit from the city of Bloomington bv providing the water from the
Lake Monroe Reservoir and that the state owed the city considerable consideration
in protecting the security of that  water supply.
Barbara Heise asked if Mr. Rogers thought the tertiary xreatment facilities
should be funded immediately.  He acknowledged the need and said the city  would
file for both federal and local funds, but he warned that the costs would  be
astronomical.  Mr. Spencer asked whether effluent from the .treatment plant was
delivered to Salt Creek below the dan, and whether any study had been made on
plans to deliver processed water in the same  area where the sewage system  is
proposed.  Mr. Rogers said that the sewage plant was in one of the areas which
the Public Service Commission had currently given to one of the rural water
corporations and that the outflow main that goes down through Clear Creek  actually
goes through a no man's land where there is currently no allocation of responsi-
bility.  Mr. Bron asked about future additional  water sources besides Lake Monroe
Rogers said that Griffey Creek-Bean Blossom was  not delivering the high quality
water it could if the treatment system were improved.  He expected that once
improved, the city could receive good water from it at a price below that  the
city is paying to the state for water from Lake  Monroe,  Mr. Cron asked what
population was projected by fiat plan and Mr. Rogers answered that it ought  to
be done just on the basis of present population  because of the high price  the
city is paying for Lake Monroe water.  To meet projected need both systems would
have to be improved, and the plant on Lake Monroe doubled.  Mr Bron said it  was
his personal feeling that, in view of the high taxes to be paid by city
residents:, it was not unreasonable to ask that whatever development occurs be
controlled so that it doesn't damage the lake.  My Rogers answered that he
didn't think there was any conflict with that, but he was not sure whether the
government had the current ability to control development.  Barbara Heise  asked
if it wasn't true that the city has virtually no control over development.  Mr.
Rogers responded affirmatively saying the city really could only make hopeful
statements.
Mr. Docauer spoke about the Griffey Creek Reservoir saying that it has good
quality water because it is well forested, but the quantity is insufficient.
He had little personal knowledge of Bean Blossom, but had heard it was very
turbid and hard to process.  He doubted if it would serve if the population
increased.  He said some of tho mistakes in the Black and Veatch Report had
not been corrected.  His comments were: I, That all growth projected in the
report until 19^0 occurring within Bloomington was unlikcly--much should occur
outside the city.  2. That more growth would occur in the city than in the
county was also unlikely.  3, The overloaded south plant was designed for
7,000,000 gallons whereas before the Commission was told 10,000,000.

                                   6-57

-------
4. The tertiary treatment facilities  need  to  be placed now.   Sometimes tertiary
lagoons cause problenis--high algae  growth  causes secondary pollution.   No  sure
method exists to remove the algae by  sedimentation  a.id the city  ought  to con-
sider this.  In response to Barbara Heise's question  as to whether tertiary
lagoons were the method of tertiary treatment now in  use, Mr.  Docauer  said
there were other methods (electrolysis,  chemicals)  depending  on  the purpose of
the tertiary treatment.
Chairman Patton suggested an amendment to  the wording of the  statement of  the
effect that "all future additional  water needs must cone from Monroe Reservoir"
be changed to "and much of the foreseeable future additional  water need of
Bloomington must come from the Monroe Reservoir."  The motion was accepted and
the amendment adopted.

February 14 -- George Walkenshaw, of  the City's Utilities Department,  spoke
about the problems facing the City's  other sources  of water,  Lake Lemon and
Lake Griffey.  He pointed out that  the City was never able to utilize  fully
Lake Lemon water because tt has_to  flow down  a creek  ten miles before  it  is
collected and rcpunped to the Griffey Water Treatment Plant,  a facility which
was never designed to treat a water with a high turbidity content.  Thus,  in
the past year the city has only been  able  to  use Yfater taken  directly  out  of the
Griffey Reservoir,  He mentioned that water from Lake Monroe  was costing the
city about three million dollars a  day.  It would be  Black and Veatch's
recommendation to expand and remodel  the Griffey Water Treatment Plant so  that
the water from Lake Lemon could be  fully utilized.  This would involve extensive
settling and floculation facilities because of the  sludge problem.  He knew of
no perfect solution to the dewatering of alum plant sludge, but  said,  the  City
is presently constructing some pave drying beds frori  which the sludge  could
be scraped after it has been dried  by mechanical equipment, then hauled off
and buried in land fills.  Other methods arc  under  investigation.  Other
problems included storm water entering the South Sanitary Treatment Plant, and
the plant is a dry ditch situation  allowing little  oxidation  of  the organic
material in the stream thereby causing odor.   He then spoke on solutions ancl a
discussion followed.
     The Water Quality Committee introduced a resolution to support the Lake
Shore Protection Bill now in the state legislature.  The Bill would give  the
Natural Resources Commission the right to  review, all  development within two
miles of state owned or managed reservoirs.   Docauer  remarked that the purpose
of the Bill was to make the NRC into  a kind of Plan Commission for the lake
which would examine all aspects of  planning.   The Stream Pollution Control
Board presently hasn't the power to do this and neither does  the NRC.   Cor-
poration-owned land within the Monroe watershed is about 33OO acres, all but
about 600 acres inside the two mile area.   The Bill gives the NRC
power to make decisions which it previously was not able to make.

March 21 —Barbara Restle of the Water Quality Committee, presented a  prelimi-
nary report on a sedimentation survey of Lake Monroe.  Since  the area  is under-
going rapid change, it is necessary to start  now to obtain accurate records of
the sedimentation rate, which is thought by the Army  Corp of  Engineers to  have
a worse effect on a reservoir than  sewage  or  industrial pollution.  The Corp may
not survey Lake Monroe for 4 to 5 years and the only  soil surveys of the area
now are based on a 1922 study.  A recconnaissance stxidy of the Lake is in  order.
now to determine roughly what the rate might  be, especially since the  original
surveys were made with no projected Change in the land use around the  reservoir.
A motion was made for the Commission  "to encourage the City to take cooperative
action with the county as soon as possible to get the Corps of Engineers to
make a recconnaissance sedimentation  study of Lake Monroe at  its earliest  pos-
sible opportunity in view of the probable  effects of  the proposed developments
around the lake,"


                                   6-58

-------
May 9 -- Barbara Hci.se reminded the Commission of the position it had taken
last year, that in the absence of good regional planning, massive development
around Lake Monroe was unwarranted.  Since that time, Inland Steel has been
given its nearly final approval to build.  Heise noted that the county zoning
ordinance would be having public hearings during the summer and urged Commis-
sioners to attend these meetings to' defend tighter controls for the two mile
fringe.  Jan Biar.chi indicated that a representative of the Army Corps of
Engineers had indicated that the Corps may not be favorably disposed to issuing
a permit to Inland.

June 13 —A letter from the Army Corps of Engineers said that the Corps planned
to resurvey the Lake, completing the other range installations, in 1977.  In
the meantime a preliminary survey would be conducted and the results would be
communicated to the City.  The letter added that the Corps did not fear a
potential reduction of the lifespan of the lake due to sedimentation even
though studies of otl.cr reservoirs indicate that initial projections of that rate
are incorrect,  Bianchi suggested, in light of Senator Dayh's recent disapproval
of the Indianapolis Heservoir project, that the Commission could exercise a lit-
tle more force in pursuit of a survey.  More pressure could be brought to bear
upon the Corps at least to get a study on track for 1977*  Bron argued that
1V77 may well be too late because the dcvelopnent around the Lake appears to be
irninent.  Heise asked what results could be expected from a preliminary survey.
In response Barbara nestle, new chairwoman of the Water Quality Committee,
indicated that such a survey would probably be quite trivial.  A comprehensive
survejr is quite complex and must give an indication of where the sedimentation
is coning fror:, not just iiow nuch deposition there is.  Such information would
be necessary in order to design sedimentation basins to protect the reservoir
from further sedimentation.  Responding to a question of the cost of such a
study, Fix estimated around 020,000.  He thought the Commission  should
ascertain the estimate cost and then go directly to Washington for the appro-
priation.  Bron agreed that the City has much to lose should it not pursue this
course.  Patton proposed that the Commission take initial steps to carry out
Fix's proposal by seeking a cost estimate.
     The Environmental Commission has been asked by the Plan Staff, to appoint
a member to attend meetings at Purdue on the ramifications and possible uses of
the information gathered by the Skylab experiments over Lake Monroe,
     Bianchi reported that Inland Steel had still not accepted the restric-
tions placed upon then by the Stream Pollution Control Board and were not on
the agenda for the June meeting.  In another development, the proposed county
zoning ordinance has been amended to provide that no development visible from
the shores of Lake Monroe would be permitted, and to require drainage and
erosion controls around the lake.  This amendment will be discussed June 14,
and could use the support of all Commissioners.  Bron added that the Forest
Service had also decided to deny permits to cross Forest Service land with
utility pipelines until a regional plan is devised.  Heise pointed out that this
would have particular significance for Granves-Monroe and Inland Steel.

July 11 -- Assistant City Planner, Stu Heller, and Dr. David Frey reported on
the Lake Monroe-Skylab project and its possible ramifications  for environ-
mental concerns.
     Bianchi reported that the estimated cost of a sedimentation survey of
Lake Monroe is $24,000 for a resurvey of the existing ranges,  and 320,000
to complete the range installations.  The Corps said its preliminary study
scheduled for July should give a reasonable indication of the  scdirient in the
project now.  In light of Barbara Restle's opinion that  it is  more important to
know where the sediment is cor.iing  from, such a preliminary study would pro-     >
bably not help rr.uch, added Hianchi.  She pointed out that Sen. Bayh sits on
tli c iiiDremriftfcioas.CoBinitteo and coyld be contacted  for help in this matter.

                                  6-59

-------
The initial response from the Mayor's office,  she reported,  was a willingness
to pursue the request in Washington,  asking that the appropriations be nade now,
rather than in 1977.

September 12 — Ted Najam discussed the letter,  sent to Birch Dayh, concerning
a sedimentation study of Lake Monroe.  He explained that an  earlier letter
had been sent to the Louisville District Army  Corp of Engineers in reference
to the study.  Their reply was that they could give only a quick visual esti-
mate at this time,  but that funds for an in-depth study would not be available
until 1977,  Sen. Bayh explained that the 1974 appropriations bill for the Corps
has already been passed by Congress arid therefore it is impossible to amend
it for such a large amount.  He expressed his  desire to work with the City in
getting appropriations for this study during the next funding session.  This
would make the study possible 2 to 3  years earlier than predicted and in
this sense he was encouraging.
     In reference to the Department of Utilities'  proposal to close Lake Lemon
as a water supply,  Marcia Gelpe replied that the Water Quality Committee has
begun to look into  the proposal and tactics that could be used to clean up
Lake Lemon,  They expressed their feeling to the City's Utilities "oaru.  The
reasons for closing have to do with estimates  of renovating  the facility
compared to the cost of Lake Monroe,  volume of \/ater and the plant.  Patton
cc .im en ted that several inversti gations are taking place,  one  of which is a
sedimentation report and he assumed the decision won't be made until the
information is in,
October 1O — The Water Quality Corr.ni tteo has bpen studying the ^rob] en of
spills of raw sewage into Salt Creek from the Nashville Sewage Plant and sent
a letter to the County Commissioners of Crown County asking that a joint
meeting be set up to discuss the source of the problem as well as possible
solutions.  The Commission agreed to send a letter to the Crown County Com-
missioners endorsing the idea of a joint meeting and asking to be kept informed
on the progress on solving the problem.

November 14 -- Dennis King presented a report concerning the meeting of the
Lake Monroe Regional Waste District Board and City Utilities Service Board
and a request of the Water Quality Committee submitted for an additional
hearing on an environmental assessment hearing to determine the environmental
effects of the regional sewer treatment plant that is goir-g to be constructed
by the City Utilities Service Board and of the diversion system that will be
put in by the LMRVD3.  The Water Quality Committee said that the LMRWDB had
not filed any information prior to the meeting in conjucction with regulations
that the EPA has stated and therefore did not give the public a 30-day notice
to study the information.  The outcome of a request that they hold another
meeting was a letter which indicated that another meeting would not be held,
but they would put some information on file and answer questions, if there
are any.  A motion was made by the Environmental Commission and approved  that
a hearing be held at the regular December Environmental Commission meeting with
the Utilities Service Board and their engineers answering questions from the
Commission and the public.  In addition, the LMRWBD and the Monroe County Plan
Commission were requested to attend.  Barbara Rcstle stresi;ed the interrela-
tedness of these two projects in the Water Quality Committee report.

December 12 — see attached minutes.
                                   6-60

-------
      HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION'S INVOLVEMENT WITH LAKE MONROE
                              Based on 197^ minutes

February 13 — Barbara Restle read . the minutes of the last Water Quality
monthly meeting.  In short, it said there waa concern on the part of many members
that an environmental impact statement should be requested by the committee
that would deal with the effects of the new sewage plant in greater detail.  A
working subcommittee was formed to study the assessment hearings held by the
USB.  It was hoped that this subcommittee would reach a conclusion on the course
of action the Water Quality Committee should pursue.   No questions or comments
were added.
Restle presented to the Commission a summary of the considerations from the sub-
committee.   She said the summary was by no means complete.   The  two considera-
tions presented were in the areas of population data projections for Monroe
County and problems with the treatment p-lant site and outfall sewer.  Patton
recommended that these comments, if approved by the Commission,  should become
part of the December 12^ meeting,  Restle agreed but added that  more considera-
tions than these two are being questioned.  Restle stated that,  although
the population data appears complete in the assessment it is not.  Dennis King
explained that one of the first considerations to be included in an assessment
is a description of the effect of population distribution concentration on any
growth that might occur if the project is undertaken.  He said that, with that
in mind, the subcommittee went through the Infiltration and Inflow Study and
the hearing record for the October 25- environmental  assessment  hearing and
the December 12^ information meeting to determine what RSH Associates had done
in regard to population projections.  King said his impression was that the
statistics used in the assessment had projections to 1980-1990 based on the
census of 1950-1960,  If it is based on these years there would  be no influence
from the lake on the extraurban area because the lake was not constructed
until 19^3?  King said that the alternatives to the temporary plant site were
not mentioned with regards to growth in different volumes and directions.  He
said the Water Quality Committee is recommending further study.   Heise asked
if the Water Quality Committee was asking for an environmental impact statement.
King replied that at this time they are n6t asking fcr an environmental impact
statement but only trying to point out subjects that are not adequately investi-
gated.  Patton summed up King's comments by saying that the population projection
studies are not adequate and the effect of the waste water disposal plant on
changes in population have not been assessed at all.   King's final comment pointed
out that if the population projections have not been adequately  looked into
one can not design capacity of a plant properly,  A copy of these questions will
be sent to the USB and EPA administrators.  The Commission voted unanimously to
forward them.
Jim Ferro reported that at the last monthly meeting of the Water Quality commit-
tee another working group was formed composed of Jim Pres,  David Docauer, and
himself.  This working group will investigate the effects of construction
activities around Lake Monroe with regards to water run-off.  The second major
project the working group is considering is one concerning Lake  Lemon.  This
would involve sampling the shoreling during a rainy period to measure runoff,

April 10 -- Jim Ferro said the water sampling project which is being planned to
test the quality of the run-off in the Lake Monroe watershed is  being organized
and should be underway soon.

September 11 -- An ad hoc committee consisting of Rick Peoples,  Dave Parkhurst,
Rick Darby, and Barbara Heise agreed to study the USB report on  the Long Range
Plan Water Supply and Distribution Facilities for Bloonington, IN.
Rick Darby gave his report on Lako Vonroe.  This report concerned the legal
standing; how can a reservoir outside of the city boundaries be  controlled and
what is the relationship of the Commission to that lake, and whether there is

                                     6-61

-------
anything the Commission can look into  other than water  quality itself.

September 25 — Barbara Restle said that  interests  in the  Water Quality Committee
are too broad.   There are Legal problems,  bacteriological  problems,  limnological
problems, sedimentary problems, and more.   The committee needs to  form  subcommit-
tees and she asked for suggestions  on  restructuring.

November 13 —  Rick Darby gave a report on Lake Monroe.  Ho  said that Lake
Monroe is a large interest requiring tremendous work.   There is no way  one
person can provide the Commission with enough information  for the  Commission
to feel it is in control with the situation.  He has therefore arranged with
Professor Vhite in the Law School for  students to receive  credit for participa-
ting in a project designed to prepare  a paper or pamphlet  which would ade-
quately describe the jurisdiction of various governmental  bodies over Lake
Monroe, interaction and jurisdiction between this commission and the City,
of Bloonington  in those various bodies and the rights
                              generally given to individuals in Indiana in the
Environmental field.  Rick feels with  this help, by the first of the year, a
comprehensive and fairly clear statement  of exactly where  the Commission stands
can be provided.  He then went on to state the legal proceedure the  Commission
wouid have to go through if it was  to  take action and suggestions  the Commission
should consider.  Walter Bron asked if Rick had a specific group in  mind other
than Water Quality,  Rick said no.   Rick  Peoples gave a report on  the status
of the Water Quality Committee.  The first meeting  was  held.  Only four people
showed up but only one was interested  in  participation.
                                       6-62

-------
CITY
                       OF
BLOOMINGT
                                                          N
          PO BOX 100, MUNICIPAL BLDG., BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA  47401
                                                           'Environmental Commissic
June 5, 1975
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch
United States Environmental
   Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:

The Environnental Quality and Conservation Commission of
Bloomington would like to amntend  its  "Recommendations of the
Environmental Quality and Conservation Commission  on the Siting
of the Proposed Bloomington Sewage Treatment Facilities."   The
report has been sent to you within the past week.

The amendment takes the form of clarification  of some of the
points made in the original "Recommendations"  and  additional
points which we raise in the hope that they will be addressed
in the forthcoming Environnental  Impact Statement.  These  addi-
tional items stem primarily from  the  discussions which  occurred
during the Environmental Assessment Hearing held in Bloomington
on May 29.

The amendment is enclosed.

Sincerely yours,
./I
W. E. 3ron, Chairman
Bloonington Environmental Quality
and Conservation Coninission

VED/1!-
                                6-63

-------
               Amendment  to  the  "Recommendations  of  the




       Environmental  Quality and Conservation  Commission  (EQCC)




                     on the  Siting  of  the  Proposed




               Bloomington Sewage Treatment Facilities"









1.  Comparison of the Effluent Quality Effects between the  Salt.  Creek




     Site and Any of  the  Clear Creek Sites.







     Discussion during the May 29,  1975 Environmental Assessment Hearing




     brought out the  point that  current requirements on effluent,  based




     on the dilution  capacity of the receiving stream, may  not  (or may)




     be changed in the future to meet  the  19?'3 goals stated in Public




     Law 92-500.  If  the  requirements  are  not  increased,  then clearly the




     one-stage Salt Creek plant  could  continue to be in compliance with




     the legal requirements. In any event, however, as regards  full  cost




     effectiveness, a Clear  Creek plant is more cost effective than the




     Salt Creek plant, because the  former  would discharge a higher quality




     effluent for the same cost. Moreover, with  regard to  future stan-




     dards, a Clear Creek plant  would  discharge an effluent more clearly




     in the spirit of Public Law 92-5OO than would the Salt Creek plant.







2.  The EQCC recommends that every  effort  be made to consider construction




     of a plant at the Dillman Road site without  relocating Clear Creek.




     An amount of about $1.3 million has been  estimated by  Black and




     Veatch for the cost  of  relocating the creek. An additional Si million




     appears to have  been included  for aligning the  plant to fit the site




     after relocation of  the creek. It appears to the EQCC that for
                                 6-64

-------
     $2.3 million (and probably for considerably less),  a«w«r  link*  can




     be built between components of the facility which would need to be




     located on either side of the creek.   We  request that  the EIS con-




     sider the environmental consequences  of relocating  the creek com-




     pared with the construction of sewer  links, and also the  relative




     cost effectiveness of these alternatives.






3.  At the Environmental Assessment Hearing, Black and Veatch  claimed




     that the need for vacuum drying of sludge  at the Dillman  Road site




     results from the lack of two to three level acres of land needed to




     build drying beds.  The relative additional cost for vacuum  drying




     over drying beds is projected to be 51 million (projected worth).




     This additional expenditure is assessed only on the Dillman  Road




     site.  A study of a geodetic map of the site suggests  that the




     required two to three acres of land are available,  even if the




     Black and Veatch layout is adhered to. In any event,  it  appears to




     the EQCC that the required acreage can be  constructed  for consider-




     ably less than the incremental Si million.  The EQCC requests that




     this cost differential be investigated.






4.  The EQCC questions the need for an additional amount of 3lOO,OOO




     yearly attached by Black and Veatch to the labor costs  at  any of the




     Clear Creek sites compared to the Salt Creek site.  The only explana-




     tion of this amount given by Black and Veatcli to date  is  that the




     Clear Creek sites do not require nore personnel but, rather, higher




     quality personnel.  Since Black and Veatch has stated  that the  com-




     plexity of operation is the sane at all sites, the  EQCC fails to
                                   6-65

-------
understand the basis for this incremental assessment against the




Clear Creek sites.  The EQCC requests that this cost differential




also be investigated.
                           6-66

-------
                    MVmONNENTAI. PROTBCTIOI1 A8EMCY
                          RECEIVED
                           .;--.!i02lS75
                     PLANNING BRANCH
              RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE


ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION


           ON THE SITING OF THE PROPOSED


    BLOOMINGTON SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
                 6-67

-------
        RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
    AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION ON THE SITING OF THE PROPOSED
         BLOOMINGTON SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES

1.  General Background
     Almost since its inception during the spring of 1972 the Environ-
mental Quality and Conservation Commission (EQCC) has been studying
the environmental aspects of the placement of a new waste-water treat-
ment facility in southern Bloomington.  This is demonstrated by the
record of the EQCC meetings, whichis summarized in the Appendix.   The
EQCC has discussed the siting of the facilities during many civic
meetings, has supported several pertinent studies, and has participated
in studies carried out by others.   We have presented recommendations
and relevant information to the citizens of Bloomington, to the Common
Council, to various members of the City Administration, and to State and
Federal officials.,  Relying on these experiences and the understanding
we have gained from them, we present this report as our analyses  of
the environmental factors associated with the siting of the proposed
facilities.
     From an environmental perspective, there are two major siting
options:  the proposed Salt Creek site and the alternative sites  on
upper Clear Creek.  Possible alternative sites mentioned to date  include
the present Winston Thomas site and sites on South Rogers Street, on
Dill man Road, and on Ketcham Road.
                              6-68

-------
                                 -c-
II.  Recommendations
     Based e»f» their community involvement referred to above and on
their professional expertise in such areas as physics, chemistry, eco-
logy, and soil science, the members of the EQCC have unanimously con-
cluded that all of the Clear Creek sites are environmentally preferable
to the Salt Creek site.  Of the Clear Creek sites, the EQCC believes
that the total environmental impact of construction and operation at
the Dillman Road site will  be the least.  Therefore, the EQCC recommends
that the treatment facility be placed at the Dillman Road site.  This
report will present our reasons for this recommendation;  first, the
environmental issues differentiating all of the Clear Creek sites from
Salt Creek; second, the environmental and social  issues which differ-
entiate Dillman Road from Winston-Thomas and South Rogers St.  There
are four main reasons for selection of a Clear Creek Site:
     a.  The terrestrial and aquatic destruction involved in running
         the outfall sewer to Salt Creek will be avoided.
     b.  The level of effluent quality from the Clear Creek sites will
         be greater.
                          i
     c.  The Salt Creek site is within the floodplain of Salt Creek,
         directly below the spillway at the reservoir and located on
         a soil type known to be subject to waterlogging. (see Soil Survey)
     d.  The possibility of adverse secondary effects of facilitated
         development at Lake Monroe because of placement at Salt Creek
         will be less severe.
The primary considerations differentiating Dillman Road from Winston
Thomas/St. Rogers St. are the adverse aesthetic impact of a wastewater
treatment facility placed in the more densely populated areas and the
                               6-6.9

-------
                                  -3-
social impact of relocation of several  families living in a trailer
park on the proposed site.

III.  Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Clear Creek_a_n_d
      Salt Creek Siting

A.  Outfall Sewer Effects
      Locating the waste-water treatment plant at the distant Salt
Creek site requires a long outfall sewer.  There are five alternative
sewer routes from Blo:mington to that site:
      (1)  under Clear Creek;
      (2)  along Clear Creek, but higher upon the banks and slicing
          across the creek's bends;
      (3)  as in  (2), but  using a force main to cut across the broad
          westerly  bend of the creek;
      (4)  along Clear Creek to the Ketcham Road area, then across the
          hills via a force main to  lower Little Clear Creek, then
          south along Little Clear Creek and Clear Creek;
      (5)  as in  (4), but  to upper Little Clear Creek.,
The proposed outfall sewers to the Ketcham Road and Dillman Road-sites
follow  route  (?) above, but for much shorter distances.  Both the South
Rogers  Street and Winston Thomas sites would require 9000 ft. force
mains running up the Clear Creek bed from the proposed southeast inter-
ceptor  sewer.   It should  also be noted that, should the Lake Monroe
Regional  Waste  District decide to have its wastewater treated at a
Bloomington  Clear Creek facility, a  force main running overland from
                               6-70

-------
                                 -4-
from Smithville to the Clear Creek bed will  have to be built.
     Outfall sewer construction and maintenance will have detrimental
environmental effects; the longer the sewer is, the worse these effects
will be.  These effects can result from earth-moving during construction
and may also include permanent environmental damage caused by right-
of-way clearance and maintenance.  All of these effects are magnified
by the proximity of a natural area, Cedar Bluffs.  Following is a
more detailed consideration of these factors.
                                                 p  ^
     The right-of-way for construction of sewer alternative (2), which
is the one  recommended by Black & Veatch, is 100 feet wide and about
60,000 feet  long.  An area of six million square feet will thus be
subjected to physical abuse.  A trench averaging twelve feet deep will
be dug down  the length of this right-of-way.  Much of the 4.3 million
cubic feet  of earth that will have to be removed is limestone, which
will have to be blasted out.  Some of this spoil will be bulldozed and
graded to level the right-of-way for maintenance access.  It is rather
difficult to believe that bulldozing and blasting on this scale could
be done with an eye to "limiting environmental disruption" (Black &
                          <
Veatch, p.  X-16).  It is more reasonable to believe that construction
activity will result in the destruction of much terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife habitat, in addition to impairing the stream's aesthetic value.
     Despite the promise to grade and reseed "as soon as practicable,"
it may work out that, considering the frequency of rain and flash-
flooding in the area, erosion may set in before vegetative cover does.
In the case of alternative  (3), erosion may also result from unrevege-
tated sewer line easements  in the hills above the creek.  In any case,
the resultant siltation of  the stream could have an effect on the aquatic

                                6-71

-------
                                   -5-
biota more permanent that  that  caused  by  sewer construction  itself.
     The EQCC also has  reservations  about the effects of  the twenty-odd
creek crossings proposed under  alternatives  (1)  and  (2).  The provisions
for keeping the line from  being dug  up by the action of the  stream are
not described in the Black &  Veatch  report.  This makes it impossible
to comment on them specifically except to hypothesize that there may
be permanent changes in the substrate  of  the creek which  could affect
stream biota, flow characteristics,  and aesthetics adversely.
     Though specific techniques for  right-of-way maintenance have not
been described by Black &  Veatch,  usual procedures involve defoliation
with herbicides.  This  would  constitute a chronic perturbation to the
immediate and neighboring  wildlife habitat as well as a possible source
of pollution from runoff.
     Another problem is the proximity  of  the Cedar Bluffs area to the
Clear Creek sewer route.   Sewer construction and maintenance could affect
the integrity of this area through the resultant noise, dust, and impair-
ment.  While the sewer  does not pass through the area, alternatives
place the line just across the  creek from it.  On the basis  of the above
                          5
considerations, the EQCC recommends  that  the important potential negative
environmental effects of the  outfall sewer be minimized by minimizing
the length of the sewer, subject to  constraints  described below.

B.  Effluent Quality Effects
     The Salt Creek facility  is to be  a one-stage plant,  while current
state water quality standards require  that a Clear Creek  plant, because
of the low dilution capacity  of the  receiving stream, be  a two-stage
                               6-72

-------
                                 -6-
plant.  A one-stage plant is somewhat more susceptible to rapid
changes in plant variables such as water volume than  a two-stage  plant.
Rapid changes in water volume do occur in the  Bloomington area  during  the
summer.  It is conceivable that at that time a one-stage  plant  could
discharge improperly treated effluent.
     More importantly, however, a one-stage plant  will  be unable  to
discharge effluent of a quality high ehough to meet the standards
currently required for 1983 by Public Law 92-500.   Yet the Black  &
Veatch study which judges the cost effectiveness of the Salt  Creek
and Dillman Road sites to be similar assumes a one-stage  plant  at the
Salt Creek site.  The EQCC questions the rationale behind a twenty-
year cost effectiveness study predicated on water quality standards that
will be superseded by more stringent ones after only  five years.   Clearly,
with respect to present water quality standards, a Dillman Road plant
would be more cost effective than a Salt Creek plant, because the former
would discharge a higher quality effluent for  the same cost;  with respect
to future standards, a cost effectiveness study would have to consider
fines the City might have to pay due to the emi.ssion  of an illegal
effluent by a Salt Creek plant.  The EQCC concludes that, environmentally,
and legally, a two-stage plant is better than  a one-stage plant and
that, economically, a two-stage plant at Dillman Road is  better than  a
two-stage plant at Salt Creek.
     An added benefit of a Clear Creek site with the  relatively clean
effluent it is required to discharge is the potential recreational use
of Clear Creek as a canoe stream.  Such areas  are not abundant around
Bloomington.  If the Salt Creek site is chosen, the flow in Clear Creek
                                6-73

-------
                                     -7-
will be too low to permit its use for this  purpose.

C.  Hydrological Effects
     The proposed method of sludge disposal  at the Salt  Creek  site is
subsurface soil injection over an area comprising most of the  site.
During the spring rains of 1975, this area  was heavily waterlogged.  The
EQCC cautions that sludge injection into land which is subject to
periodic leaching by rain water, and which  abuts major receiving streams,
may result in periodic large influxes of nutrients, untreated  heavy
metals, and other matter into the streams.   It should be noted that this
creek water is a water source for Bedford,  only thirteen miles down-
stream.  These problems are not addressed in the facilities plan.
     These possible detrimental hydrological effects may be exacerbated
by the location of the Salt Creek site within a 100-year flood plain.
Until flood-plain alterations potentially caused by the  Lake Monroe
dam are known, it would be wise to require  that the facility's constr-
uction plans include safeguards to prevent  discharge, leakage, or
leaching of untreated wastes from the plant area into the creeks during
periods of high water.    »

D.  Secondary Effects of Unplanned Development in the Lake Monroe Area.
     Another major concern of the EQCC is the possible adverse effect
on  the Lake Monroe area resulting from development in the lake's
watershed stimulated by the placement of the treatment facility at
Salt Creek.  We anticipate this facilitation because, according to
         92-500
Public Law /  development cannot occur without suitable wastewater
treatment.  While the dollar costs to Bloomington at Dillman Road or
                                6-74

-------
Salt Creek are similar, the cost to LMRWD*IS much less  if the Bloom-
ington Plant is at Salt Creek.  The advantage of this  Salt Creek  hookup
is that several existing sources of effluent will be removed  from the
lake.  This is the main environmental  benefit of this  arrangement.
This is balanced by the possibility that cheaper sewage treatment will
permit more rapid development than would otherwise occur.  In principle
the development of private living structures and even  commercial  ones,
need not lead to the deterioration of the lake region,  providing  that
sufficient planning controls and enforcement procedures are established
and maintained.  No such planning structures and controls exist in the
region at this time.  The Lake Monroe Land Suitability Study recently
carried out is not intended to guarantee the planning needed in the
area although it can serve as background for the development of such
a plan.  In view of this situation EQCC is evaluating potential environ-
mental effects based on recent and current planning and construction
methods.
     The EQCC considers the primary functions of Lake Monroe to be
1)  flood control water impoundment, 2)  a recreational resource,
3)  a major source of domestic water for the City of Bloomington  and its
environs.  It is the potential deterioration of these functions of the
lake with which we are concerned.  In addition, much of the land  around
the lake presently has an undisturbed, natural quality which is important
in and of itself and also as  it enhances the recreational value of the
whole region.
     Development without a regional land use plan and construction
 practice regulations  potentially could  detract from the  functions  listed

 "Lake  Monroe Ueflional  Waste District
                                    6-75

-------
                                   -y-
above in the f61 lowing ways:
     1)  Conversion of privately owned  natural  areas  into  develop-
ments which will  decrease the amount of natural  landscape  for aesthetic,
wildlife and recreational use.   This effect  will  be concentrated  in
certain areas.
     2)  Improperly controlled  construction  destroys  foliage and  ground
cover, resulting  in erosion,  increased  sedimentation  and potentially
decreased water quality.
     3)  Increased use of motor-driven  boats and motor vehicle traffic
on land will probably result  in increased  amounts of  oil-based products
and heavy metals  entering the lake.
     4)  Motor bo?t traffic may result  in  increased shoreline erosion.
     5)  Unaesthetic construction on and around the lake's shoreline
will detract from the natural quality and  recreational  value of the
lake area.
     One very important variable which  must  be  considered  in evaluating
possible development around Lake Monroe is the  opinion of  those people
who use the Lake.  Wise  (1975)  has surveyed  opinions  of users and found
                          1
significant expressions in favor of preserving  the semi-natural  quality
of the area.  Most users prefer swimming,  camping, and boat fishing as
recreational activities.  A substantial plurality favored  fewer_ condo-
miniums and houses around Lake Monroe than presently  exist.  Facilities
which those interviewed did not desire  included motels, sporting  goods
stores, condominiums, houses, and boat  ramps.  All but 3%  found the
forest around the lake attractive.  The attribute which people like best
is the beauty of the lake.  The attributes 1iked least are the crowding
and facilities.  EQCC's conclusion about public opinion is that the type
                                6-76

-------
                                -10-
of development likely to be facilitated by placement of Bloomington's
sewage treatment plant at Lake Monroe (houses, condominiums, commercial)
is precisely the type of development which Lake users do not want.
Further, such development might destroy those aspects of the Lake envir-
onment which the users appreciate the most (attractiveness, forests,
fishing) and exacerbate problems which they already perceive (crowding
and facilities).
     EQCC is concerned that the necessary regional  planning does not
exist to control such effects on the lake's primary functions as those
listed above.  We therefore believe that development should not be
facilitated by placement of the plant at Salt Creek.  We recognize  the
environmental value of removing present sources of effluent from the  lake,
but are not certain that this value overweighs the other negative effects
which potentially might result.

E.  Summary
     The Salt Creek site will require a longer and thus more environ-
mentally disruptive outfall sewer than any of the Clear Creek sites.
A Clear Creek plant will produce effluent of higher quality than the
proposed Salt Creek plant, whose effluent will be outside legal limits
shortly after commencement of operation.  Hydro!ogical considerations
indicate that a Salt Creek plant may periodically cause stream pollution.
Finally, the Salt Creek site is more likely than a Clear Creek site to
lead to unplanned development in the Lake Monroe area, with all the
environmental deterioration this, implies.  Because the environmental
costs of the Salt Creek site are obviously much higher than those of
                               6-77

-------
                                   -li-
the Dillman Road site, and because the economic  costs  are  similar,  the
Salt Creek site can be eliminated from further consideration.

IV.  Comparative Evaluation _of the Clear Creek _SHes
     Differences among the impacts of the variousCiearCreek sites  on
the physical environment are minor compared with the  difference in
impacts between any of the Clear Creek sites and the  Salt  Creek site.
The outfall sewer to the Dillman Road site would be a  little longer
than the force main from the southeast interceptor to  the  Winston Thomas
or South Rogers Street sites, and the outfall sewer to the Ketcham
Road site will be a little longer still.  On the other hand, if the
new plant is not built at the Winston Thomas site, that site can be
converted to a park, though the South Rogers site would use part of the
present site and decrease the value of a park there.   Selection of the
Winston Thomas site may lead to better re-use of existing  materials.
Thus, in terms of physical environmental impact, the only clear advan-
tage at this point is that of Dillman Road over Ketcham Road.  Given
its higher economic costs, also the Ketcham Road site can  be eliminated
from further consideration'.
     The major drawback to the present location  seems to be the con-
struction disturbances and the possibility of increased odors in the
vicinity which is heavily populated, and the possible need to relocate
several households.  The Dillman Road site is not presently densely
populated and for topographic reasons does not seem threatened by nearby
settlement.  EQCC finds that, while all the Clear Creek sites seem
preferable to Salt Creek, we would rank Dill man Road ahead of Winston
Thomas/S. Rogers St. primarily for social reasons.
                                6-78

-------
                                -12-
 V.  The Need for an Environmental  Impact Statement
     EQCC recommends that if the Salt Creek Site is selected,  EPA
should definitely prepare an EIS to investigate not only the points
made above but also many other specific points concerning possible
routes for the outfall sewer, the advisability of sub-surface  injection
as a means of sludge disposal, and specific treatment plans.  The issue
most difficult for us, as citizens, to predict and understand  about
the problem of site selection is the question of secondary impact of
development in the Lake Monroe Area.  EQCC recommends that, because  of
the complexity of this problem, major efforts should be made by EPA
to predict, evaluate and Suggest solutions to these secondary impacts.
A list of points needing investigation in an EIS follows this  section.
Some members of EQCC believe that an EIS might be desireable irrespective
of which site is chosen and so points related to both sites are included
on the list.
1.  Environmental desirability of returning Clear Creek to its pre-
                          ?
Winston Thomas flow level in order to restore the original biota;
comparative study of Little Clear Creek biota might be made to determine
if change has occurred.

2.  Extent of direct destruction of wildlife habitat by outfall sewer
construction.

3.  Quantitative assessment of Clear Creek siltation which might be
caused by sewer construction; effect on Bedford drinking water.

4.  Extent of indirect environmental degradation caused by outfall
                                6-79

-------
                               -13-
sewer construction due to activities  by the  work  crew  such  as
driving equipment into and out  of  right-of-way, parking  automobiles,
etc.
5.  Identification of those areas  where blasting  must  be done  and
assessment of the impact of the resulting  fallout and  noise on
nearby wildlife habitat and cultural  areas,  e.g., Cedar  Bluffs,
Ketcham Road cemetery.

6.  Differentiation of sewage treatment alternatives with respect
to effluent quality, especially between alternatives 2A  and 3A in
Facilities Plan; analysis of economic-environmental tradeoffs.

7.  Extent to which revegetation is necessary  following  sewer  con-
struction, how soon it must be  done,  and how likely it is to be
successful, given the area's hydrology; differentiation  between  degrees
of erosion expected with and without  revegetation.

8.  Environmental impact of overland  sewer routing, including  conside-
rations similar to those given  above  for creek bed routing.  Judgment
on the advisability of building alternatives 3, 4, 5,  and LMRWD
Smithvilie-Clear Creek force main.

9.  Reevaluation of economic-environmental costs  of outfall  sewer alter-
natives for Salt Creek site, expecially with respect to  alternatives
2 vs. 5A; analysis of environmental tradeoffs  of  greater overland as
opposed to less creek bed routing  for alternative 5A;  amount of  eco-
nomic difference LMRWD might fund  as  their share  of Little  Clear Creek
sewer to have a plant on Salt Creek instead  of Clear Creek.
                               6-80

-------
                               -14-
10.  Description of biota of wildlife habitat to  be destroyed  at
Ketcham Road and Salt Creek sites and determination of its  rarity.
11.  Measures to be taken to ensure that holding  ponds,  etc.,  will
not be flooded.
12.  Environmental  assessment of possible landfill  and soil  injection
sites to determine  potential for water pollution  due to flooding  or
leaching after rainfall.

13.  Comparisons of degrees of buffering needed and possible for  various
sites and various treatment and disposal  methods  to shield  local  residents
and visitors to  natural  and cultural  areas from noise, odor, and  ugli-
ness of sewage treatment.

14.  Assessment  of  tradeoffs between biotic-geologic costs  and social
costs, the latter accruing from #13 above and from forced relocations
at some of the sites.  (See also #23)

15.  Current aesthetic values of undeveloped sites.
                          i
16.  Comparative analyses of economies of land use for various sewage
treatment and sludge disposal alternatives.
17.  Size of the work crew required for construction, where they  will
commute from and what social costs they might impose on the community.

18.  Social benefits with respect to reducing unemployment of  con-
struction of plant.
                                  «
19.  Comparative analysis of energy and resources required for various
site, treatment, and disposal alternatives.
                              6-81

-------
                                 -15-
20.  Environmental  effects of travel  over,  entry to,  and  exit from
right-of-way by maintenance crews.

21.  Precautions that must be taken to prevent the creek  from digging
through to the sewer at crossing points; effects of these precautions
on biota and flow characteristics;  impact of altered  flow character-
istics on downstream creek ecosystem.

22.  Impact of possible herbicide use during right-of-way maintenance
on environment, both directly on biota and indirectly due to possible
water pollution this might cause.

23.  Surveys of local residents as to what impact they feel the Winston
Thomas plant and its proposed expansion or removal to South Rogers
Street has or will have on their lives; income distribution of resi-
dents so affected and assessment of their political power.

24.  Environmental benefits accruing to Clear Creek sites due to
potential recreational uses of Clear Creek resulting from maintaining
its present flow level.
                          1
25.  Possibility that a regional plan should be a prerequisite for
selection of the Salt Creek site.

26.  Total environmental  analysis of the effects of unplanned development
around Lake Monroe facilitated by the Salt Creek site, including poten-
tial biotic, geologic, and social costs accruing from any destruction
of forest, degradation of the water supply, and increase in population
                                6-82

-------
density and potential  social  gains accruing from economic growth;
tradeoff analysis of these costs  and gains.

27.  Environmental  and economic costs and gains accruing from
sludge disposal  by means of treating it and selling it as fertilizer.

28.  Determination of any upper'ceiling which geologic restrictions
may place on south-planning-area  population and deduction of largest
sewage treatment design capacity  that will ever be needed.

OCR/nan
                         Acknowledgements
     James Chiesa, S.P.E.A.  graduate student,  has permitted use of
portions of an unpublished manuscript as well  as volunteering editorial
help.  The following report was cited in the text:
     Wise, Charles.  1975.  User preserences of policy alternatives:
        the case of recreational  user attitudes toward development
        and regulation at Lake Monroe, Indiana.  School of Public and
        Environmental  Affairs Occasional Papers, No. 4.
    Soil Survey,  1973.   Interim  Soil Survey, Vol. 2,  Information
and Interpretation,  Bloonington,  Indiana.  U. S, Department of
Agriculture, Soil  Conservation  Service, Purdue  University.
                             6-83

-------
                         APPENDIX






     Brief synopsis of items discussed during  Environmental




Quality and Conservation Commission meetings which pertain to




Lake Monroe,  water quality,  and the sewage treatment plant.
                           6-84

-------
HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION»S INVOLVEMENT WITH LAKE MONROE
                       Based on 1972 minutes

May 10 — reported that Rod Crafts and Barbara Resile would travel to
Indianapolis to speak with John Cregor, an attorney who is the foremost
leading authority in the country on riparian rights, about the City's
power to control development in Lake Monroe.  The Water Quality Commit-
tee wished to icsue a warning about the possibility of Inland Steel
encroaching upon Lake Monroe and requested the Commission's support and
approval for enlisting the aid of other groups in the effort.  A motion
was made and approved that The Water Quality Committee should accumulate
as much factual information as they can before the next Commission
meeting with their suggestions as to what action the Commission can
take respecting Lake Monroe.

July 12 -- The resolution on Lake Monroe development was read and David
Docauer presented a background report on the resolution.  He said that
the resolution was^beginning step in~ seeking protection for Lake Monroe.
The vote was unanimous.  John Patton directed that the absent members be
polled to ensure a majority giving approval.

August 9 — A motion made chat: The Commission request the City of Bloom-
ington to name a representative to sit in on the final hearing of the
Department of Natural Resources; to request from Inland Steel's attorney
a copy of the plans to be made available as soon as possible; and a
representative be named to appear at the hearing of the Stream Pollution
Control Board on Tuesday, August 15, 1972.  Whitehead offered an amendment
asking that Inland Steel give the plans of their development  within the
drainage basin of Lake Monroe and that they also name a representative
to come before the Commission to discuss the development.   The motion and
amendment were approved unanimously.

October 11 -• Dick Hilliker, Representative of Inland Steel Development
Corp., presented maps, gave a report on a proposed development around
Lake Monroe and discussed the development proposal with the Commission
and the audience.  A Water Quality Committee report submitted by Docauer
was accepted. Donald Whitehead and David Docauer agreed to write a
letter to the Stream Pollution Control Board and the University on
behalf of the Commission  stating their views on the ISDC's plans.

November 8 -- Ted Najam, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor, read
a statement from the Office of the Mayor concerning the proposed Position
Paper prepared by David Docauer and Donald Whitehead on land development
around Lake Monroe; the present state of Lake Monroe and a projection
of its future in relation to presently proposed developments and future
developments.  The statement basically said that the Commission should
not make such statements without making it clear that it is not necessarily the
position of the City and "A statement of this kind with such broad
ramifications should be made only after there has been broad partici-
pation by all those City departments and commissions which have something
to contribute,"  Discussion followed, and some changes were made on
the position paper.  The paper was approved.  It was decided that Don
Whitehead would represent the Commission before the Common Council.

December 13 — Donald Whitehead reported that the Common Council passed
a resolution accepting and concurring in the Commission's Position Paper.
Bron added that at the enrl of the discussion a suggestion was made by         '
Council President ChaMotte Zietlow for the formation of a body to look


                                  6-85

-------
into the ecological factors that concern the lake and the long range
view.  Chairman Patton would contact Zietlow to request that the
Commission be included in such a body if it was not already constituted.
                                    6-86

-------
   SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION'S INVOLVEMENT WITH LAKE MONROE
                           Based on 1973 minutes

January 10 — The Commission's draft statement on the Black and Veatch  report
was presented.  In the discussion that followed, it was brought out that  there
would be federal funding but the City does not require an impact statement.
Dave Rogers(President of the Board of Works) said he worked with the Black and
Veatch Report and thought the comments of the statement appropriate. Cu  finding
Number two (Monroe Reservoir) he felt the comments were well taken, but said
that Black and Veatch were only asked to do a bare hones study so the report
does not take into account the impact of increased development.  The construc-
tion of waste water facilities would of necessity require federal grants, which
would in turn require an impact study, though that study would be directed
primarily toward alerting the public rather than binding any specific agen cy
to a set course of action.  Mr. Rogers said also that Lake Monroe Reservoir  would
not provide all of Bloomington's future water need.  The city plans to  continue
to develop dependencies on Griffey Creek-Bean Blossom, though  dependence on
Lake Monroe would continue to be very important.  He added that the state makes
a good profit from the city of Bloomington by providing the water from  the
Lake Monroe Reservoir and that the state owed the city considerable consideration
in protecting the security of that  water supply.
Barbara Heise asked if Mr. Rogers thought the tertiary treatment facilities
should be funded immediately.  He acknowledged the need and said the city would
file for both federal and local funds, but he warned that the costs would be
astronomical.  Mr. Spencer asked whether effluent from the .treatment plant was
delivered to Salt Creek below the dam, and whether pny study had been made on
plans to deliver processed water in the same area where the sewage system is
proposed.  Mr. Rogers said that the sewage plant was in one of the areas  which
the Public Service Commission had currently given to one of the rural water
corporations and that the outflow main that goes down through Clear Creek actually
goes through a no man's land where there is currently no allocation of  responsi-
bility.  Mr. Bron asked about ^uture additional water sources besides Lake Monroe
Rogers said that Griffey Creek-Bean Blossom was not delivering the high quality
water it could if the treatment system were improved.  He expected that once
improved, the city could receive good water from it at a price below that the
city i. s paying to the state for water from Lake Monroe.  Mr. Bron asked what
population was projected by that plan and Mr. Rogers answered that it ought  to
be done just on the basis of present population because of the high price the
city is paying for Lake Monroe water.  To meet projected need both systems would
have to be improved, and the plant on Lake Monroe doubled.  Mr Bron said it  was
his personal feeling that, in view of the high taxes to be paid by city
residentsi it was not unreasonable to ask that whatever development occurs be
controlled so that it doesn't damage the lake.  My Rogers answered that he
didn't think there was any conflict with that, but he was not sure whether the
government had the current ability to control development.  Barbara Heise asked
if it wasn't true that the city has virtually no control over development.   Mr.
Rogers responded affirmatively saying the city really could only make hopeful
statements.
Mr. Docauer spoke about the Griffey Creek Reservoir saying that it has  good
quality water because it is wall forested, but the quantity is insufficient.
He had little personal knowledge of Bean Blossom, but had heard it was  very
turbid and hard to process.  He doubted if it would serve if the population
increased.  He said some of the mistakes in the Black and Veatch Report had
not been corrected.  His comments were: 1. That all growth projected in the
report until 1980 occurring within Bloomington was unlikely--much should occur
outside the city.  2. That more growth would occur in the city than in  the
county was also unlikely.  3« The overloaded south plant was designed for
7,000,000 gallons whereas before the Commission was told 1O,000,000.


                                   6-87

-------
4. The tertiary treatment facilities need to be placed now.   Sometimes tertiary
lagoons cause problems--high algae growth causes secondary pollution.   No sure
method exists to remove tne algae by sedimentation and the city ought  to con-
sider this.  In response to Barbara Heise's question as to whether tertiary
lagoons were the method of tertiary treatment now in use,,  Mr.  Docauer  said
there were other methods (electrolysis,  chemicals) depending on the purpose of
the tertiary treatment.
Chairman Patton suggested an amendment to the wording of the statement of the
effect that "all future additional water needs must come from Monroe Reservoir"
be changed to "and much of the foreseeable future additional water need of
Bloomington must come from the Monroe Reservoir."  The motion was accepted and
the amendment adopted.

February 14 — George V/alkenshaw,  of the City's Utilities  Department,  spoke
about the problems facing the City's other sources of water, Lake Lemon and
Lake Griffey.  He pointed out that the City was never able to  utilize  fully
Lake Lemon water because it haSjto flow  down a creek ten miles before  it is
collected and rcpunped to the Griffey Water Treatment Plant, a facility which
was never designed to treat a water with a high turbidity  content.   Thus, in
the past year the city has only been able to use w,ater taken directly  out of the
Griffey Reservoir.  He mentioned that water from Lake Monroe was costing the
city about three million dollars a day.   It would be Black and Veatch's
recommendation to expand and remodel the Griffey Water Treatment Plant so that
the water from Lake Lemon could be fully utilized.  This would involve extensive
settling and floculation facilities because of the sludge  problem.   He knew of
no perfect solution to the dewatering of alum plant sludge,  but said,  tlie City
is presently constructing some pave drying beds from which the sludge  could
be scraped after it has been dried by mechanical equipment,  then hauled off
and buried in land fills,,  Other methods are under investigation.   Other
problems included storn water entering the South Sanitary  Treatment Plant,  and
the plant is a dry ditch situation allowing little oxidation of the organic
material in the stream thereby causing odor.   He then spoke  on solutions and a
discussion followed.
     The Water Quality Committee introduced a resolution to  support the Lake
Shore Protection Bill now in the state legislature.   The Bill  would give the
Natural Resources Commission the right to review all development within two
miles of state owned or managed reservoirs.   Docauer remarked  that  the purpose
of the Bill was to make the NRC into a kind of Plan Commission for  the lake
which would examine all aspects of planning.   The Stream Pollution  Control
Board presently hasn't t'he power to do this and neither does the NRC.   Cor-
poration-owned land within the Monroe watershed is about 33OO  acres, all but
about 600 acres inside the two mile area.  The Bill  gives  the  NRC
power to make decisions which it previously was not able to  make.

March 21 —Barbara Restle of the Water Quality Committee,  presented a  prelimi-
nary report on a sedimentation survey of Lake Monroe.   Since the area  is under-
going rapid change, it is necessary to start now to obtain accurate records of
the sedimentation rate, which is thought by the Army Corp  of Engineers to have
a worse effect on a reservoir than sewage or industrial pollution.   The Corp nay
not survey Lake Monroe for 4 to 5  years  and the only soil  surveys of the area
now are based on a 1922 study,   A recconnaissance study of the Lake is in order.
now to determine roughly what the rate might be, especially  since the  original
surveys were made with no projected change in the land use around the  reservoir.
A motion was made for the Commission "to encourage the City  to take cooperative
action with the county as soon as  possible to get the Corps  of Engineers to
make a recconnaissance sedimentation study of Lake Monroe  at its earliest pos-
sible opportunity in view of the probable effects of the proposed developments
around the lake."
                                     6-88

-------
.May 9 —  Barbara Heise  reminded  the Commission of the position it had  taken
 last year,  that  in  the  absence of good regional planning, massive development
 around Lake Monroe  was  unwarranted.   Since  that time, Inland Steel has been
 given its nearly final  approval  to build,   Heise noted that the county zoning
 ordinance would  be  having  public hearings during the summer and urged  Commis-
 sioners to attend these meetings to defend  tighter controls for the two mile
 fringe,   Jan Bicr.chi  indicated that a representative of the Army Corps of
 Engineers had indicated that  the Corps may  not be favorably disposed to issuing
 a permit  to Inland,

 June 13 —A letter  from the Army Corps of Engineers said that the Corps planned
 to resurvey the  Lake, completing the  other  range installations, in 1977.  In
 the meantime a preliminary survey would be  conducted and the results would be
 communicated to  the City,  The letter added that the Corps did not fear a
 potential reduction of  the lifespan of the  lake due to sedimentation even
 though studies of other reservoirs indicate that initial projections of that rate
 are incorrect,  Bianchi suggested, in light of Senator Bayh's recent disapproval
 of the Indianapolis Reservoir project, that the Commission could exorcise a lit-
 tle more  force in pursuit  of  a survey.  More pressure could be brought to bear
 upon the  Corps at least to get a study on track for 1977.  Bron argued that
 1977 may  well be too  late  because the development around the Lake appears to be
 iminent,   Heise  asked what results could be expected from a preliminary survey.
 In response Barbara Restle, new  chairwoman  of the Water Quality Committee,
 indicated that such a survey  would probably be quite trivial.  A comprehensive
 survey is quite  complex and must give an indication of where the sedimentation
 is coning from,  not just how  much deposition there is.  Such information would
 be necessary in  order to design  sedimentation basins to protect the reservoir
 from further sedimentation.   Responding to  a question of the cost of such a
 study, Fix estimated  around S20,OOO,  He thought the Commission . should
 ascertain the estimate  cost and  then  go directly to Washington for the appro-
 priation,  Bron  agreed  that the  City  has much to lose should it not pursue this
 course,  Patton  proposed that the Commission take initial steps to carry out
 Fix's proposal by seeking  a cost estimate.
      The  Environmental  Commission has been  asked by the Plan Staff, to appoint
 a member  to attend  meetings at Purdue on the ramifications and possible uses of
 the information  gathered by the  Skylab experiments over Lake Monroe,
      Bianchi reported that Inland Steel had still not accepted the restric-
 tions placed upon them  by  the Stream  Pollution Control Board and were  not on
 the agenda for the  June meeting. In  another development, the proposed county
 zoning ordinance has  been  amended to  provide that no development visible from
 the shores of Lake  Monroe  would  be permitted, and to require drainage  and
 erosion controls around the lake.  This amendment will be discussed June 14,
 and could use the support  of  all Commissioners,  Bron added that the Forest
 Service had also decided to deny permits to cross Forest Service land  with
 utility pipelines until a  regional plan is  devised,  Ileise pointed out that this
 would have particular significance for Granves-Monroe and Inland Steel,

 July 11 -- Assistant  City  Planner, Stu Reller, and Dr, David Frey reported on
 the Lake  Monree-Skylnb  project and its possible ramifications for environ-
 mental concerns,
      Bianchi reported that the estimated cost of a sedimentation survey "of
 Lake Monroe is $24,000  for a  resurvey of the existing ranges, and 520,000
 to complete the  range installations.  The Corps said its preliminary study
 scheduled for July  should  give a reasonable indication of the sedinent in the
 project now.  In light  of  Barbara Restle's  opinion that it is more important to
 know where the sediment is coming from, such a preliminary study would pro-     <
 bably not help much,  added Bianchi,   She pointed out that Sen, Bayh sits on
 tli c anBremriations.Coiainitteo  and coyld be contacted for help in this matter.

                                   6-89

-------
The initial response from the Mayor's office, she reported, was a willingness
to pursue the request in Washington, asking that the appropriations be made now,
'rather than in 1977.

September 12 — Ted Najam discussed the letter, sent to Birch Bayh, concerning
a sedimentation study of Lake Monroe.  He explained that an earlier letter
had been sent to the Louisville District Army Corp of Engineers in reference
to the study.  Their reply was that they could give only a quick visual esti-
mate at this time, but that funds for an in-depth study would not be available
until 1977.  Sen. Bayh explained that the 197^ appropriations 'bill for the Corps
has already been passed by Congress and therefore it is impossible to amend
it for such a large amount.  He expressed his desire to work with the City in
getting appropriations for this study during the next funding session.  This
would make the study possible 2 to 3 years earlier than predicted and in
this sense he was encouraging.
     In reference to the Department of Utilities' proposal to close Lake Lenon
as a water supply, Marcia Gelpe replied that the Water Quality Committee ha?
begun to look into the proposal and tactics that could be used to clean up
Lake Lemon.  They expressed their feeling to the City's Utilities Board.  The
reasons for closing have to do with estimates of renovating the facility
compared to the cost of Lake Monroe, volume of water and the plant.  Patton
commented that several investigations are taking place, ine of which is a
sedimentation report and he assumed the decision won't be made until the
information is in.

 October  1O — The Water Quality Comnittee has been studying the problem of
 spills of raw sewage into Salt Creek from tho Nashville Sewage Plant and sent
 a letter to the County Commissioners of Brown County asking that a joint
 meeting be set up to discuss the source of the problem as well as possible
 solutions.  The Commission agreed to send a letter to the Brown County Com-
missioners endorsing the idea of a  joint meeting and asking to be kept informed
 on the progress on  solving the problem.

November 14 -- Dennis King presented a report concerning the meeting of the
 Lake Monroe Regional-Waste District Board and City Utilities Service Board
 and a request of the Water Quality  Committee submitted for an additional
hearing on an environmental assessment hearing to determine the environmental
 effects of the regional sewer  treatment plant that is going to be constructed
 by the City Utilities Service Board and of the diversion system that will be
 put in by the LMRVDS.  The Water Quality Committee said that the LMRWDB had
 not filed any information prior to  the meeting in conjucction with regulations
 that the EPA has stated and therefore did not give the public a 30-day notice
 to study the information.  The outcome of a request that they hold another
 meeting was a letter which indicated that another meeting would not be held,
 but they would put  some information on file and answer questions, if there
 are any.  A motion  was made by the  Environmental Commission and approved  that
 a hearing be held at the regular December Environmental Commission meeting with
 the Utilities Service Board and their engineers answering questions from the
 Commission and the  public.  In addition, the LMRWBD and the Monroe County Plan
 Commission were requested to attend.  Barbara Restl* stressed the interrela-
 tedness of these two projects in the Water Quality Committee report.

 December 12 -- see  attached minutes.
                                       6-90

-------
      HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION«S INVOLVEMENT WITH LAKE MONROE
                              Based on 1974 minutes

February 13 — Barbara Restle read  the minutes of tht last Water Quality
monthly meeting.  In short, it said there was concern on the part of many members
that an environmental impact statement should be requested by the committee
that would deal with the effects of the new sewage plant in greater detail.  A
working subcommittee was formed to study the assessment hearings held by the
USB.  It was hoped that this subcommittee would reach a conclusion on the course
of action the Water Quality Committee should pursue.  No questions or comments
were added.
Restle presented to the Commission a summary of the considerations from the sub-
committee.  She said the summary was by no means complete.  The two considera-
tions presented were in the areas of population data projections for Monroe
County and problems with the treatment plant site'and outfall sewer,  Patton
recommended that these comments, if approved by the Commission, should become
part of the December 12^ meeting,  Restle agreed but added that more considera-
tions than these two are being questioned,  Restle stated that, although
the population data appears complete in the assessment it is rot.  Dennis King
explained that one of the first considerations to be included in an assessment
is a description of the effect of population distribution concentration on any
growth that might occur if the project is undertaken.  He said that, with that
in mind, the subcommittee went through the Infiltration and Inflow Study and
the hearing record for the October 25^ environmental assessment hearing and
the December 12^ information meeting to determine what RSH Associates had done
in regard to population projections.  King said his impression was that the
statistics used in the assessment had projections to 1980-199O based on the
census of 195O-1960.  If it is based on these years there would be no influence
from the lake on the extraurban area because the lake was not constructed
until 1963;  King said that the alternatives to the temporary plant site were
not mentioned with regards to growth in different volumes and directions.  He
said the Water Quality Committee is recommending further study.  Heise asked
if the Water Quality Committee was asking for an environmental impact statement.
King replied that at this time they are not asking fdr an environmental impact
statement but only trying to point out subjects that are not adequately investi-
gated.  Patton summed up King's comments by saying that the population projection
studies are not adequate and the effect of the waste water disposal plant on
changes in population have not been assessed at all.  King's final comment pointed
out that if the population projections have not been adequately looked into
one can not design capacity of a plant properly.  A copy of these questions will
be sent to the USB and EPA administrators.  The Commission voted unanimously to
forward them.
Jim Ferro reported that at the last monthly meeting of the Water Quality commit-
tee another working group was formed composed of Jim Pres, David Docauer, and
himself.  This working group will investigate the effects of construction
activities around Lake Monroe with regards to water run-off.  The second major
project the working group is considering is one concerning Lake Lemon,  This
would involve sampling the shoreling during a rainy period to measure runoff,

April 10 -- Jim Ferro said the water sampling project which is being planned to
test the quality of the run-off in the Lake Monroe watershed is being orgaaized
and should be underway soon,

September 11 -- An ad hoc committee consisting of Rick Peoples, Dave Parkhurst,
Rick Darby, and Barbara Heise agreed to study the USB report on the Long Range
Plan Water Supply and Distribution Facilities for Bloomington, IN,
Rick Darby gave his report on Lake Monroe,  This report concerned the legal
standing; how can a reservoir outside of the city boundaries be controlled and
what is the relationship of the Commission to that lake, and whether there is


                                        6-91

-------
anything the Commission can look into other than water quality itself.

September 25 -- Barbara nestle said that  interests in the Water Quality Committee
are too broad.  There are legal problems,  bacteriological problems,  limnological
problems, sedimentary problems, and more.   The committee  needs to  form  subcommit-
tees and she asked for suggestions  on restructuring,

November 13 — Rick Darby gave a report on Lake Monroe.   He  said that Lake
Monroe is a large interest requiring tremendous work.   There is no way  one
person can provide the Commission with enough  information for the  Commission
to feel it is in control with the situation.   He has  therefore arranged with
Professor White in the Law School for students to receive credit for participa-
ting in a project designed to prepare a paper  or pamphlet which would ade-
quately describe the jurisdiction of various governmental bodies* over Lake
Monroe, interaction and jurisdiction between this commission and the City,
of "Bloomington in those various bodies and the rights
                             , generally given  to individuals in Indiana in the
Environmental field.  Rick feels with this help,  by the first of the year, a
comprehensive and fairly clear statement of exactly where the Commission stands
can be provided.  He then went on to state the legal proceedure the  Commission
would have to go through if it was  to take action and  suggestions  the Commission
should consider.  Walter Bron asked if Rick had a specific group in  mind other
than Water Quality.  Rick said no.   Rick Peoples gave  a report on  the status
of the Water Quality Committee.   The first meeting was held.   Only four people
showed up but only one was interested in participation.
                                      6-92

-------
 LEAGUE OF WOMEN  VOTERS
                                                      BLOOMINGTON. INDIANA

                                                              1975
To:   City of Bloomington Utilities Service
      Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
      Region V Environmental Protection Agency
      Lake Monroe Regional Sewage Board

From: League of Women Voters of Bloomington-Monroe County

Subject:  Addition to our statement of May 29, 1975 for the
          record of the assessment hearing for the proposed
          sewage treatment facility at the confluence of
          Salt and Clear Creeks in southern Monroe County

     Our initial statement consisted of an outline of the
positions of the League on the issues of water resources and
land use, followed by questions regarding the six major issues
of EPA concern as stated in the announcement of requirement
for an environmental impact statement.

     The purpose of this addition to the first statement is
twofold.  We would like to express our disappointment in the
reception given our questions.  For most of them there seemed
to be little serious attempt to answer tnem at the assessment
hearing.  Second, we would like to outline, this time in
statement form, our reservations and doubts about the
Facilities Plan and First Amendment prepared by Black and Veatch:

I. Regionalization

     The concept of regionalization, as it has been used in
this long conflict over expansion of treatment facilities
for Bloomington's south service area, is fuzzy.  The most
widely understood meaning of a regional facility is that of
a facility planned by two or more local governmental bodies
with existing needs which can be more efficiently and
economically met by a common facility.  That Blocmington's
situation fits tnis description is extremely doubtful.

     An additional complication is a semantic problem which
has arisen with the use of the words "region" and "regional".
These words have been used to describe both the domain of the
Lake Monroe Waste District and the larger service area including
the Bloomington South Area.  The confusion is most obvious when
someone uses the phrase "regional plant" which might be for the
lake only (3 mgd) or for the larger proposed region (15 or 20 mgd).
            AFFILIATED WITH TH« 1.IAOUI OF WOMCN VOTIKI OF THI UNITID «TAT» AND OF INDIANA


                                6-93

-------
Page 2   Addition to LWV statement of May 29, 1975
     The needs of the Lake Monroe area are quite small at the
present time and are projected to reach 3 million gallons per
day only in 199&.  The Lake Monroe area has individual treat-
ment facilities for each of its few developments, since no
construction is permitted without approval of treatment
facilities.  Those which discnarge an effluent must have
NPDES permits and meet schedules for upgrading their treatment
as required by Public Law ^2-500.

     The replacement of these small treatment facilities with a
collector sewer almost completely circling the lake basin
west of the causeway and a single treatment plant is a plan
which may not, by itself, be economically feasible.  There
may never be enough users to pay for it.  The facilities
plan for the Lake Monroe Regional /n'aste District lists costs
of more than $8 million for the collector and interceptor
sewers.  Presumably these costs are at prices as of October 23,
197^, the date of publication of the report.  The construetiion
cost listed for a 3 mgd plant is approximately 83.& million.
These costs are to be borne by a present user population of
about 1900 home equivalents (370 gpd per home).  To finance
the total of $11.8 million in construction costs amounts to
about $6000 per home equivalent.  It seems clear and has been
so stated publicly that large developers will be needed to bring
the costs per dwelling within reasonable limits.

     At the 1998 projected population of about bOOO home
equivalents (3 million gpd, 100 gpd per person, 3.7 persons
per home equivalent), the cost still amounts to about $1500
per home equivalent for construction alone; and this does not
include lateral sewers from collector to dwelling.

     In addition single family dwellings not able to be served
by planned collector sewers nave been included in present and
projected user populations for the Lake Monroe Regional Waste
District.  They will have tne additional cost of building a
sewer from their lot line to the region interceptor sewer.,
The cost to serve scattered single family dwellings v/culd be
extremely high.

     There is no existing legal mechanism for forcing homes
now using eeptic tanks to hook onto the planned sewers.
There is a state law requiring homes within 300 feet of a
sewer to hook on; but this nas not been uniformly enforced
even within the Blooraington city limits.  Moreover there does
not seem to be a mechanism for taking existing small treatment
plants out of service and forcing tneir users to hook onto the
region's interceptor.  It seems probable that many users
would reject this expensive alternative unless there are
legal means to compel them to accept it.
                                   6-94

-------
Page 3   Addition to LWV statement of May 29, 1975
     If the concept of providing sewer service for these areaa
of low population density proves unworkable, we are ]eft with
a rather small probable service area for a Lakt Monroe regional
plant at the site proposed.  This area might reasonably include
The Pointe, the Fairfax area, Seven Flags Corporation, possibly
Harrodsburg.  The total projected flow from tnese communities
by 1998 is 843,663 gpd compared to 3,000,000 gpd for tne whole
lake area, (page 15, Lake Monroe region facilities plan)

     There is already in existence a treatment plant built for
The Pointe with a capacity of 116,000 gpd.  The effluent of
this plant discharges into Little Clear Creek, out of the
Lake Monroe watershed.  This "interim plant" represents a
large investment and might not be willingly abandoned even
if Bloomington chooses the proposed Salt Creek site for its
South Area plant.

      In summary of  our thinking on the regional concept, we
would like to see more cost  factors discussed.  At what
population density  does  it become cost effective to go  to  one
big regional plant?  Do  any  cost projections consider a
planning  span long  enough  to include replacement of sewers?
What  is the state of the art for small  (less than 1 mgd) treat-
ment plants?  For individual hone treatment?   Is there  an
increased cost for  "old" users when their sewer service area
is broadened?  Should a  densely populated,  efficient service area
share treatment plant construction costs with  a sparsely
populated, inefficient service area?  Do the growth projections
accurately predict  wnat  will  happen when a  service area is
greatly expanded?   Might not  a slowly growing  Bloomington Soutn
area find itself paying  the  costs for a rapidly growing area
southwest of LaKe Monroe?

II. The Capacity (ies) and  Location(s) of a_ Kegional STP or
    Separate STPs

    A. Capacity

     There are a number  of important unanswered questions
relating  to the amount of  new plant capacity which is needed.
In the original facilities plan (December 4, 1974) a figure of
14.9 mgd  was given  for the Bloomington South area for 1^96.
In the First Amendment to  tnt facilities plan  (March HO, 1975),
after a recalibration of flowmeters at tne Winston Thomas plant,
this figure was cnanged  to 17.6 cigd.  (In both cases the flow
contribution estimated for tne Lake Monroe area is 3 mgd.)

     Included in these figures is 1.9 mgd now  treated at
Bloomington*s north treatment plant, tne Blucher Poole  plant.
This compares to a  total of  2.7 mgd treated at tnat plant.
                                 6-95

-------
Page k   Addition to LrtV statement of May ^9, 197b


tVnen this 1.9 mgd is taken away from the flow at  tne ncrtn  plant,
only O.b mgd remains,, a figure well below tne design capacity
of the plant (6 mgd).,  Are we justified in building new  plant
capacity for this 1.9 mgd?  Witnout it the South  area  flow
would be 15.7 mgd for 1996.

     Another uncertain factor is the final outcome of
infiltration/inflow studies now underway.  The Facilities Flan
lists figures cf 1.6 mgd for present dry weather  infiltration
and 0.5 mgd additional wet weatner infiltration.  Another 0.9
mgd from infiltration/inflow is projected for 1998.  This
amounts to 3 mgd out of a total of 1?,6 mgd for 1996.  (Tnese
infiltration/inflow figures were not repeated in  the First  Amendment,  so  the
figures given are from tne original Facilities Plan.)
                                   ~  ."     .,   The Facilities
Plan analysis of t..is situation is: "inflow and infiltration into
the existing sewers will tend tc increase with age of  the system.
Maintenance of the system will be continued but the recent
inflow/infiltration studies nave indicated that extensive repairs
will not be cost-effective."  Tne studies are stilJ in progress,
however, and the final conclusions may be different.   Neitner of
the firms involved ir. the first phase of tne study will be  involved
in the second pnase.  Tne Utilities Board nas recently accepted
the bid of American Consulting Services, Inc.  of Minneapolis, Minn.
for tne second phase.  It is to be hoped tnat  tneir calculations
of the cost-effectiveness of renovation  will  include the costs
of new plant treatment capacity construction.

     The two factors discussed above are applicable to eitner
the Bloomington Soutn area alone or combined  with the Lake
Monroe area.  A third factor applies only to  tne larger service
area.  This lactor,  discucsed above under regionalization,  is
that cf the probability of success for  completion of trie
collector and interceptor se'.vers around  Lake  Monroe.   Tne 1996
flow figure for the lake area (3 ragcU  is based on the  complete
network as shewn in the Beam, Longest  and Neff Facilities Plan.
If the complete network cannot be financed,  then a plant at
tne Salt Creek site mignt serve only tnose developments within
two or three miles of tne plant.  The  flow from tnis restricted
area might not exceed 1 rr.gd and could  be amen  less if  the
new "interim plant" is not abandoned.

     A final factor not even mentioned  in tne  Facilities Plan
is the conservation of water use which  mignt  be acnieved within
the plan period.   This mignt be brougnt  about  by consumer
education,  a reform in the rate structure to  reward conservation
rather tnan high volume use, tr.e depressed economy,  or the higher
rates resulting from tne planned construction.  The Facilities
Plan projects an increasing per capita  consumption in a tine
when there  is rapid development of the  technology for water reuse
                                   6-96

-------
Page 5  Addition to LWV statement of May 29, 1975
and even individual home treatment.  These trends in the technology
have obvious cost benefits to the buyer of water and sewer services.

     To summarize our thoughts on plant capacity, there would
appear to be a number of reasons to question an initial design
capacity of ^0 mgd (as recommended in the First Amendment).
For the Bloomington South area 15 mgd is a preferable design
capacity, with provision for staged enlargement of capacity.
If the decision is made to serve tne Soutn area and tne Lake
Monroe area with a single plant, the 15 mgd would still be adequate
with staged enlargement depending on the speed of development in
the area.

    B. Location

     Obviously the location problem is tied up with the choice
between one large and two or more smaller plants to serve the
region.  If the choice is one large plant and it is expected
that the entire Lake Monroe interceptor sewer system can be
built, the Salt Creek site might be the best location (only location
is considered here), but it would certainly seem foolish to build
a gravity outfall sewer all the way down Clear Creek and a
parallel interceptor sewer down Little Clear Creek valley when
the two might be combined in Little Clear Creek valley.  If,
however, it is decided that tne southwest corner of the lake
might be served by its own plant (the "interim plant",  already
constructed/ Siscnarges out of the lake watershed), then tne
remainder of the lake service area mignt be just as well served
by a plant at Dillman Read or Ketcham Road.  This would remove tne
necessity for the interceptor sewer from Smithville down  the
Little Clear Creek valley to Salt Creek and the necessity for
11 miles of outfall sewer down Clear Creek.

     No cost comparisons nave been made for the alternative
just described, with a small plant serving the south part of
the lake and a Bloomington plant at Dillman Road or Ketcnam Road
serving the north part of the lake area.  (The Facilities Plans
calculated costs for a separate lake plant serving the  entire
lake area.)  It might turn out to be/cost-effective  solution
for the planning region.  It would eliminate most of the Clear
Creek gravity outfall sewer wnich has caused so much environmental
concern.

Ill.  The Treatment Process Best Suited tj> Specific Sites

     We wilJ not attempt to evaluate the relative merits of
available sewage treatment processes.  Tnis does, however,
seem to be an engineering specialty in whicn tnert. is much
current research and a great many developing new methods.
In addition, the requirements of Public Law 9^-500 are  for
increasingly high effluent quality to tne point where tne
eize of the receiving body of water wiJl not be considered
as important as it is at present.

     The implication of the above situation for Bloomington's
choice are as follows:

                                 6-97

-------
Page 6  Addition to LWV statement of May 29, 1975
     a) The treatment chosen should be capable of being changed
        or treatment steps adaed, to the extent possible with
        present knowledge.
     b) It seems likely that treatment level required in the
        future will be higher than that required at present.
     c) The level of treatment required for the Clear Creek sites
        probably is closer to future requirements tnan that
        required for tne Salt Creek site.
     d) The larger acreage at tne Salt Creek site probably gives
        more improvement flexibility, depending on the space
        requirements for improvements.
     e) The cost balance between Salt Creek and Clear Creek sites
        might well change before tne end of the planning period
        if a higher level of treatment becomes mandatory at tne
        Salt Creek site, since the cost effectiveness of the
        latter depends on its lower level of treatment.
     f) Alternatives involving small treatment pla.nts depend
        on the ability of sucn plants to produce effluent of
        high quality.

IV. The Environmental Impacts of Construction and Cperation
    of ST^s, Interceptors and Outfall Sewers
     The most important environmental impact of the construction
and operation cf the STPs would seem to be tne quality of the
effluent produced, and possibly tne odor in the immediate
vicinity of the plant.  Anotner impact, of course, would be
the amount of site preparation necessary.  The Audubon Society
has questioned tne stream recnannelizat ion whicn is proposed
in the Facilities Plan.  We leave this point to them and the
engineers .

     With regard to tne quality of the effluent produced, any
of the Clear Creek sites is superior to the Salt Cretk site
in this respect.

     As far as secondary A/ater quality impacts are concerned,
we feel unable to predict tnese.  The number of septic tanks
abandoned, small treatment plants snut down, facilitation of
development in the Lake Monroe area, water quality impact of
that development, are all unknown quantities.  There are water
quality arguments on botn sides of the controversy.  Statements
have been made that, a large regional plant is essential to
Lake Monroe water quality, *nd that a large regional plant is
fatal to Lake Monroe water quality.  he are unable to reach
either of these conclusions.  Botn sides of the argument seem
to nave been overstated.  A small Lake Monroe region treatment
plant can easily be built and would seem to have the same
advantages and disadvantages for Lake Monroe water quality as a
larger plant bui^t by Bloomin^ton.  We would like to see tne
primary emphasis placed upon other factors.
                                  6-98

-------
Page 7  Addition to LWV statement of May 29,


     The direct environmental impact of the interceptor and outfall
sewers construction and operation is considerable.  Discussion of
this issue is omitted here because others have addressed this
problem.  Alternatives should be evaluated with a goal of minimizing
sewage construction impact.  It is not clear that the present plan
does this.

     The secondary effects of sewer construction are another
matter entirely.  In the absence of otner more powerful forms of
planning for development, the construction of sewers is equivalent
to planning for development.  One may therefore expect that a loose,
sprawled network of sewers will lead to tne same sort of development.
These in turn require loose, sprawled networks of roads, schools,
school buses, refuse collection.  All of tnese services cost more
than their clustered counterparts, and this probably means that
they have more environmental impact as well.

     Considering the effects of sewer placement, a plant for
Bloomington should be placed close to the planned development
area for Bloomington, and a plant for Lake Monroe should be placed
close to the area of planned or expected development for Lake
Monroe.  If long connecting sewers passing tnrough undeveloped
areas are planned, then some means of controlling development
along them should be found in advance of construction.

     It is not clear how development along the interceptor sewer
ringing Lake Monroe could be controlled, except in the inaccessible
force-main portions.  In tnis respect, several carefully planned
and well regulated small treatment plants might be preferable, if
they are capable of achieving effluent of the required quality.

V, Tne Induced Growth Implications for tne Lake Monroe Area
   of Building a_ Regional Sewage Treatment Plant

     On this issue like the Lake Monroe water quality issue,
extreme statements have been made.  On one side it nas been
said that construction of a regional plant at the Salt Creek
site will result in rapid, unplanned development of tne lake
area.  On the other side it has been f=aid that development
will take place even witnout a regional plant.  Both sides
cite lake water quality as an important concern.  Both sides
(despite the threat of development without a plant) seem to
feel that development of tne Lake Monroe area is closely
linked to obtaining a regional treatment plant at the Salt
Creek site.  It is this link wnicn is holding up a long
overdue expansion of treatment facilities for Blooming-ton's
south area.

     A great improvement in everyone's logical though
processes mignt be achieved at this point if Bloomington's
future and Lake Monroe's future were considered separately,
as regards sewage treatment needs.  Tnis probably means
separate sewage treatment plants.  It is riot necessarily
                                  6-99

-------
Page fe  Addition to LWV statement of May 29, 1975
true that Lake Monroe development would ride along on the
coattails of Bloomington's treatment plant expansion.  But the
best way to be sure of fair consideration of both interests is
to find a cost equivalent plan for two or more plants to serve
separate density areas.

VI.  The Best Method of_ Sludge Treatment and Disposal

     This issue, like the one involving treatment processes, is
for experts in the technology.  The situation does seem to be
under intensive study as indicated by published articles.
Changes are likely in recommended methods.  It would therefore
not seem wise to base arguments for choice of plant site on a
disposal method which might change even before the plant :.s
built.  From the same line of tninking, several disposal
alternatives should be possible for each site.

VII. Conclusions

     There is an alternative to a large regional plant which
should be considered.  This alternative would involve first
selecting a plant site which would best serve tne Bloomington
South area present and future needs.  After site selection
it would then be determined whicn portions of tne Lake Monroe
area could be served at the chosen site.  Other treatment
facilities for the lake area might then be planned at one or
two sites near expected dense development.

     The Land Suitability Study prepared by the Indiana
University School of Public and Environmental Affairs has
indicated the southwest corner of the lake as the area most
suitable for development.  Planning for sewage treatment
for the lake area might focus on this corner until the
economics of the lake interceptor sewer plans are worked out.

     Either the Dillmaii or Ketcham Road site could serve the
north lake area,- while a small plant near the dam cculd
serve the south lake area.

     This alternative would avoid the considerable difficulty
of planning a sewer network to connect two planning areas which
are separated by a large stretch of undeveloped land.  It would
avoid both the environmental and unplanned development impacts
of building long sewers through open countryside.

     The Salt Creek site has tne advantage of larger size
and smoother terrain.  The use of Salt Creek for dilution and
of site acreage for sludge injection may be undesirable in the
near future and should not count as reasons in favor of the
site.  Use of the site involves the problem of vtry long
                                  6-100

-------
Page 9  Addition to LWV statement of May 29,
sewer to connect it to the present plant.  The long controversy
which has been centered on this site is a reason in itself for
not choosing it if acceptable alternatives are available.

     The question of initial capacity contains several issues
which should be examined further; the infiltration/inflow
problem, the future use of the north treatment plant,  conservation
by users, and the portion of tne lake area to be served.  An
adequate solution would seem to be a 15 mgd plant to which
5 mgd capacity could be added when needed, depending on the
issues listed above.

                               Sincerely,
                               Shirley Cordes, Chairman
                               Environmental Duality Committee
                               League of Women Voters of
                               Bloomington-Monroe County
                               (2728 Pine Lane, R.R. 3)
                               339-9364
                                  6-101

-------
Hay 29, 1975

US Environmental P
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604                       „«____»   .....
                                                           SASSAFRAS

             of IAWRENCE • qREENE • MONKOE     *W ]/ \ AtdUDON
        BROWN • MORqAN ANd OWEN COUNIJES       y      , SOCIETY

Dear I.ir. Hirt:

In regard to your letter of l.Iay 14,  1975,  the  Sassafras  Audubon Society
is interested in contributing to the preparation of the  Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the location of the new wastewater treatment system  in
the South drainage basin of Bloomington, Monroe  County,  Indiana.   The
principal question, as stated in your letter,  is whether to build one
sewage treatment plant (STP)  for south Bloomington and the Lake Monroe
area or separate STPs.

Y/e believe that a site near Bloomington would  be advantageous in terms of
curbing urban sprawl and strip development, in minimising environmental
disruption, and in overall economy of operation  and maintenance.   We rec-
ommend serious  consideration of the Dillman Road Site without rerouting
of Clear Creek.

We further recommend that sewage treatment facility expansion at Lake
Monroe be curbed until comprehensive land-use  planning  is in effect  for
at least the area encompassed in the Lake  Monroe Land Suitability Study.
We see serious  consequences if a Regional  Sewerage System is instituted
at Lake Monroe  prior to land-use planning for  the Lake Monroe ₯atershedo

The Sassafras Audubon Society in March, 1974,  sent Region V, EPA (under
cover  letter to Francis Mayo), a file of bibliographical material, corres-
pondence, news  articles, etc on issues and problems surrounding Lake Monroe.
Region T also has a copy of the lengthy statement we presented  at the
Hearing on the  Black & Yeatch Facilities Plan  held in March of  this  year,.

We enclose with this letter the brief statement  we prepared for the  May
29, 1975 Environmental Assessment Hearing on the siting of the  STP,  as
well as a statement sent to the Monroe County  Plan (3ommission  (MCPC) by
a number of organizations seeking implementation of the  Lake Monroe  Land
Suitability Study.

As you know, the MCPC has jurisdiction for land-use planning of a large
and vital area  of the Lake Monroe Watershed.  The MCPC made no  comments  on
the Draft Eake  Monroe Land Suitability Study though asked to do so by the
Director of the study (the MCPC received one of  the four draft  copies).
They have said  that when the study is in final form, they will  read  it
and discuss it.

Please let us know how we can contribute to preparation of the  Draft En-
vironmental Impact Statement.

                             Yours sincerely,
                  6-102       Lake Monroe Committee ior the
                             Board of Directors, Sassafras Audubon Society

-------
               Of UWRENCE .  qREENE •  MONKOE
         BROWN • MORqAN Ar^H OWEN couNiits       Y       SOClETy

                                                      May 1975

Statement presented at Environmental Aseeement Hearing on Facilities Flan
for Wastewater Treatment System, South Drainage Basin, Bloomington,
Th« Sassafras Audubon Society baa studied the various sites Black & Teateh
nave considered for placement of the south basin wastewater treatment
system, and recommend* the Dillman Boad Site.  This site, while rural,  is
oloee to the Bloomington Metropolitan Area and a gravity feed system is
possible without serious environmental disruption.

We would ask, however, that Black & Teatoh prepare an alternative plan for
the Dillman Site without rerouting Clear Creek.  The proposed plan (Figure
7III-5) would sacrifice a substantial pert of the longest continuous pieee
of the site for a new creek channel.  Examination of the site suggests that
the present major piece of land between the railroad and the creek channel
would be adequate for most of the design capacity.  Adjacent acreage could
be utilized if necessary and still maintain a compact unit for operation
and maintenance, even though line(s) across Clear Creek might be involved.
Besides, channelisation has proven repeatedly to be a destructive manage-
ment practice entailing considerable costs in construction and maintenance,
             downstream damages to stream ecology.
Two statements which Black & Teatoh make with regard to the Dillman Site
have little merit*  1) "By tt?8 it is not unlikely that the plant site would
become surrounded by development comparable to that which presently rings
the Winston Thomas Site." (7III-4), and "Acceptance of the Dillman Road
Site is questionable due to the close proximity of State Route 37 Bypass."
(EX-1) .   The Dillman Site, if accepted, could be effectively zoned to pre-
vent build-up in the plant area.  The greater part of the site is adequately
buffered in terms of SR 37 1 and more could be done, if necessary, to lessen
the affront to sensitive motorists I

Mention is also made with regard to the Dillman Site that "There would be
no surplus area available for construction of additional facilities if fur-
thereftdvanoed treatment processes, such as denitrification, were mandated
in the future. " (VIII-4).  This needs clarification, since the possibility
exists that denitrification may be required by the Federal Government within
a few years.  Couldn't the space used for nitrification facilities be con-
verted to denitrifioation?  When denitrification is required, wouldn't this
nullify the advantage of the Salt Creek Site over the Clear Creek Sites,
as emphasized by Black & Voatoh on pages IIZ-1 and 111-27
                               6-103

-------
The Black & Teatch Reports continue to seem slanted toward maximizing
the advantages of the Salt Creek Site while minimising the advantages of
the aitoe significantly closer to the Bloomineton riotropolitan Area.   Ho
assessment of the environmental damages which could result from  construc-
tion of the lengthy transport system to the Soli Creek Site have been
made by Black & Yeatch.  Environmental damages should be considered a cost
of the project and not disnissed under the euphenisn of "temporary  dis-
ruption." (DC-9).

The fact that there is sufficient acreage at the Salt Creek Site for  use
of the sludge injection process is stressed as an advantage of the  site,
yet no evaluation As given of the soils of the area in tenas of  the
process, nor of difficulties which might be encountered*  Composting  of
sludge should be considered for all sites* (See Sassafras Audubon Society
Statement to Utility Service Board, February 1973* pages 2*3.).

Black & Veatch assort (IX-10) that "Sewerage service for the Lake Monroe
region is necessary to preserve the ecologic value of the area." While
there is grave need for a new wastewater treatment eystea in the south
drainage basin of Uonroe County, ve continue to asocrt that sewerage
is but one of the facto IB that oust be considered in the protection of
Lake Monroe.  LAUD-IKS PLAHNINC PQH TUB LAKT. 1IUKIOE WATERSHED SHOULD  HATE
AS HIGK t'HIORIOT AS Tllil DLTELOPLI3IIT OP A RaC-IOHAL .'Ja/ERAGB SYSTSI.  In-
pleaentation of the Lako Honroe Suitability Study by the Monroe  County
Plan Commission should be of prime importance to the ttloomin^ton-Uonroe
County Poraminity.


                              The Board of Directors
                              Sassafras Audubon Society
                             6-104

-------
Harlas D. Hirt, Chief
Region T Planning Branch^EPA
2JO South Dearborn Street^AKVl/Vc UM,A
Chicago, Illinois 60604 ****&__  «Afl         	
                                            	THE   f
                                                           SASSAFRAS

             of IAWRENCE • qREENE   MONUOE     ^^ V\ AIJC«!JbON
       BROWN • MORQAN ANd OU/EN couNiits       T     ' SOCIETY

                                                June 16, 1975

Dear Mr. Hirt:

We would like to call the attention of the Planning Branch of Region 7,
EPA, to the Strain Ridge School controversy in Monroe County, as it has
implications with regard to the siting of the new treatment plant.

There was organized opposition to the placement of a school at Strain
Ridge when it was first proposed,  because Smithville citizens wanted
to retain their community school,  and the citizens of Harrodsburg and
Kirksville sought a community school near the center of their popula-
tions (combined)  which would require significantly less bussing than
to Strain Ridge.

We are enclosing several recent news items from the Bloomington Daily
Heraid-Telephone which will give you some idea of the interest and argu-
ments this issue has engendered.  The issue is more complicated than can
be presented here, but we do not feel the issue is whether the children
in these particular areas will be deprived of proper educational facili-
ties, but where those facilities should be placed.   It jshould be noted
that if a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) were placed at the Dillnan Road
Site, it could service a community school at Siaithville.

          THE SASSAPltAS AUDDBOH SOCIETY WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE ITS
          SUPPORT FOR A STP IFEAR THE BLOOIIHIGT01T METROPOLITAN AREA.
          ?/E BELIEVE THAT A PLANT AT THE DILLIIAH SITS GOULD 3E A
          REGIOUAL STP IN TIE BEST SENSE OF THE WORD, SERVING THE
          1IEEDS OP All EXPANDING, SEWERED, METROPOLITAN POPULATION,
          BUT ALSO STIMULATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SEiffiRAGE SYSTELI
          FOR THOSE BUILT-UP AREAS IN THE SOUTH BASIH SERVICED BY
          RURAL Y/ATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS BUT STILL DEPENDENT OH SEPTIC
          TAIUCS.   CCMC.11VAr5LY, ALSQ PARTS OF THE ITORTII \7ATERS1I3D O-1
          LAKE HOimC,^ VnilCII 'JOULD T.!ICLUDE THE PAYIIETOWH RECRfiATIOU
          i\REA, etc WOULD BE \7IT11IN A HI3ASONABLE RAHGE.

V/e v^ere disturbed at the Final Assessment Hearing in Hay to hear the
stress placed on the advantage which the Salt Creek Site had over Clear
Creek Sites in terms of dilution water, (by Black & Veatch and a pepre-
sentative of the 17ater Pollution Control Division of the Indiana State
Board of Health.)  We must deal with realities in terns of lack of imple-
mentation of provisions for the high degree of treatment (or zero dis-
charge) sought by the recent Federal \7ater Pollution Control Act Amdnd-
ments, and insufficient appropriations for constructing STP's capable
of such treatment.  Nevertheless,  we do have goals, we are working on
                             6-105

-------
the technology arid planning for achieving those  goals.   It  is  not good
policy to use a lesser standard as a selling point 102? a site  on  the
grounds that it is cheaper.

I'urt'icm ;re, it is possible that in the future Lake I-Ionroo's function
as the principal water supply resource of the entire Region will  assume
top priority in the management of the lake.  The Sassafras  Sudubon Society
is working for that top priority recognition.  It is conceivable  then
that low-flow downstream would become a lesser /unction  of  the lake during
periods of prolonged drought.  If so, the site advantage could become a
disadvantage«,

We advocate sludge recycling but object to the approach  of  recommending
a process of sludge disposal (soil injection) as an advantage  of  the
Salt Creek Site prior to an evaluation of the soils and  the process
through on-site research.  Me quote front the Abstract of the paper
of Paul Blalceslee "Monitoring Considerations for Ilunicipal  \7astewater
Effluent and Sludge Application to the Land" presented at the  Joint
Conference on Recycling Ilunicipal Sludges and Effluents  on  Land in 1973:

     "Monitoring the performance of the many interrelated systems which
      are involved in any  project employing wastewater or wastewater
      sludge application to the land can not be  looked upon as a  sub-
      stitute for a full understanding of system response prior to
      project coTrunittment."

We would appreciate having the Dilliaan Road Site re-evaluated  from the
standpoint of "environmental" engineering, to see if  the site  could be
utilized to better advantage thai projected in the First Amendment to
Facilities Plan of Black L Veatch.

Will there be an opportunity to meet with representatives of Region V
SPA on this matter when they are in the area?

                            Sincerely yours, ^   _.
                             y-n^s  &*S»-L^L &. *=*z:/*4-<*r^"
                            R3, Snith Road, Blooningftn, HI 47401
                            Tor the Board of Directors
                            Sassafras Audubon Society
                           6-106

-------
Dale Leucht
Planning Division
Region V EPA
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604                            !!••••• mm,,*    • >.«-
                                                                SASSAFRAS
                Of UWRENCE • qREENE • MONKOE     ^W V \  AUQUDON
          DROWN • MORqAN ANfi OU/EN COUNllfeS       Y     ,  SOCIETy

                                                     July  2, 1975

Dear Mr. Leucht:

Enclosed are copies of three recent news items from the Bloomington Herald-
Telephone which relate to the siting of the south side  sewage treatment plant.

On June 17 the Utility Service Board heard a presentation from Scarab  Compost-
ing Company of Bloomington for accepting all  the city's sludge.  The proposal
is being considered by the Board.   The implications of  this proposal are  ob-
vious, if implemented, since a leading argument for the Salt Creek  Site is
the space available for the sludge injection process.   We have advocated  con-
sideration of composting as an alternative to the injection process, and  would
like to see serious consideration given to this proposal.

The Statement of the Monroe Engineering Society (signed by  Ray Graham, County
Surveyor and member of the Monroe County Plan Commission, and Ray Long, City
Engineer) backing the Salt Creek Site is essentially an endorsement of the
Black cc Veatch recommendations, using similar arguments for their decision.

Emphasis is placed both in the engineers statement arid  the  H-T editorial  on
the argument th&t the operation and maintenance expenses would be higher  at
the Clear Creek sites.  This is based on the higher degree  of treatment which
would be required at the Clear Creek sites and high costs of sludge disposal
at same sites.  We have discussed these matters previously  and can  only reit-
erate that they have not considered all the factors involved, e.g.  what the
situation might be if effluent standards are adopted and enforced,  implement-
ing recent amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, if denitri-
fication facilities are required at both sites, if water supply  is  recognized
as a top priority function of Lake Monroe (as we believe it should  be) etc.

The Engineering Society also fails to consider any alternative to landfill
for the Clear Creek sites and blindly accepts the sludge injection  process
for the Salt Creek Site as if it had neither problems nor expenses  associated
with it.   There are unknowns associated with the sludge injection  process
which can only be resolved by research and continuing studies in the field.
Particularly important is thorough analysis of the capabilities  of  the site
which in this instance is lacking although the survey of soil types of t!-e
area has been made.  Perhaps better drainage might be needed, and this would
be a cost of the proiect.  In addition, also, to the costs  of storage, trans-
poT't, and injection of sludge, wou!1 rt be the need for continuing  research  on
what happens to the sludge components in the soil and in the crons  etc.
                                6-107

-------
GUP- Society would like to see the sludge recycled whatever process is used.  We
realize that it could be expensive,  perhaps,  especially in initial stages when
an adenuate and acceptable Method is being developed.   However,  a community
should feel an obligation toward recycling such a resource.

The assertion by the engineers that  permanent damage in Clear Greek Valley can't
be substantiated reflectsvthe viewpoint that  9 **e en^ justifies the mean, arid
9) ignorance of the word "damage" from an ecological standpoint,   actually, one
type of damage which could result from interference with the stream channel,
and its watershed, has been widely demonstrated in our country in terms o'f changes
in natural systems,,  drainage patterns etc. It is difficult to see how long-lasting
damage could b<= avoided if there are numerous crossings of Clear Creek involved
in th<= lading of the iery large interceptor sewer.   Recent experiences with rock-
slides at road cuts on South 37 indicates the complexity of problems associated
with construction in this area.

Both at the last environmental assessment hearing and  in the engineers statement
it was noted that nature ranidly heals scars  of construction and the Korth Sewage
Plant outfall sewer was given as an  example of how soon a sewer construction pro-
ject can be hidden by nature.  What  is not recognized is that out of sight (dis-
guised by vegetation or hidden under the creek) is not necessarily out of mind
in terras of continuing effects if serious alteration of channel and watershed
has been effected.

We also take exception to the comparison of the North sewer line with the oro-
nosed line to Salt Creek because of  the greater length involved to Salt Creek
and the magnitude of the topographical problems.   The  North line had one short
passage through rugged terrain and then followed the f]ood p]ain to the Bottom
Road plant.  Even so, the laying of  the north line was a travesty of environ-
mental planning!  Enclosed is a copy of page  3 of The  Balancer [newspaper of
Soil Conservation District)  which depicts and describes the situation.  As we
understand it, the City had to absorb costly  changes in the laying of the line.

The news article on the Engineering  Society's statement ends on the note that
one plant is more economic than two, and that the Lake Monroe Regional Waste
District will probably construct a plant somewhere south of Har^odsburg if the
Clear Creek site is selected.  While we would agree that one regional plant
would be more economic than two, there are alternatives which haven't been fully
considered for dealing with effluent now entering the  lake and questions of
policy concerning the management of  Lake Monroe are still  to be answered which
could affect what is needed in the way of a plant at that site (or if there is
any need at all beyond the plant raw in process of construction at Little Clear
Creek).

We reiterate our concern for any action which would promote growth and develop-
ment around Lake Monroe	An AREA OF CRITICAL Ei^lOiriE.^ J/C .M3ERN BECAUSE
IT IS THE CHIPS' (AlID LAST) WATER SUPPLY RESOURCE OP TVE I3LOOHIKGTON ; IUHCHOLI L\i,N
AREA l-wmnnrjj-! the absence of any combined effort on the part of governmental
agencies concerned with its management to evaluate and determine what levels of
development and use can be absorbed  without seriously affecting water quality.

The issue is what is best for the public interest in this instance as the Lake
was created with public funds and the life of a community is involved.
                                  6-108

-------
A land-use policy for the perimeter and the entire watershed ofl Lake Monroe
needs to be adopted but has not *MK been considered as yet.  St&ndards must
necessarily be more stringent for protection of a communal water supply.

Our Society  would also like to go on record as favoring a 20 mgd plant in
order to provide for built-up areas in need of sewer service and for future
expansion around the metropolitan southern area.

In conclusion, we would like to stress a point already covered but which needs
to be emphasized since the argument used for the Salt Creek Site tends to
center around degree of dilution water:

     "The emphasis of national water pollution control policy is now on
      the amount of wastes that can be kept out of surface waters, rather
      than on the amount of wastes that can be assimilated by the waters.
      This emphasis will guide future acceptable water resource policies."
                (Prom Characteristics and comparative magnitude of non-
                 point sources by Raymond C. Loehr,  Journal of1 Water Pollii'f";'NTi
                 Control Federation, 1974, ^6-(S) :' 1?49-1872.  Mr. Loehr is
                 professor of civil and agricultural engineering,  Cornell
                 University, Ithaca, N.Y.

                                     Yours sincerely,
                                     for the Board of Directors,
                                     Sassafras Audubon Society
                                     R3.  Smith Road
                                     Bloomingtan,  Indiana 4*740-
                                   6-109

-------

-------
D)  LETTERS FROM INDIVIDUALS
                 6-110

-------
                                            7i;l Eigenmann Center
                                            Indiana University
                                            Bloomington, IN
                                            June 3, 1975
Region V Office
Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606

Gentlemen:

With regard to the environmental impact statement you have decided to
write concerning the siting of the proposed Bloomington sewage treatment
plant, I believe that the following points, in addition to those made
in the report of the Bloomington Environmental Quality and Conservation
Commission, should be considered:

(l)  The amount of rock to be removed by blasting during the construction
of the outfall sewer.  The assumption made by Black & Veatch in their
Facilities Plan that the soil depth along Clear Creek is equal to the
average Monroe County soil depth is tenuous.  More blasting would quite
probably result in higher economic and ecological costs.

(2) Identification of sludge injection sites in the Dillman Road site
vicinity.  If soil injection could be used as a sludge disposal method
at that site, it would substantially reduce the present worth of that
alternative from the Black & Veatch estimate.

(3) Identification of the soil types at the various sites and their impli-
cations for plant construction and ionic leacjning from sewage.

While I realize that resource constraints may prohibit a full investiga-
tion of these points, I think that, to the extent that they can be con-
sidered, the EIS will benefit from them.

                                            Sincerely,
                                    6-111

-------
                   Indiana University Alumni Association
                   AKEA CODE S12 / SS7-17I1

                   Office of the Executive Secretary
                                                                       1975
             June 17, 197;
o

w
S

fc
Mr. Dale Luecht
United States Environmental Protection
      Agency, Planning Branch
12th Floor
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  6o6oU

Dear Mr. Luecht:

I would like to endorse the Salt  Creek site  as the best location
for the Waste Treatment Plant  to  serve Bloomington and that part
of Monroe County which is  in the  natural drainage area.

I believe the Salt Creek site  will  not only  serve a much larger
area for a collection system,  but it will also result in less
environmental damage than  any  other site to  which serious attention
has been given.

I am interested in environmental  considerations for our community
and believe that the Salt  Creek site will provide the greatest
protection.
                   B. Jone
             Alumni Secret

             FBJ:jh
   Winner of three national Alumni Administration awards for comprehensive excellence in alumni programming
                                          6-112

-------
               BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADKS COUNCIL
                             IN AFFILIATION WITH
          BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES  DEPARTMENT
        AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR	CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL OKGAM/ATIONS
                                            '-MV'WENTAL
of •HJriter 2555 Vernal  Pike.  BloomingtonT Ind.
! V K
                                                          o
                                        June 18,
Mr. Dale Luecht
United States -Environmental  Protection
Agency, Planning  Branch
12tt Floor
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Luecht;

     The Bloomington Building & Construction Trades
Council is  a  Council of representatives from all the
fifteen Construction Unions in this area.  As it was
impossible  for us  to attend the public meeting this
letter is to  advise  you that the Council has went on
record to support  the Salt  Creek site for Construction
of the new  Waste Treatment  Plant for the Bloomington
Indiana area.
     This site would serve  a much larger area that
badly needs a sewage system.
                           6-113

-------
                  of
                LOCAL UNION No. 1664
                     2335 VERNAL PIKE
                 ELODMINGTQN, INDIANA 474OT
                    PHDNC: a7Z/336-43SQ
                                    June 18,
Mr. Dale Luecht
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Planning Branch
12m Floor
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604-
Dear Mr. Luecht:
     The Carpenters in the Bloomington, Indiana are
very much interested in the proposed Waste Treatment
Plant for this area.
     When building a house, apartment, store, office,
school, factory or what ever, it is only good business
to design and locate the structure so that it will be
utilized to its .fullest extent.  For these reasons
and others we want to urge your approval of the Salt
Creek site for this plant.
     As you may know Monroe County Indiana does not
have maney areas that are suitable for Septic Systems.
The Engineering report given in the local paper
recomended this site to service a large area and
thereby eleminating maney other possible environmental
problems in the future.
     We further think this plant should serve the
greatest number of people at the lowest possible cost.
The Salt Creek site is the best suited to do this
pluss protecting the environment of the largest
possible area.
                                            pkins
                        6-114

-------
JAMES R. REGESTER
COWARD W.NAJAM.JR.
                        REGEBTEH S NAJAM
                         ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                          I OO Vt WEST SIXTH STREET
                        BLO D MIM BTDN, INDIANA
 TELEPHONE

AREA CODE 812

 332-3334
                                   June 4, 197^
Mr. Dale Luecht
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Planning Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604
                                                        j i 1575
                              RE:  City of Bloomington,  Indiana
                                   Wastewater Treatment
                                   Disposal of Sludge
Dear Mr. Luecht:
          It is our understanding that you are presently evaluating
various proposals for construction by the City of Bloomington of  a
new wastewater treatment facility.  You have been referred to us  by
Mr. Gary Kent, Director of Utilities, and Mr. Rick Peoples, Utilities
Chemist.

          The Scarab Compost Company has developed a process for
the accelerated decomposition of organic matter.  The Company can
process virtually any organic substance, e.g., leaves, grass, saw-
dust, wood chips, cardboard, paper, etc., and can convert such
organic material into a mineral rich dirt in a period of thirty
(30) days.

          The Company has worked with the Indiana State Board of
Health in cleaning up the Bloomington Packing Company by disposing
of its organic refuse through composting.  The Company has also,  by
way of experimentation, disposed of sludge left over from the City
of Bloomington wastewater treatment process.

          The Company now has a tentative agreement for a contract
with the City of Bloomington to dispose of the sludge material
produced by both the Winston Thomas and Blucher Poole waste treat-
ment plants.  The end product from this process will be a harmless,
odorless and mineral rich black dirt.
                               6-115

-------
Mr. Dale Luecht
June 4, 1975
Page Two
          We believe that the process which Scarab has developed
holds great promise as an alternative to conventional land applied
means of disposing of sewage sludge.  We would like to discuss this
process with you or other representatives of the Environmental
Protection Agency, with emphasis on the high cost effectiveness of
the Scarab method and the environmental benefits.

          Please let us hear from you at your earliest convenience.

                                   Very truly yours,

                                   SCARAB COMPOST COMPANY, INC.
EWN:ap
                              6-116

-------
                          REQEBTEH S NAJAM
                            ATTORNEYS AT LAW                      TELEPHONE
                            IOO14 WEST SIXTH STREET                     AREA CODE 812
JAMES R. REOESTER

EDWARD W.NAJAM,JR.                 Hl^Q OMIN QTPN, IMDIANA
                                  August 8, 1975
  Mr. Dale Luecht
  United States Environmental
  Protection Agency
  Region V, Planning Branch       RE:  City of Bloomington, Indiana,
  230 South Dearborn Street            Contract for Sludge Disposal
  Chicago, Illinois  60604             Through Composting

  Dear Mr. Luecht:

            Since I met with you and Cathy Grissom in Bloomington
  on July 17th, the Scarab Compost Company has signed a sludge
  disposal contract with the City of Bloomington to compost the
  sludge produced by the City's present wastewater treatment plants.
  A copy of the Contract is enclosed herewith.

            The purpose of this letter is to request that the
  Environmental Protection Agency and its consulting engineers fully
  consider and evaluate composting as a sludge treatment alternative
  in preparing the Environmental Impact Statement for Bloomington's
  proposed wastewater treatment facility.

            In our Contract with the City, our objective is to
  demonstrate, in practical use, the desirability and feasibility
  of composting sewage sludge.  We believe that composting is the
  most effective method of sludge treatment and disposal both in
  terms of environmental protection and solid waste resource re-
  covery and utilization.

            Our Contract with the City provides for testing and
  evaluation of digested sludge both before and after composting.
  We anticipate that, given the constituent character of Blooming-
  ton's digested sludge, the concentration of heavy metals and other
  contaminants before composting will be acceptable and will improve
  in the future with pre-treatment.  After the sludge is composted
  with other organic materials, e.g. leaves, sawdust, corn cobs, etc.,
  there is a significant dilution factor in the finished product.
                                  6-117

-------
Page Two
Dale Luecht
August 8, 1975

          The Scarab compost process also achieves significant
pathogen reduction.  Accelerated bio-degradation generates tem-
peratures which disinfect the digested sludge in a natural pro-
cess of stabilization through bacterial action.

          In addition, the Scarab aerobic or "open stomach"
method requires a limited energy investment, a factor of in-
creasing significance which should be considered in evaluating
various sludge disposal alternatives.

          The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 call for the development of alternative means of sludge
disposal and utilization.  As you know, traditional land appli-
cation of digested sludge presents significant problems of soil
and water contamination.  These problems can be controlled and
significantly reduced or eliminated by adequate composting under
controlled conditions.

          To insure safe operation and control while the sludge
is being processed, our Contract provides for inspection by the
City and other appropriate public agencies, including the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency.  We invite you and your consulting
engineers to participate in the evaluation which will be conducted
by the City's Environmental Quality and Conservation Commission.

          There are not many people qualified and capable of
producing large amounts of compost on a commercial scale through
an accelerated process of bio-degradation.  The President of our
Company, William Addison, was among the original group of persons
involved in the 1930's in compost research at George Washington
University at College Park and Beltsville, Maryland.  Mr. Addison's
early work involved field research in agriculture and animal hus-
bandry and the creation of organic substitutes to commercial ferti-
lizers.  In his early research Mr. Addison worked with Dr. E. E.
Pfeiffer who was responsible for the fundamental research in
composting during that period.  Mr. Addison's composting experience
spans forty years.  Three years ago he sold his sole proprietorship
and began the commercial production of compost within the present
corporation, the Scarab Compost Company.

          As I indicated to you in my letter of June 4, 1975,
Mr. Addison and the Company have worked with Indiana State
Board of Health in cleaning up the Bloomington Packing Company
                              6-118

-------
Page Three
Dale Luecht
August 8, 1975

which was under an order to close unless it disposed of its
organic refuse.  The Packing Company now has a clean bill of
health and Scarab composts all of the offal remaining after the
meat packing process.

          Mr. Addison has worked with numerous officials from
the State Board of Health.  Among those who may be contacted
are Mr. Frank Kuhns, Field Supervisor in the Division of Meat
and Poultry.  Mr. Lee Parsons of the Agricultural Waste Disposal
Section is also familiar with Mr. Addison*s work.,

          Composting deserves serious and systematic consideration
in preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement wherever the
proposed treatment plant is to be located.  One reason we have
obtained the present Contract with the City is that our proposal to
compost the City's sludge is the most reliable and cost-effective
means of disposal.  The Scarab process also offers an environmental
control factor not available with other methods.   Further, composting
could result in a substantial savings to the City in eliminating the
need to purchase land for a sludge farm operation.

          We look forward to hearing from you or your consulting
engineers in the very near future.

                                Very truly yours,

                                SCARAB COMPOST COMPANY, INC.
EWN:rn
                                   Edward W.  Najam, Jr.
                                                    VJ
                               6-119

-------

                                              ets" W-if v^ •~$f/>>


                                «v>!f; -3 :'> 4 •£
 •','  • K-: j - 'i>  :7^v^- ^.P'F^r'
 -r./fe:-J;V m^^^^W:^^'^
 ?^r-^rr^^rr^mrw^"iT ^fe^^-rf1^^
- i. - i^-njl"-^  >3  -.  , -,-.j>rv-«^f iLfiE^-^.iL^h^A', A *s. '-i?4 r ,-^1^%'*^*
                                                        E,GEND



                                             C^>  DEMAND CENTER


                                             A   EXISTING SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT


                                             A   ALTERNATE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE


-------

r\ - •	MVJ '

       	r"	""'*5/ •• - vs--naf" I TTT-—..-\  '  7T^~ "" X/%%i*tf\rtf(f TOK^^-fWH^ fwtliwW?^/ ^
       :  ."     -  ^:&fiA£-tm%-MA)  --.r\ >  "-.   i-- vv-k^t"^;. K.i.

-------


                                        \
                                             a^^fl^JPS^

                  * V^ «M« I q n^« I(]J I
          I 5-,.    » t\X LIFT 3TATI6MM

          yjr>3\ -Jfrf \mil—3L->^., --r^cpf,-:mH
_—-":'—,rfU -^»*S-^-A *	 -"^.7^y:fe>  ^ "
                              C-V^cf  -f^K
                                                   	  DRAINAGE AREA DIVIDE

                                                   	  PROPOSED TRUNK SEWERS OR INTERCEPTORS
                                                         EXISTING  a  PROPOSED  SEWAGE

                                                      TRANSMISSION 8 TREATMENT  FACILITIES

                                                                SOUTH SERVICE AREA

-------
         r T~!FH  ! W':
         -F-t-J[ ft',\  /Civ-
                                 .-
      -:^#%
;	^T-^r^H"7""  :   mAut^^s jiTREET^^V V vM.^fea^^^'^'^s
   i '   Jfi>, ? '  '  \   , ,  J/-T 'ipi-SN-t jnTe '- I, .  s-J3j-\ .  I VV^F«*S^i*sx^l ~J ^
-.   •,.«..iffe1" '4->xr:-V-|  :-L// -' l .Mi'j"^  v^Hwi^Lii r
i  '•*'•'''  T -4 H*:  .aL, • \  [V i-ft-: -i7"X.-   „ -1- X',H- A .v^'Wfe^r^v.VJsv.-"^
-v -/T^Mh^H^-1- - "s\^lP^-w? -> - >=^^V*Vw4£fe*'^as₯/
    ^•t'  -'^.  ./^f>~n/  -   ^"\a-^^»f  -^^
    *r^->i'- ^•f.—^'Jv-M: ^_. ^-^r-, •rc?s^"V^/,'*-^Vv\»Ay • \*
    '•**'.- !  ?" "ii'.,  v //w-a«^"W "• Y^T^M-^V *xx.-'-"5^^-v^VK \
      -• -T-'-r.v  ^^^ ^--pATf-^-ptMtT-srrT^  ~"-JU-f,  ^r.-^^t ~^>'•&!";:>' >:^'^~^r' * •.*•. 1
      '  •<-'••;•- ^--iwA\ •: -• ;v<;    m~t'•--: e'v^^  -.^fj •*•"/' i;,.  ^/- A
       -•A-^- ^-// y~^ ^r;Ai  vjt%Y-'-t *$*-§   *--->-'- •> vj^l' • * r, :•
    " -  --- • v-  -    j   -T . f K". " - v*-"^ ^"-A -j 3r-^eHt a ' i ,  j ,j- ^./SP-SS           '.\ ?'A  "ii^ '
      •: ', •" Sfi^rr^'K^cH^fe,, '\; 45<^S-^":J^.;^^n      .>.•     tJ^iedL
  v>.;^
/M'

                                                 .,
                                         ' '      '
                                             .  i
                                        V ''I'^A
                                              ALTERNATIVE  REGIONAL SEWAGE

                                                TREATMENT PLANT SITES

-------
                              APPENDIX A

                         •PHYSICAL. PARAMETERS

•A.  MUNICIPAL WASTE LOADS.

    Data  for each of  the Bloomington wastewater treatment plants are shown

 in Tables IV-1, V-l,  V-2.  This data indicates the chemical and biological.

 characteristics of untreated and treated wastes.

    There is a substantial change between the recently recorded data and

 similar data for 1971.   A comparison of the 1971 and 1973-74 data is shown

 in the following tabulation:

                                 Average Concentrations

                              North Plant      South Plant
                            (Blucher Poole)  (Winston Thomas)

                   Year     BOD5      J3S_     BOD5      j>S_

                   1971     125       89     196      261
                 1973-74   164      187     137      146

    The change in waste  characteristics at the Blucher Poole plant may be

 attributed to the fact that since September 1973 waste has been pumped

 from the  south drainage  area to the north drainage area.

    Reasons for the change in strength of waste at the Winston Thomas

 plant are not clear.  There is no known significant change in industrial

 waste contributions.  The quantity of flow during the 1973-74 period

 was slightly lower than  in 1971, which would suggest less infiltration/

 inflow.

    Bloomington has historically experienced problems with the operation of

 the anaerobic digesters at the existing Winston Thomas plant.  High concen-

 trations  of heavy metals in the raw waste have been partially responsible

 for the operational problems.  An industrial waste ordinance has been

 passed in recent years to allow control of industrial waste discharges.
                                    A-l

-------
                           Table IV-1

                  RAW WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
                     BLUCHER POOLE PLANT

                                       Total
Date    BOD    ^      DO      pH      Phosphate    Chlorides  Alkalinity
1973
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
1974
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May

105
172
200
160
140
110
150
158
171
147
205
139

158
199
201
201
165

103
185
106
140
70
73
75
136
200
165
431
234

227
217
261
314
243

3.3
3.2
4.3
3.5
2.1
1.6
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.6
1.2
2.4

2.8
2.1
2.4
1.9
1.9

7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.0

7.0
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.0


5.2
3.5
4.3
7.5
4.6
7.4
8.5
10.8
6.8
4.5
2.9

3.2
3.6
2.9
2.7
9.2


53
43
37
42
45
37
40
36
40
43
47

72
59
59
50
46




120
250
200
206
199
113
186
180
160

180
167
171
153
152
                               A-2

-------
Date
BOD
SS
       Table IV-2

RAW WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
  WINSTON THOMAS PLANT

                       Total
        DO     _gH    Phosphate  Chlorides  Alkalinity
1973
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
1974
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
185
366
150
96
95
70
105
106
127
129
153
118

108
114
136
133
128
166
174
130
81
110
98
88
165
180
174
223
155

113
137
157
164
159
5.2
5.4
6.8
5.7
3.8
3.7
3.0
2:5
2.6
2.8
5.1
4.8

6.4
3.9
8.0
5.2
4.7
^ .
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.0

7.2
7.2
7.0
6.7
7.0


3.3
2.4
5.3
3.3
6.3
4.9
5.5
7.5
4.9
3.5

2.7
3.2
2.9
4.0
10.8


55
49
45
45
41
46
44
34
44
57

95
67
56
51
46



86
185
170
160
107
174
212
164
176

168
151
164
152
159
                                 A-3

-------
An industrial waste monitoring program is scheduled to start in the fall  of




1974.  Heavy metals concentrations will be monitored as part of this program.




Heavy metals concentrations in the raw waste during recent months are shown




in Table IV-3.




 B.  RECEIVING WATER QUALITY




    The receiving stream for the Blucher Poole plant is Bean Blossom Creek




and for the Winston Thomas plant it is Clear Creek.  The receiving stream




for the new regional plant will be either Clear Creek or Salt Creek,depending




on the site selected.




    Data for dissolved oxygen levels in the streams above and below the




existing treatment plants have been obtained by the City and are recorded




in Table IV-4.
                                   A-4

-------
                                Table  IV-3



           CHEMICAL ANALYSES -  RAW WASTE  (WINSTON THOMAS PLANT)
                             4 1 •*     "
Date _
1 07-3
i.7 / J
Sep. 19
Sep. 25
Oct. 3
Oct. 16
Oct. 24
Oct. 31
Nov. 7
Nov. 14
Nov. 21
Nov. 28
Dec. 12
Dec. 19
1974
Jan. 9
Jan. 16
Jan. 24
Jan . 30
Feb. 6
Feb. 14
Feb. 20
Feb. 27
Mar. 6
Mar. 13
Mar. 20
Mar. 27
Apr. 3
Average
Cu
— -
0.06
0.09
0.15
0.11
N/T*
0.14
N/T*
0.08
0.11
0.11
N/T*
0.12

0.12
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.11
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.12
0.11
0.09
Cr
- • •
0.03
0.07
0.18
0.11

0.09

0.04
0.16
0.06

0.17

0.15
0
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.03
0
0
0.01
0.09
0.08
0.06
	 Nl 	
0.02
0.14
0.21
0.12

0.09

0.18
0.26
0.21

0.07

0.10
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.09
0.10
— •-" •"* "'£
Fe
— 1. 1, — . , ,
0.45
0.82
3.10
0.77

1.51

0.49
0.71
1.95

1.02

0.73
0.54
0.68
1.10
1.7
1.08
0.63
0.44
0.26
0.11
0.32
1.45
1.65
0.98
-,1 -i-
Zn Mg
0.16 7.6
0.47 7.1
1.99 7.6
0.34 6.6

0.59 8.37

0.60 8.1
0.86 8.1
0.42 8.7

0.47 8.8

0.33 8.4
0.21 11.2
0.17 10.26
0.24 9.44
0.40 9.44
0.35 9.4
0.25 8.6
0.18 10.7
0.11 9.2
0.11 9.1
0.13 9.2
0.55 8.9
0.50 9.7
0.43 8.84
Ca
54.9
26.0
47.1
42.7

32.3

23.3
29.8
30.2

40.8

—
63.1
70.6
75.6
56.4
47.3
32.2
71.9
66.9
63.4
78.0
59.3
61.1
51.1
*N/T = No Test.

                                  A-5

-------
                             Table  IV-4




                 DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS IN STREAMS




            BLUCHER POOLE PLANT           WINSTON THOMAS PLANT
Date Above Outfall
1973
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.*
1974
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
13.6
14.0
11.9
11.0
9.5
7.0
6.4
6.2
6.5
6.4
8.3
9.1
12.5
12.4
10.4
9.4
8.2
Below Outfall
13.2
12.0
12.0
10.0
8.7
6.6
6.1
5.4
4.6
4.2
6.1
8.3
12.7
12.1
10.2
9.2
8.2
Above Outfall
13.1
14.4
13.0
11.0
8.9
7.7
7.1
6.9
7.2
7.6
8.7
9.3
10.9
11.4
10.1
10.8
8.7
Below Outfall
9.2
10.0
11.0
8.8
8.9
7.6
7.1
6.3
4.8
5.8
8.1
7.8
10.1
9.7
9.2
8.3
8.7
*Estimated
                                 A-6

-------
                           Table V-l

                 ANALYSES OF NORTH PLANT WASTE
                        (BLUCHER POOLE)
                     Suspended Solids
BOD
Date

1973
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sep.*
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
1974
Jan.
Feb.
Flow
(mgd)
0.41
0.40
0.84
1.03
0.41
0.48
0.38
0.45
1.44
2.21
2.34
1.76

2.59
3.36
Raw
(mg/1)
103
185
106
140
70
73
75
136
200
165
431
234

227
217
Final
(mg/1)
18
18
38
7
7
27
32
23
27
38
32
29

21
20
Raw
(mg/1)
105
172
200
160
140
110
150
158
171
147
205
139

158
199
Final
(mg/1)
10.4
13.4
8.8
6.7
4.4
9.5
10.2
9.7
5.6
11.0
14.4
7.0

6.2
13.1
*  Since September 1973, flow has been pumped from the south basin

   to the north plant through the central lift station.
                             A-7

-------
                             Table V-2

                   ANALYSES OF SOUTH PLANT WASTE
                          (WINSTON THOMAS)
                       Suspended Solids
Date

1973
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sep.*
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.**
1974
Jan.
Feb.
Flow
(mgd)
9.1
8.9
10.6
11.2
7.9
8.4
8.2
7.2
5.6
5.3
5.8
6.4
7.8
7.2
Raw
(mg/D
166
174
130
81
110
98
88
165
180
174
223
239
113
137
Final
(mg/1)
29
38
40
45
39
36
32
46
34
24
44
58
18
19
Raw
(mg/1)
185
366
150
96
95
70 '
105
106
127
129
153
121
108
114
Final
(mg/D
40
59
47
41
30
27
35
41
35
20
31
19
18
17
 *  Since September 1973 flow has been diverted to the north plant

    through the central lift station.

 ** Estimated.

*** See pages A-9 to A-ll of this appendix for correction of flows due to
    inaccurate metering devices.
                                  A-8

-------
                  L.fY  DF BLOOMINGTU UTILITIES
                                  P.O. BOX 1216
                            BLDDMINGTDN, INDIANA 47401
                                TELEPHONE AC «12 339- 2261
                                March 18, 1975
Robert Denman
Field Engineer
Municipal Wastewater Section
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis,  Indiana  46206                        •

Dear Mr.  Denman:

Attached is  a copy of work we have done checking the accuracy
of our raw sewage meter.
               o                            •          • • • -  .   -r

Our work seems to indicate that the actual flow is only about
84% of the metered flow.  We are contacting the meter  manufac-
turer and hope to have them re-calibrate it in the near future.

If you have  any questions on what we have done or need additional
information, please contact me.

                                Very truly yours,
                                Michael M. Phillips
                                Treatment Engineer
MMP:jf

Attachment

cc:F. Beatty^Black & Veatch
   G. Kenti
.   File
                           A-9

-------
          •,  Ct   WINSTON THOMAS WASTEWATER PLANT

                       FLOW MEASUREMENTS


As part of our routine maintenance policy, the factory represen-
tative was contacted -to inspect and calibrate our magnetic raw
sewage meter.

On August 28 the meter was worked on for the first time.  Because
of the large increase indicated by the meter, he was called back
on September 30 and October 21 to inspect and re-adjust it.  Table
I gives information on flows for the Blucher Poole and Winston
Thomas Plants from 1973 to the present, along with the monthly
measured precipitation.  Graph I shows this pictorially.

To check the accuracy of the meter, three methods were used:
displacement of the dosing tank, chemical gauging, and a". weir.

The volume of the four dosing tanks was calculated from the blue
prints and checked by addition of a known amount of LiCl.  The
number of times the tanks filled times their volume, was then
compared to the gallons indicated by the meter totalizer for the
same period of time.  These values were then converted to MGD.

Chemical gauging was the second method used to check the flow.
A known concentration of tracer, LiCl, was metered into the waste-
water flow and samples were then collected down stream of the
meter.  The samples were analyzed for lithium by a model 403
Perkin Elmer Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer, and the flow
was calculated by the formula:
                      (0^)    1440 min/day
         o   **             x
          u
                    CD        3785 ml/gal

Where:   CD  *=  downstream concentration  Li mg/1

                flow of injected stream  ml/min

                concentration of injected stream  mg/1

         Qu  =  flow MGD

Figure I shows the arrangement of equipment and sample point.

As a final test we constructed a 3 foot weir and placed it in
one channel leading to the aerated grit chambers.  The other side
was then shut- off and all flow passed over the weir.
                                 A-10

-------
                       r
•The comparison of the results of these three methods is as  follows
          Dosing tank          84.4% of indicated flow
          Chemical gauging     83.5% of indicated flow
          Weir   •             84.6% of  indicated flow.
 MMP:jf
 3-75
                                   A-ll

-------
\
o
*
• --- 	 „.-.

• ••


.


	
-






.._ r 	 	 _. 	 ^^
w ..


	
..
..
" -



••
«*
'
A-12
'• 	 	 i 	 —
o
ro
o
to
3 ~
p
H

to
Ln
to
N
-•

oo

oo
in


to

»

^
.
to
L>>
•a
>
ro







2
3
T>
3
cr
R>
*

-J
O
VO
Ul

to
s

oo
to


.p»

n
ro
u
o

:
£
^







O
n
rt
0
y



ro
oo
ON
Ul

ro
ro

-j
Ul


i^

o
ro
10
-j
0
^
^







en
n>
X)
rt
ft>
g-
HI

^
Os
to
Ln

M


^»
o


oo

«>
•o
.4
^
Ul
u>
10
_l
>
si






1
^
c
M
ft


h-
jj
VO
>J




•vl
ON


ON

o
ON
ON
ON
to
-J
«
u>







t-l
c
X




Ul
DO

oa




oo
ON


,_,.

>
>J
*•
"
_«
o\

_«







B
n>




oa
jj
oo
oo '.


Ul

VO
o


w

vj
to
ON
"
ro
o
oo
«>







(U





-p-
.J
ON
vj


*

OO
u.


-0

3


.
ro
00
0
-j







•a

j



^
»

M


O

o
ro


ro

/i
ON
oa
o
LO
-J
^
-J







31
B)
n .
J3T •
I


I-1
0
to
o
o


oo

M
•>


^,
•
^«J
oo
oa
oa
OJ
>o
^«
to
~j







ro
cr
M
P
K


ro
ro
oo
oa




vo
ro


ro
•
3N
t-f
^
ro
LO
*•
-A
ON

P»

-J
_J
/I
J


C-.
(U
p
D)



ro
vO

vO


*

VO
Ul


O»
•
00
LJ
^
"
ro
ON
i«i
o
UJ

Ln
^«B
ON
_4
O
JN

3
§
t-4
55
. (
•

"o
M
T»
£ •
*
«*
§:»
HH
**!>
•^P
•
*
•D
PJ
so
M
•
1*
Sr5
P
HH
"^
"*
"o
M
*"
O *O
32
HH
• O
                                                                                                                                       •vl

                                                                                                                                       O*
                                                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                                            l-t
                                                                                                                                            n>
                                                                                                                                            CL
                                                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                                            s:
                                                                                                                                            CD
                                                                                                                                      •vl
                                                                                                                                      Ul

-------
                      D. Sludge Composition

                   CITY DF  BLDDMINGTDN UTILITIES

                                   P. 0. BOX 1216
                             BLDDMINGTDN, INDIANA 474D1
                                 TELEPHONE AC 812 339-2261
                                September 17, 1975
Dale Leucht
Planning
US  EPA  Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois  60604

Dear Dale:

The following is  the  information you requested:

     1.  Winston  Thomas sludge composition in mg/kg
         dry weight:

                      Cu    980
                      Cr    585
                      Fe   5940
                      Ni    282
                      Cd     29
                      Zn    430

         Winston  Thomas sludge which is now picked
         up by the  public for use in gardens and
         composting is about 65% solids.
     2.   Blucher Poole sludge composition in mg/kg
         dry weight:

                      Cu    690
                      Cr     82
                      Fe   2900
                      Cd     23
                      Ni     55
                      Zn    380

         Blucher Poole sludge used for injection is
         about  8%  solids.  That used for land appli-
         cation is about 2070 solids.
                           A-13

-------
Dale Leucht
September 17, 1975
Page 2
     3.  Enclosed is a copy of a Winston Thomas sludge
         test run by Purdue's Soil Testing Laboratory.
     4.  Tentative plans for sludge disposal at the
         Salt Creek Site include injection on approx-
         imately 240 acres.  The Site will be divided
         into thirds.   In a particular year one third
         will be injected, one third fallow, and one
         third farmed.  We now plan to grow corn, beans,
         and grass.
I hope this response answers all of your questions.  If not,
please contact me.

                                 Sincerely,
                                 Richard S. Peoples
                                 Project Coordinator
RSP:jf

Enclosure

cc:  J. Quin, Gilbert Associates
     G. Kent, Blgtn. Utilities Director
     F. Beatty, Black & Veatch
     File
                          A-14

-------
PURDUE   UNIVERSITY    sou TESTING IAIORATORY - - AGRONOMY DEPARTMENT - - IAF AYETTE, INDIANA - - AES FORM 400
                                                                                           zc-2
         SOIL  TEST  REPORT
         for
            Richard S.  Peoples
            City of Bloonington Utilities
            Box 100
            Bloomington, Indiana 47401
A COPY OF irilS REPORT HAS BEEN SENT TO

Monroe	COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE.
                                                             AN EXTRA COPY  HAS BEEN SENT TO:
1/16/74
IDENTIFICATION
LAB
NUMBER
9549
9550







FIELD
NUMBER
1
1
Mr. Pe
I shot
extrac
plant.
For yc
Cheait
V^J J .3..
Total




NUTRIENT RECOMMENDATIONS *
N
IBS/A
NO RB
RtQOE
t, 05
IBS/A
K,0
IBS/A
COMMENDATION
STED
" " t ."
oples: —
Id explain that
tions" of soils,

OUT- a
_that
ur purposes, yon are
ts' Office for nitorg
nitrogen- is not -a par
— —
— —
_ _
LIME



laly
is,
nore
init
•5 *-,
t of



SOIL TEST RESULTS
SOIL-
BUFFER j»
-
-

rieai ;
to be
inter
i. Yo
routi



SOIL-
WATER j)H
7.4
7.0

nroeec
it duj
isted
t wou)
»e soi



IBS / ACRE
PHOSPHOSUS
__.oS^
915
1080
wrr
licatc
in tot
d reqt
1 anal



POUSSIUM
• Ol?o
210
210
W )
-------
E.  EFFLUENT LIMITS FOR THE PROPOSED SOUTH BLOOMINGTON STP.*
BOD,
                            Salt
                            Creek
                            Site
                            10 mg/1
                            95%
                            10 mg/1
                            95%
    30 day average

     7 day average

    per cent removal


Suspended Solids

    30 day average

     7 day average

    per cent removal


Phosphorus

    maximum
       or
    per cent removal


Fecal Coliform Bacteria

    30 day geometric mean   200/100 ml

     7 day geometric mean   400/100 ml


pH Range                    6.0-8.5


* NH3 limits are on p.  A-17.
                            1.0 mg/1
                                                       Clear
                                                       Creek
                                                       Site
5 mg/1
97.5%
5 mg/1
97.5%
1.0 mg/1

80%
                                                       200/100 ml

                                                       400/100 ml


                                                       6.0-8.5
                                 A-16

-------
 STATEr
INDIANA
 STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
                                                       INDIANAPOLIS  46206
                                       1330 West Michigan Street
                                             633-5467
                                             xxx  5467

                                     January 31,  1975
Mr. Gary R.  Kent
Director of Utilities
City of Bloomlngton Utilities
P. 0. Box 1216
Bloomlngton, Indiana   47401
                     fit AC c  A
Dear Mr. Kent:
                Re:  Nitrification Requirements  for  Potential
                    Bloomlngton Wastewater Treatment Plant Sites
     In response to your letter of January 9,  1975, concerning the effluent
ammonia nitrogen limitations for Bloomlngton's potential wastewater treatment
plant sites,  the following limits have been established:
                  Existing Site or
                  S. Rogers St.
                (0:1 Dilution Ratio)
                     Ketcham Road
                  (0;1 Dilution Ratio)
BOD
SS
NH3- N
   Summer
   Winter
    mg/1
    mg/1
    mg/1
    mg/1
1.5 mg/1
3.0 mg/1
1.5 mg/1
3.0 mg/1
                         Salt Creek
                  (1.6:1 D.R.) (2"l;l D.R.)
 10 mg/1
 10 mg/1
10 mg/1
10 mg/1
6.5 mg/1      7.9 mg/1
The 1.5 mg/1  NH3-N  limitation 1s based on the best  practicable technology and the
other NHs-N limitations are based on a maximum allowable toxlclty concentration  of
2,5 mg/1 with 1.6 % un-1on1zed NH3 1n the stream.   The 1.6:1 dilution ratio 1s based
on a 20 mgd facility and the 2.1:1 dilution ratio 1s based on a 15 mgd facility.

     The more rigid requirements for ammonia nitrogen limitations were outlined  1n
a letter dated October 21, 1974, from Region V, U.S. EPA 1n connection with Issuance
of NPDES permits.   The cities of Connersvllle, Crawfordsvllle, New Castle, Richmond,
and Warsaw have similar restrictions.
                                        A-17

-------
                                  -2-

Mr. Gary R. Kent                                    January 31, 1975
     If you have any more questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
                                   Very truly yours,
                                   Oral H. Hert
                                   Technical Secretary
MAScherer/Jam

cc:  Black and Yeatch
                                    A-18

-------
                        Appendix B




               AQUATIC ECOLOGY-LAKE MONROE









A.  GENERAL INFORMATION




     The situation  and shape  of the  Monroe Reservoir appears




in Figure 4.1.  The area  of the lake watershed is  approximately



1008 Km2 or 420 square miles,  with about  80%  of the  runoff




entering the  lake through the three  forks of  Salt  Creek




(Figure 4.1).  Docauer  (1972)  compares  the population,  settle-




ments, urban  development,  etc.  of the three major  forks of



Salt Creek  (Table 4.1).   Most available information  concerns




the North Fork of Salt Creek  drainage system  for the following




reasons:  (1)  Nashville  and  its associated tourist  attractions




coupled with  inefficient  sewage treatment facilities;  (2)  relative




size of the drainage system  (almost  equal to  the combined  areas



of Middle and South Forks); and (3)  relative  accessibility




to the University.



     The effects of Nashville's sewage  plant  effluent can  be




seen in Table 4.2 from McAhron's  (1972) survey of  North Fork  of



June 19, 1972.  A relative decrease  in  efficiency  of BOD removal



can be seen in Table 4.3  for  the influent and effluent  of  the



sewage plant  spanning the  years of 1968,  1970,  and 1972.



     More recently.  Nelson (1974) sampled from March 19 to



June 26, 1974, from six stations at  regular weekly intervals




to determine  the actual characteristics of the North Fork  water




and its variation with discharge, seasonal effects,  and location.




A partial summary of her  findings (Table  4.4)  tends  to  show the




following:  (1) during high flows, before fertilization, the
                             B-l

-------
Aquatic Ecology
Figure 4.1;  Lake Monroe Basin  and Watershed Map showing the
             permanent water  sampling stations.
          MOROANCO.
          MONROE CO.
r
JOHNSON CO.

BROWN CO.
I BARTHOLOMEW
    CO.
 MONROE RESERVOIR WATERSHED MAP
                                B-2

-------






































































..
rH
•
<•

0)
rH
.a
(0
E-"




































,x
cu
cu
v_i
u

-p
H
w

4-1
O

en
0
•H
in
^
1 \
/•N
A3
•H
J-l
-P

CO
CO
^1
,C
4J

CO
,£
-P

M-)
0

c
o
w
•H
}_l
to
Cli
g
o
u

1
ft T3
3 CO
a c
cn-d o
rd Q)
•P.C >i
C 03 rH
CU M 
Cr1 1
}^
a)
4J
3
»Q
•H
VH
EH






r** vo co
• • .
o r~ r^
rH fN rH







in en in
• • •
o VD o
rH ,H CO



r~ in CM
r~- oo CN
n rH CM








vo 0^3*
• .
rH O










O 00 OO
rH












o
en o CN
en in in
vc en ^^
rH








CU
£ H A
-P ,V T3 ri4 -P ,M
)H JH 'd S-l O M
O O -HO O 0
2 CL, S fa 03 fa
B-3























































•
, 	 ^
CN
r~.
en
rH

^
£_(
0)

(0
u
o


.
Q

J_j
OJ
4J
"4-H
*(
x-^'

Aquatic Ecology

-------
Aquatic Ecology









  stream maintains a high dissolved oxygen concentration and a



  dilution of nutrients;  (2)  after a peak flood on April 9, dis-



  charge then decreased;  (3)  after field fertilization began,



  obvious station-to-station variations became evident.  Nutrient



  load,  conductivity, etc.  increased and the oxygen concentration



  decreased downstream.  One might notice that the effects of the



  Nashville sewage plant appear masked in the overall dilution



  effect.  However,  when the water gauge reading becomes available



  from Nashville's gauge, the weekly discharge information will



  be related to nutrient concentration.



       Docauer (1972),  in Table 4.6, shows the fate of total



  phosphate from Nashville to the causeway within the lake.  The



  spring and summer data show first the effects of dilution (spring)



  and also the possible increase of effluent nutrients from the



  Nashville plant during the tourist season of June-July.



       A survey of the chemical and physical aspects of the three



  tributaries of Salt Creek is shown in Table 4.7 for October 2 and



  29, 1974.  The effects of discharge on concentration is  apparent



  particularly at station #2 on Green Valley Road, two miles below



  the Nashville plant.   Notice, however,  that less total phosphate



  and soluble reactive phosphate is reaching the upper basin (#6)



  during this extremely low flow than reported by Docauer's Tables



  4.5 and 4.6.   Much utilization occurs removing these nutrients.



       Interest in the upper reaches of the South Fork at  #3 and



  #4 stations is due to the extensive farming practices present in
                               B-4

-------
                                                    Aquatic Ecology









this area.  Middle Fork  is of  special  interest  since  it  is



forested with less farming.  It will serve as a "control"




system in the upper head waters.




     Since about  80% of  the volume of  yearly discharge occurs




during the late winter,  spring, and early summer,  there  is  a need




to concentrate most heavily on the interrelationships between




nutrient loading  and discharge at this time  (Lee,  1969).  Like-




wise, the overall pollution of non-point source loading  needs to




be investigated,  since recent  information shows that  non-point




sources are considerably greater than  formerly  thought (Loehr,



1974).  Possible  methods for controlling or decreasing the  non-




point sources may need to be considered.
B.  PHYSIOGRAPHY OF LAKE MONROE




     Monroe Reservoir is a shallow basin-shaped lake with a




mean depth of 3 to 4 meters.  The old Salt Creek channel meanders



across the bottom as a 7 to 11 meter trench.  The lake is divided



into three distinct basins  (Figure 4.1).  The upper basin above



the causeway is a shallow  (3-5 meter mean depth) basin with



approximately 1927 hectares area of lake surface.  This basin



receives the water from the three tributaries of Salt Creek.



The middle basin lies between the causeway and the down stream




narrows  (station #5) and has an approximate mean depth of 5-6



meters.  The lower basin extends downstream to the dam and has
                              B-5

-------
Aquatic Ecology
Table 4.2:
Survey of North Fork Salt Creek near Nashville,  Indiana
State Board of Health

         All concentrations in parts per million  (ppm) except
                           fecal coliforms.
Station BOD


100 meters 1.5
Above
Sewage
Plant
76 meters 4.6
below
Sewage
Plant
3.2 Kilo- 1.7
meters
below
Plant
4.83 Kilo- 1.6
meters
below
Plant
7.2 Kilo- 1.6
meters
below
Plant
June 19, 1972
From McAhron
Table 4.3:
Nashville Sewage
Surveys
Dissolved
Oxygen

7.3



6.0



5.0



5.1



5.0



*
(1972) .

Plant, Brown

PO.-P NO-.-N NH0-N Fecal Coli- Total
433

0.1 0.1 0.2



1.4 0.2 0.4



0.5 0.3 0.4



0.4 0.3 0.3



0.4 0.4 0.3






County Indiana—State

forms-*/ Solids
100ml.
90 110



20,000 170



11,000 100



386 110



290 110






Board of Health

All concentrations in ppm.
Date and Station
June 6, 1968
influent
effluent
efficiency
August 16, 1970
influent
effluent
efficiency
June 19, 1972
influent
effluent
efficiency
B.O.D. Total PO,-P Suspended

490
120
75.5%

570
290
49.8%

350
260
25.7%

29 	
37 	
-27% 	

	 500
	 160
	 68%

48 	
43 	
10.4% 	
Solids Total Solids

850
600
29.4%

880
760
13. 6%

910
710
21.9%
    June 6, 1968, August 16,  1970 (Hall 1971)  and June 19, 1972
    (McAhron 1972).
                                    B-6

-------























^
JH
O •
fa ^*
r-
43 en
4J rH
to
O -
2 Q)
m 3
O ^

03 43
U CP
•H 3
4J O
ED M
•H 43
to -P
QJ
4J 43
O O
rd to
to tO
rd g
43
U E
O
i — | ^j
rd MH
O
•H rd
03 C
>i td •
CU TJ
(3  4J
E43
0) 03 T3
43 i IH 0)
rH 10 (D
43  fO 4->
EH < CO CO
1 "P
C C
O 0
•H E 03
4-1 0)
tO M 43
4-> 0 0
•H <*H C
a -H
-H rH
o m c
Q) 4-1 -H
M O
(1)
0) 4J
43 43
rH W
o o
CO 43
1
Q)
4-1 rH
(OX.
to tn
4-J 3
•H
2



55
1
5 ,
•H X
In b"1
4-1 3
•H
2



s^
4-1
•H
> • 6
•H U O
4-1 X
O o 03
30O
-d CN 43
C E
O O
U 4-> 3.



ro
O
r) p
03 a
O &



d
r^



c •

>i 03
X
O *°



•
td
4J
01


Q)
^j
rd
Q




£ - - ;
r* en ro o
00 ^* rH "rj*
• • • •
ro ro U3 rH






O O o in
•"31 ^D 1^ CN





(Ti in H r-»
0 ^ 0 rH
m •<* r-n ro







O ro ro 00
i-H rH rH CN













r-» CM o vo
rH rH CN rH
rH rH rH rH







o ro oo in
00 CN O O
CN CN ro ^J1



O ** CT, **
r* ^D us r-




rH CN ro «>
in a\ CN CN
oo r^ en oo






rH i-H rH rH



. . QJ
to to >i C
tO DJ (0 3
S i C
rd O* rd 3
s < s; >-j















o r~- O o r- oo ro
^•3* 00 OO *^* *^* VO LO
rH




o oo m in co m r-
co ro r- in oo ro co
in ^f in ro i — i ro







o o ro o r- m ro
r-H ro rvj rH CN ro o
H












rH in r- ro (Tl rH CN
ro i — I r\j ro i — 1 ro ro
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH







ro oo ^r ^3* i — i r*- r^
vo CN o *£> ro ro *



o^ ^o r^ f^ v^ c^ PO
vc ^>o ^«o r^ ViO ^«o r^*




en in ID in en CN ^r
rH LO r^ rH ^D ^ in
en r^ co co i — oo ^o






•^ •* ^t ^D V£> kO U3



• • • • d)
in >-t >, j-i n >, c
fd CX fC (0 Cb fO ^
s < s s < s b

Aq

























E
O *
M 03
MH 3
Q
1-1 i
fd rH
4H O
C CJ
•H
rd T)
J_| £J
tO
>1
rH »
•rl T3
rO >H
T3 O
4H
t3 T3
rjj Q)
CnCQ
rd

 3
rfl O
E
OJ >i
43 OJ
4-> CO
UH »
0 C
O
C 4-1
O CP .
•H C rQ
to s to
— E 0 -H
^ K 0 'O
r- 3 rH q
CTi CO CQ H
rH
^^ 1
c c
O 0
W -H
rH -P
(U (0
2 4-)
•H
E Cu
0 -H
IH U
fa QJ
IH
p ,
*
•»<
                        Aquatic Ecology
B-7

-------
Aquatic Ecology
Table 4.5:
Seasonal averages of inorganic  (soluble reactive) phosphate  in
micrograms PO.-P per liter.
Station and
location on
figure 1
North Fork #6
Pine Grove-c
0 meters
5 meters
Causeway-#4
0 meters
5 meters
Winter
Feb.
10

11
9
1
1
Spring
Mar. -Apr.
49.4

28.8
28.6
10.1
10.1
Summer
May-Aug .
12.9

4.9
14.6
3.7
4.8
Fall
Sept. -Oct.
21.5

18.0
25.4
2.5
0.0
Middle Fork         —         11.7            5.5
 (Elkinsville)

South Fork
 (Maumee)            —         20.0           15.4
    From Docauer  (1972).


Table 4.6:
Seasonal Averages of Total phosphate in micrograms per  liter  PO.-P
*
Station and
location on
figure 1
Winter
Feb.
Spring
Mar . -Apr .
Summer
May-July
North Fork          	        17.5         84.0
Nashville #1

North Fork
Green Valley #2     	        28.0        251.0

North Fork
Kent Road #6         45        79.5        144.0

Reservoir -c         35        52.0        149.0
Pine Grove

Causeway #4          21        33.0         84.7

Middle Fork         	        	         89.5
(Elkinsville)

South Fork
(Maumee)             	        	        163.0
    From Docauer (1972).

                                  B-8

-------
                      Aquatic Ecology





























































• •
r-
•
*a*

rH
X)
IT}
£H
0)
XI
o
4-1
O
o
&
•H

3
•o
^
(U
(U
U
4-1
rH
flj
C/3

O


Ul
(U

r-l
(0
4-1
3
•Q
*M
U
EH
fl.
Ui

r-l
4-»
(1)

4->
U-l
O
(0
O
•H
1 \ ^^
M •«»•
••H t->-
0) rH
4J
O -
ITJ ON
rH - rv) J OO CO f\J rH
•H^rM -r\j
a

(It
^
C rH
P Lo \O IA CN*- O ON ON _,f ^- r 1 ' f> ON ON
K3J-H -.fO rvl rVjrH r rArA
H
iHJmi Ol Ol rul i i
(HI • 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 vO 1 C\l 1
M^ONI r\)l voi rvji «i if
O O f J 1 OO 1 HI rH 1 CM 1 VO i
(n 1%
.
4»
C H
Gj X
0 11)
W'JOCIA IAO Of>- ON-d" rACj OfA
rH-UONlA OON rAf\J r-lrH r-irH rAIA
00 J- H
10 '** «M

E
•a o.
IV t-,
> 1
rH rl Is- CO f\J IA OO CV ONOO O CN- rA IX
10 I*J CN rH OO f\J ON r*- ON O- CM OO O rA
W !•> H rH
•H X
0 0
>.^
•HO
> O
•H rvl
•*^ l O 'A rH O r\j oo CN- O C^- O IX- O
OKJlAfM IAO IAOO rAvO OOO ^Ar^
3OrHfv) iH<\J rHH rHH rHAJ rHOj
a E
55

^
4}
•rl
C-^Hrvl ONO rorvl rAo r-l'A vo^j-
•rl O' vD IA ^i" IA no rH CO O VO ON rAvO

^


trl vo rvl vo rvl t*^ IA IA IA vo *A vo rvl
Mi . J . . -. t 4 . t 1. «•
i^o. f>r>-irxrx f>i^- r>-rx r>-r>-

n. • ni o o vo O ON o oo rA lA IA o
oo OfA O 
•U •»: Ifc Si: ',(• It- tt
CO







ON ON vO oo
IAr-1 CO rH

vO IA O O
rvl ON HOD
rH ON rA




rA IA CO rH
rvl oj-d-

1 IA 1
O 1 • 1
• 1 rH 1
CO 1 HI





Ov O -H- -*
OH H rvl






ON O CJNVO
• • t •
ONOO CO VO






rAvO CO ON
rH rH rH H





rvl H J- rvl
IM l^ fAcO




IAON vo rvl
• • • •
r>-vo r«- ix

rACO J- CO
rH rA O rvl
rH H rH rH

<* rn •« «


iH r-l fV) (NJ
'., IM I«4 r^
~£ ; ; ;.* • ^
>h Ifc ^t: 'tt








U>vO
tA rvl

0 0
H CX





IA IA
rvj

l
IA 1
t 1
rA 1





H -H-
H rH






IX IA
c* tx






O O
-d" VD
H rH





1 VO
i •
1 0



1 rv/
1 •


ro o
rH rH

«< ca


H rH
M '0
rJ .-I
It *








tx lAH
rArv) O
H

lA O O
CO H -*




J- IAO
lAH rvl

Tl !
H 1 1
rvl i i





rvl o •*
lArv) fj






rArAOO
i t i
ON ^5 Q
(H rH





coco J-
H rvl rv)





oo fv- |H
-T CO fA
t • •
H O H



vq rvlJ-
4 • i
rx rx" fx

O lAlA
O J- tA
rH H rH

<< CQ 03


rH (A-H-'
(H IN liJ
M ' J t1
It -ifc -;b







B-9

-------
Aquatic Ecology










 an approximate mean depth of 7-8 meters.  The surface area of



 the combined lower basins is approximately 2875 hectares.  (For




 more information see Table 4.8).



      Four main, interdependent categories of physical factors



 control biological production in Lake Monroe, as in all natural



 waters.  They are associated with (1)  radiant energy input,  (2)



 nutrient input and loss,  (3)  oxygen supply,  and (4)  interactions




 of morphometry and motion (Mortimer 1969).



      On a global scale,  variables related to solar energy appear




 to have a greater effect than those related  to nutrient avail-



 ability.   This solar energy is a key factor  in driving wind-



 induced and convective circulation,  regulating water temperatures,



 and governing local climatic  conditions.   However,  when restricted



 latitudes are considered,  factors related to nutrient availability



 assume a much greater importance.



      A comparison of the  watershed to  lake surface  area yields



 a ratio of 25/1 for Lake  Monroe.   Vollenweider (1971),  using



 information from various  sources,  has  shown  that the "surround-



 ing factor" (drainage area/lake surface)  and primary production



 in European lakes are strongly correlated.   Obviously,  lakes



 with a large "surrounding  factor,"  or  with a high  nutrient




 input,  or both,  will be greatly enriched  by  nutrients  from the



 watershed.   As these nutrients enter the  lake,  their dilution



 will be governed by the total volume of  the  lake.  Since temperate



 lakes are notorious for stratification and incomplete mixing,
                               B-10

-------
                                                    Aquatic Ecology










Vollenweider  suggests  that  the mean  depth  (relating volume to



unit surface  area)  as  an  index of  the biological  effectiveness



of  loading is, at present,  the best  compromise.   The  relative



shallow mean  depth  of  Lake  Monroe  forces one  to consider  the



statement made by Brylinsky and Mann (1973:   1-15) which  reads,



"However, if  one wished to  make comparisons on the basis  of




production per unit volume, the shallower  lakes would be  more



productive and would be expected to  have a more dense phytoplankton



population.   Hence, it is reasonable to think of  shallow  lakes as



compressed versions of deep lakes, in terms of productivity per



unit area."   The relatively shallow  basins found  in Monroe



Reservoir must be regarded  as an important factor in  all  future



considerations.
C.  PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF LAKE MONROE



     The chemical and physical methods of water analysis are



shown in Table 4.9.  Methods not included in this table are dis-



cussed within the text.






1.  Transparency



     Secchi disc readings obtained from June to October 1974



are shown in Figure 4.2.  This figure suggests that there is



a significant increase in transparency from the months June to



August.   Following a decrease in September, transparency slightly



increased in October.  Maximum Secchi disc transparency occurred
                             B-ll

-------
Aquatic Ecology
 TABLE 4.8:

 The following data have been converted or calculated from
 figures reported in Report #9, Indiana Flood Control and Water
 Resources Commission, 1956.
Stream
Gaging Stations in Salt Creek Watershed
Drainage
Location Area Sq. km. Period & Record
Salt Creek near 1507 1939-1950
Peerless
Salt Creek near 1142 1955-1956
Harrodsburg
North Fork of Salt 311 1946-1956
Discharge,m3/sec.
Mean Max. Min.
19.2 577.9 0.02
11.2 133.1 0.03
133.1 430.6 0.
Creek near Belmont
Annual

Storage


Precipitation: Mean Max. Min.
1.06m 1.54m 0.72m
Capacity: Total
for flood control
for increasing low flow
for sediment storage

55 km3
32
20
03
 Total volume corresponds to 0.482 meters run off from drainage area
   of 1142 sq. km.
 Maximum flood control pool elevation
 Normal pool level
   corresponding to a pool of
 Sediment storage below

 Approximate mean depth (max.)
 Approximate mean depth (min.)
169.5m
164.3m
 43.3km2
157.0m

  7m
  4m
                                B-12

-------
                                                    Aquatic Ecology










in late August and agreed well with measurements in 1968 and 1971



by Zimmerman and Allanson.  Transparency increased from the




upper basin to the lower basin with an increment of 0.3 to 1.1




meters.  The high variance occurring in late July and August




is due to fluctuations of phytoplankton species abundance and




biomass.  The high variance shown in September and October




is contributed to by rapid climatic changes.




     A set of extinction curves for sunlight versus Secchi disc



readings is given in Figure 4.3 for Station 4 and Station 1 from




July to October.  The one percent level of transmission occurred




at 4.5-8.5 meters during this period.  The simultaneous Secchi




disc reading was calculated and it demonstrated that the disc




disappeared at 10 to 25 percent of surface illumination.  Allanson




et al.  (1973) suggested that this was due to extensive scattering




of light by particulate material.



     A comparison of Secchi disc readings from 1968 to 1971




with data from this study is given in Table 4.10.  The means and




their standard deviations suggest that no significant change in



transparency occurred in these years/ but a decline in the



mean transparency for 1974 was found.  Two possible explanations




could be given:  (1) an increase in planktonic production as




a result of nutrient additions, or (2) an increase in soil



deposit and non-biological particulate matter.  It should be




noted that similar patterns of weed distribution were found, so




the competitive interactions would remain of roughly the same




magnitude and no increases in phytoplankton from this phenomenon




would result.






                              B-13

-------
Aquatic  Ecology
      tn
      tn

     •H
      cu
      s-l

      o
      to
      O
      U
      CU
      CO
      tn
      Q)
      CP
      c
      (0
   ••  x:
  fN  U
    •
  'S'  rH
      (0
   0  C

   Sj  °
   3  tn
   Oi  to
  •H  0)
                                                                                                     -P
                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                     O
                                                •H -H  (N
                                                43    H
                                                O O CU
                                                U W 4-J
                                                CU -H CU
                                                CO Q S
                                                             CN
                                                                                                     OJ
                                                                                                    CO
                                                                                                    4-J
                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                     >1
                                                                                                    iH
                                                                                                     3
                                                                                                    4J
                                                                                                     U
                                                                                                     cu
                                                                                                    CO
4J
CO
3
Cn
 >1
-H

 3
0)

3
                                                                                                         CTi
                                                                                                              CO
                                                                                                              c
                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                              4-)
                                                                                                              10
           C
          --H
           cn
           (0
          X!


           5-1
           0)
          CO
          c
          O
          •H
          -P
          (C
          -P
          CO
«c
^
cu
co
3
(0
C

cu
>
O
X!
(0

13

(C
          cn
          (0
          cu
                                                       B-14

-------
                                                   Aquatic Ecology
Figure 4.3:
Extinction curves for sunlight at two stations in Lake Monroe,
June to October, 1974.
Secchi disc transparencies are recorded as perpendicular lines.
 STN 4                 STN  4                 STN 4
     25   50  75 100%      25   50  75  100%     25   50   75  100%
                                              STN 1
                                               25  50   75  100%
  STN  1
    25  50  75  100%
STN 1
 25  50  75  100%
                                                 7.17
STN 1
  25   50  75  100%
       8.25
   9.7
     10.24
                             B-15

-------
Aquatic Ecology
 Table 4.9:
 Chemical and Physical Methods of Water Analysis
 A.  Chemical

     1.  Alkalinity  (methyl orange alkalinity) - using 0.01 N
              sulfuric acid with pH determined end point of 4.4
              pH.  This gives milliequivalents (meq).  To
              determine ppm CaCO->, multiply meq.  by 50.
     2.  Dissolved Oxygen- YSI Dissolved Oxygen Meter Model 54
              or Azidemodified Winkler Method with N/80
              Thiosulfate.
     3.  Nitrogen-Three types:   (Stainton, Capel and Armstrong, 1974)

         A.  Ammonia-N- indophenol blue color with phenol and
                        hypochlorite.
         B.  Nitrite-N- pink azo dye; reduce quantitatively nitrate
                        N-l Napthyethylene diamine dihydrochloride.
         C.  Nitrate-N- Pink azo dye; reduce quantitatively
                        nitrate to nitrite-treat for nitrite.
     4.  Phosphate-Two types:   (Golterman and Clymo, 1969)

         A.  Soluble Reactive Phosphate - blue colored complex
                        with acidic molybdate, ascorbic acid
                        reductant and antimony as a color en-
                        hancing species.
         B.  Total Phosphate - same as above except treat sample
                         (25 ml) with acid and 1 gm potassium
                        persulfate-autoclave for 1 1/2 hour.  Cool
                        and use 1 N acid-molybdate sol.
     5.  Reactive Silicate- blue colored complex with acidic
                        molybdate.  A reducing solution of metol
                        and oxalic acid added to reduce the
                        silicomolybdate complex and simultaneously
                        decompose phosphate and arsenate inter-
                        ferences.  (Strickland and Parson, 1972).
 B.
Physical

1.  Conductivity- Hach Model 2510 (Battery Operated)
         Conductivity Meter in micromhos - 20°C.
     2.  pH-Corning pH Model 7 meter with a Bradley-James
              Combination Electrode
                                                      (continued)
                                B-16

-------
                                                 Aquatic Ecology
3.   Turbidity- Hach Model 2100 Turbidimeter in NTU units.

4.   Temperature- Whitney Model TC-5A Thermistor or YSI
         Model 54 Thermistor (with the Dissolved 02 probe).

5.   Light-

    A.  Whitney Underwater Light Meter with the following
        filters:

                   RG2-red, OG2-yellow orange, VG9-green,
                   BG12-blue, BG15-near ultra violet.
                   Filters are Schott colored filters from
                   Jenaer Glaswerk, Schott & Gen, Mainz.

    B.  Secchi Disc- 20cm diameter.
                             B-17

-------
Aquatic Ecology










      Some reasonable degree of correlation between Secchi disc




 transparency and eutrophication can be found in natural lake




 situations.  Rodhe (1965)  demonstrated a relation of Secchi disc




 transparency, light extinction, and trophic status in a number




 of European lakes (Table 4.11).  From this demonstration it was




 suggested by Allanson et al.  (1973)  that Monroe Reservoir had




 already reached a mildly eutrophic or mesotrophic level.  It is




 known,  however, on the basis  of primary production,  nutrient




 chemistry, and plankton data  from this study,  that Lake Monroe




 is not as well advanced as suspected.  Light scattering by




 suspended non-biological particles decreases the Secchi disc




 transparency.  We therefore propose that Lake  Monroe is




 oligotrophic or,  at most,  mildly mesotrophic.






 2.  Temperature




      A typical sequence of seasonal temperature profiles is shown




 by Docauer (Figure 4.4A)  for  1972.   Similar temperature curves



 were observed by  Allanson  et  al.  (1973)  for the years 1971 and



 1968.   Stratification becomes apparent in late May to early June,



 reaching a maximum in late July to mid August.   Isothermal



 conditions occur  generally in late September-early October.




      Partial turnovers or  mixing  do  occasionally occur,  especially




 after  periods of  cooler weather.   Docauer (1972)  indicates that



 at least two such events (August  8  and September 22)  appeared




 in the  Pine Grove Station  (c).  Likewise,  Smith reported a



 similar mixing down  to 6 meters in August 1971  at  Station  1.
                                B-18

-------
                                                    Aquatic Ecology
Table 4.10:  Secchi Disc Transparency (Meters) in
             Monroe Reservoir Irrespective of Sampling
             Site, July-October 1968, 1971 and 1974.
1968
4.00 4.25
2.33 3.50
3.50 3.50
Mean (x)
Std. Dev.
n
2.50
3.00
2.00



1.50
2.00
2.85
0.99
17
2.00 5.00 2.00
2.50 3.35 1.75



1971
4.10 2.10
3.60 4.25
1.60 3.75
2.20 3.50
Mean (x)
Std. Dev.
n
3.05
1.70
2.95
4.00



2.00
5.10
3.70
2.00
3.08
0.94
25
4.35 3.50 3.25
2.40 3.55 2.00
2.70 2.30 3.55



1974
1.15 1.05
2.35 2.10
3.70 2.40
1.60 1.50
2.20 2.05
Mean (x)
Std. Dev.
n.
1.30
3.00
3.25
2.40
2.50



1.10
1.20
3.10
2.10
3.10
2.28
0.80
32
1.90 2.10 2.20
1.80 2.10 2.20
4.60 1.25 2.40
2.80 2.70 2.80



                               B-19

-------
Aquatic Ecology
 Table 4.11:

 A Comparison of Secchi Disc Transparency, Light
 Extinction, and Degree of Eutrophication in a
 Number of European Lakes.
        E=Total Visible Energy
Productivity
Very eutrophic

Eutrophic


Oligotrophic

Lake
Lago di Varese
Erken
Gr. Ploner See
Ziarichsee
Bodensee
Tornetrask
Lago di Garda



Depth
Date Secchi disc
19
23
9
1
11
16
25
.iv.57
.vii. 57
. iv. 57
.v.57
.v.57
.vii. 58
. iv. 57
2.
2.
5.
4.
4.
13.
12.
3
4
3
5
0
7
0
in meters
E.
6
8.
7.
8.
7.
17
27
1%

5
0
5
5



 Data From Figure 2 in Rodhe  (1965).
                                B-20

-------
                                                    Aquatic Ecology









     Both Stations 1 and 4 showed midsummer partial or complete



mixing during 1974.  Figures 4.4(B) and 4.4(C) indicate that



maximum stratification in both basins occurred around the 17th



of July.  The unusually cool weather of late July and early August



lowered the lake water temperature considerably.  This caused the



shallower, upper basin to mix completely before September 1.



However, in the deeper, lower basin at Station 1, the thermocline



was depressed to about 7 meters with partial mixing occurring in



the upper waters.  During the first week of September, this



basin, likewise, completely mixed.  This isothermal condition



persists as demonstrated by the November 6 temperature profiles



for both basins.  Chemical uniformity also confirms this con-



clusion.





3.  Specific Conductance



     Conductivity is related to the concentration of ions



present and therefore directly related to the alkalinity in



lakes similar to Monroe, in which the dissolved electrolytes



are chiefly calcium and magnesium bicarbonates.  Table 4.12



shows the bottom water conductivity corrected to 20°C for the



years 1968, 1971, and 1974.  There is only a slight increase



in the conductivity from 1971 to 1974 which may well be within



the range of instrument error.  Mean conductance was only



slightly different in the surface and bottom samples, suggesting



that density currents were not present during the sampling
                               B-21

-------
Aquatic Ecology










 period.  Also, the low uniform conductance may be a reflection




 of the early mixing of the basins, resulting in a lower standard




 deviation.






 4.  Alkalinity




      The data for the three years (1968,  1971,  and 1974) are




 presented in Table 4.13.   The high values determined by Allanson




 (1971)  must be questioned.   There are two reasons for such a




 statement.   First,  conditions within the  lake appear to be similar




 for the two years,  in particular, the low summer and fall




 precipitation.   Second,  if  Allanson's alkalinity readings are




 correct,  then his conductivity values are about 100  micro-ohms




 too low.   Data from Brummet's Creek,  a tributary of  North Fork,




 shows the following trend (Hartzell,  unpublished):




      A.   19 samples ranging from 60  to 78 ppm CaCO^  have an




 average conductivity of  229.6 micro-ohms  at 20°C.,




      B.   11 samples ranging from 27  to 39 ppm CaCO-,  have an




 average conductivity of  136.5 micro-ohms  at 20°C.



 Similar trends  are  apparent from the  major forks of  Salt Creek.



      Therefore,  the alkalinity estimate by Allanson  (1973)  is



 highly  questionable and probably should be similar to  the  1974



 mean  value.






 5.  pH




      The  available  data is  given in Table 4.14.   No  significant




 difference  in  the mean surface or bottom  pH values? appears  over
                              B-22

-------
                                                                Aquatic  Ecology
   Figure 4.4:
   Temperature Profiles  from Pine  Grove, Station  4, and Station  1.
(A)
  a
  4*
  t)
  e
  P.
  O
0 -

1 -




3 -



5

6 -J
                   e.
                          10         15        20
                                 Degrees Celsius
                                                   25
30
                      (A) Pine Grove temperature
                         profiles 1972  by
                         Docaucr
                        Top numbiTO represent the
                        following datec.
                        1. Feb. 27, 1972
                        'd. Apr. S.1972
                        3. Way ?0,.1?72
                        4. J«ly2i>,l$>72
                        5. Sept cH, 1972
                        6. Oct. 6,1972
                        7. Oct.30,lrJ72
                        8. Nov. j},1972
                                     B-23

-------
 Aquatic  Ecology
Figure  4.4  (continued)

(B)  Gtation  '>
               »            'i
      0 _
 o
 (H
 o
 -p
 o
 C
 p,
 o
 n
      1 .

      2 -

      3 -

      k

      5 -I
(C) .'Jtat. icn 1

      0  .,
S  v  4
0)
n
     9  -1

    10
                                         6 'i
        10

                    15         20

                     Degrees Celsius
                               no
                     Decrees Celsius
                                                  32
                                                  _J

                                                   30
                                                          (B)  Station 'l  ter.ipcraturo  ;,:of:'
                                                              197**  from  June 7~;.'ov.7s J •//''

                                                              Top numbers reprer.cnt  the
                                                              following  dates.
                                                              1. Juno 7,197^
                                                              2. JulylO,197-1
                                                              3. Ju.lj.l7,197i:
                                                              k. Aug.  2,197A
                                                              5. AUG.15,197^
                                                              6. Sept. 1,197*1
                                                              7. Scpt28,197;f
                                                              8. Nov.  7,197^
                                                        (C)  ^tr.tion 1 tc-mperatiu e  profile-.
                                                            197^ from Juno 2 to

                                                            Top  nuriVers I'cprec-^
                                                            foDlouin;, acjtor,.
                                                            1. June  ;-2, 19?'f
                                                            2. June  23, 197':-
                                                            3. July  17, 1974
                                                            *t. /.ujj.   8, 197;f
                                                            5. Au";.  25, 19?''
                                                            6. f.cpt.  7, 197'(
                                                            7. Oct.   3, 197^
                                                            8. Mov.   7, 197'f
                                             B-24

-------
                                                    Aquatic Ecology










three years.  Th^ .n,.,,',  ;,JLTI  .,jff-. '-ences  in  pH occurred  during




stratification  in mid-July.   "Y.->  -drjy isothermal mixing of




September accounts  :"oc  the  lew  icviation  from the mean for



1974.






6.  Phosphorus   (:>i;IuLie Reactive Phosphate).




     The extremely  low levels of  soluble  reactive phosphate are




shown in Table  4.15  and 4.16  Allanson  (1973)  estimated the surface




concentration as 6  ug/1 PO,,-P for the  fall  of 1971.   Unfortunately,




there is little data showing  the  effects  of stratification and




the usual phosphate  trap system.   However,  the August 25 data at




Station 1 does  show  a  slight  phosphate concentration  increase on



the bottom  (Table 4.15).   By  September 7, the phosphate con-




centrations became  uniform  (small standard  deviation)  as a result




of mixing.




     A comparison of all stations (Table  4.16)  shows  that soluble




reactive phosphate  is  slightly  higher  at  Station  5 (the division




between two major lake  basins), and undetectable  at Station 4.



The effectiveness of the upper  basin as a nutrient sink can



vividly be observed  from Tables 4.7 and 4.17.   The average con-




centration for October  at Station 6  (Kent Farm Road)  was 7.6



ug/1 PO.-P.   As this water moves  down  into  the lake,  its PO.-P




concentration is utilized by  the  macrophytes,  bacteria,  and




algae.   Water reaching  the Pine Grove  station  (c)  has,  therefore,




a concentration of 1-2  ug/1 phosphate.  Docauer (Table  4.5)  shows



a similar trend, although his values are higher.   These findings
                               B-2!

-------
Aquatic Ecology
     Table 4.12:
     Comparisons of specific cor,auct_ance  (n; Lcrornhos  /  cm)  at
     20 degrees Celsius of bottom water in Monroe  Reservoir
     during July/August 1968*, September/October 1971**  and
     August/October 1974.
               196i
         88  112  72  98

         95   81  80  73

      x 100   94  88  92

         83   82  84  62
     Mean (x)
     Std. dev.
     n
86. 5
12.2

 16







1971
120 112
116 125
116 125
145 125
123.0
10,2
8
1974
142 134 123
1.30 126 127
132 1.26 125
132 126 126
129.1
4,9
14

129
130





       *Zimmerman (1968)—** Allanson (1973).
    Table 4.13:
    Methyl Orange Alkalinity (as mg/1 CaCO_,)  Averaged values  for
    surface and  bottom waters in Monroe Reservoir during July/August
    1968 (Zimmerman),  September/October 1971  (Allanson) and August/
    October 1974.

Mean
Std.
n
Surface
(x) 37.5
dev. 5.11
16
1968
Bottom
42. 5
14. 37
16
1971
Surface Bottom
72.3 77.6
12.69 9.50
11 9
Surface
3 3.32
2.22
23
1974
Bottom
34. 64
2.15
13
                              B-26

-------
                                                    Aquatic Ecology
Table 4.14:
Comparisons of the Averaged pH of surface and bottom waters
in Monroe Reservoir during July/August 1968  (Zimmerman),
September/October 1971 (Allanson) and August/October 1974.

Surface
Mean (x) 7.8
Std. dev. 0.29
n 16
1968
Bottom
7.2
0.49
16
1971
Surface Bottom
7.7 7.4
0.35 0.33
14 13

Surface
7.7
0.18
21
1974
Bottom
7.5
0.18
14
                              B-27

-------
          c
          g

          rH
          O
       C
       fl
          ,4
          CJ
       QJ  fi3
       e  o
         •H
       QJ  4->
      X!  M
      4-1  CJ

      TJ
       C  QJ
 tn
 S-l  C*
 QJ -H

 QJ TJ
 6  Q)
 !   cn
 co  >,

     ra
 e  c
 O  rfl
 4J
 4-1
 O
          in
 LD
 H
 QJ
rH
X)
 (C
      M  CO

      QJ in
      4J  O
      QJ

       !   QJ
      O XI
      "^  E
          3
      OJ  f4
      O
      (0  QJ
      i j i  f-1
      V-l 4-1

      tn  io
         •H
      QJ
      x; TJ
      4-J  QJ
      C rH
      •H  O
      5  C
      O -H
      x:
      co  O
          tn
      rO '—I
      4-1 <£
      tfl
      1)
 -0  'J
 O  D
-H
 e   •
 QJ  T5
X!  4J
U  CO
tn
4-1
(0
O
•H
rH
•H
CO
4-1
_£
rH Q-
03 en
4J 0
o x;
4-1
O 0)
CJ fO
os x;
CL
• 05
rH O
o x;
CO &<


(0
•H
C
O
e

5
QJ
4J
rfl
j_i
-P
-H
Z

0)
4J
-H
S-l
4-1
•H
Z
ffl
X! V-J
4J (D
0,4-1
0) 0)
Q e



QJ
4-^
ft
Q



C
O
-H
4-1
 CN CT\ O CTl
CM PO VD CNCNrH rHCNCTl
m VD o"*
CN CN rH
CN T VO
in co oo omo OCNO
• . +i . . +, . . +i
oo in CN r-- '-o oo ro CN vo
rH • • rH rH •
O kO CN
rH rH


m oo o
T"~^ CD • "^J* VO • CO CD •
• •rH • • O « • O
O ^T +1 O O +1 rH rH -H
"» r~- o
» • •
rH O rH
CO
LO CN
VD
CN -31 rH
ro ro +i r- r~ ft ro in +i
• • «3* • • oo • • ro
VO "3* • CN CN • O rH •
vovo in vo t~~ CM CM , — i
rH in CN

o o • m in • m o •
• •VO «»O • • i— 1
CN vo +i r^ vo -H f- o> -n
rH in ro ro ro rH
• • •
«a* vo r~
ro
VD 0 rH
• • •
mo+i a o o CM CN o
• • • • +1 • • +1
OCNOO CNCNO rOOOCN
• • •
o  — 4.) — •" ^> — ' ^^
3 a. o c
f-"C • Q) • Z • -H
> C/! > > W
CD CJ CJ (0
T) Ti T3 CQ

* * • M
T3 Tl Ti QJ
4-1 4-1 4-lS
to i/i cn O
rH + | -f | rf- 1 J
-««= x x x •—

r^ o
ro vo in VO "* rH
o «— i -*-! in ^ +i
OO CA ro ro ro vo
rH rH VO rH rH T
oo ro
rH rH
in CN
OO OO rH rH O rH
• • -H • • +1
vo ro CN CN ro CN
rH rH • rH rH •
in ro
rH rH


in CN
*3* CN • O O •
• • o • • o
rH CN +1 H rH -H
r- rH
• •
rH rH

r~- o>
• *
in CN
rH I1 +1 O\ CF\ +1
• • ro • • oo
ro ^r • in *r •
rH CO rH rH rO
rH
•^ ro
CN CN • in o •
• • o • • o
r- r- +i CN CN +i
0 rH rH CN
• •
f-- CN
rH
0 rH
. •
ro ro o rH rH O
• • +! • • -H
O O 00 rH rH rH
• •
O rH



O CO O CO


*~* '-* ^
VO ro VO ro QJ
rH II 0 || S
1 Z 1 Z O
4-1 — > — J
a, o
QJ • Z • '—•
CO > > •• QJ
Q) QJ C rH
03 TJ O T3
•H -O
• W -H

4-1 [ i ^
W t/1 -H •U
m +i 4-1 Q c
=»•= X X — (0

p1- vo
o m CN ^j4 vo o
O ro -H CN CN +1
rH rH rH VD VO CTl
rH rH fN CN
rH VD
rH
o-\ co
r^ o CN r — ro o
• • +1 • • +1
CN r~ o r-» vo CN
rH rH • rH rH •
rH rH


r- rH
in ro • r*- co •
• • o • • o
CN rO +1 rH rH -H
ro r-
• »
CM rH
CT>
• T
o •
rH CM
CN rH +1 ^T CO +1
• • o^ • * ro
tri f\j • \^ ^^* «
CN "=3* VO CN CN 'J*
CN CM
CO CM
00 CN • ro ro •
• • o • • o
T,H VD +1 CO CO +1
rH rH rH rT
• •
in co
rH
in rH
• •
oo o o in in o
• • +1 • • -H
rH CM rO rH rH in
• •
rH rH



O CO O CO


^•^ < — s
rH rr vo ro
0 || 0 ||
1 Z 1 Z
4-1 — > — ~
a, o c
OJ Z • -H
CO > > (/J
QJ QJ rO
T3 T3 £3

• r4
T3 t3 QJ
4J 4J a
to co a,
•*!• +1 +1 D
=«*= x x —
                                                                      B-28

-------
                                                                                      Aquatic  Ecology
   *
   *
    Q)
    CU
    -P
    ft
    0)
    co

    c
    o

    in

    Tl
    C
    nJ
    ro
    en
    C
    O
   •H
   -P
    (0
   -P
    Ul

    ,-1
    O
    V-i
    -P
    tn
    •H
    E
    Q)
    x;
    0

    0)
    o
    
    C
    o

    Ul
 "  03
VO rg
rH
 • rH
^  id
    U
 -P
•rH flJ
-P O
O -H
Id rH
CU -H
« CO
CU
4->
m
x:
rH ft
id ui
-P 0
o x:
EH CX.
-P
U 0)
id -P
a> id
<* x;
. ft
• 01
rH O
o x:
a 04
-H
c
o
|


-P
a)
M
-P
2

cu
-P
-H
i-i
-P

z

U]
f^ it
-P (U
ft4J
<1J 01
Q E


0)
-P
03
Q


C
O
•H
-p
id
4J
CO


o\ co ^ ro
in ^ o oo
vo cr> r-» r>-
CN rH rH






o m r- r--
• • • •
f- P* oo !•»•




rr o vo o
. . . .
O CN O O





• • • •
CN OA r^ co
in


in m ^r m
. . . .
r» ^ ro ro




o in rH in
• • • •
CN rH rH rH
x-s
CU
rH
Tf

jgj

O O w» O O

r~ r- v-i r- r~
o o a) o o
i 131^-1
4J •-> 4-> O-P c 4-> —-
ft C ft 1-3 ft-H pi C
OJ -H CO (U Ul Q) -H
cowco-'COidcoui
id c CQ (0
ffl O CO
•H (U
(H Ul rH M
Q) -H TJ 0)
3 > t> ft
O -H -H ft
rH t-3 LO Q ro J2 ^* *I3
** — ** — ^= -^ ^= —





























•
ft
3
0)
4J
•H
rH
>H
(U
/^
ft
Ul
g
id
)_i
0>
o
}-|
r\
•H
g

c
-H

Ul
c
o
,H
-P
-i
    rd  Q)
      -P
   rH -H
ft
    O
   XI
    E
    a,
   -P  'Ji
    a  E
    cu  id
   CO  rH
       Cn
    C  O
    O  )H
       o
    C -H
    CD  E

    rd  C
    S-l  0)
   •H  »H
    O  id
    ui
       U]
       c:
       O
       03
    0)  M
    O -P
    n  c
    C  0)
    o  o
   M-l  CJ
    o
    Ul
    (d
   XI  •

    VI U)
    H
 ..  03 3
r- tl w
rH
 • rH 0)
•v  oj x:
   O -P
 Q) -H
•H E E
XI  (U O
 (d x: >-i
EH U «W

 B-29
o o
> -p
•H (0
-P O
O -H
lO rH
K M
4J
It
rH "ft
o! Ul
-P 0
o x:
EH 04
A.'
0 0)
OJ -P
cu id
pi x:
ft
• Ul
rH O
o x;
CO CU
m
•H
c
o

(U
4J
OJ
^(
-p
0)
-p
•H
V-l
H




^
03
Q


C
O
•H
LJ
id
j
co

m i
CO 1
ro |




r- rH
•H rH
CN CN






00 O
• •
rH rH





vo n
• •
r- r-

in co
• •
CN "»

o m
• *
rH rH

r-i 00
O 0
1 1
•P -P
ft O
a; o
CO

^
3

t\ ^^
U
O ^

H
0)

rH 1
VO 1
00 1




o in
o b
CN CN






^* ^*
• •
rH O





TJ" f^
• •
00 ^*
rH rH
CN rH
• •
m CN

CNCO
• •
rH rH

rH 00
0 O
1 1
-P -P
ft O
0) O
CO
0) >i
rH rH
13 C
TJ O
•H
Xi S to
•p ^
3 T3 V-I
O C O
CO OJ <4H

in :
CN I
0 I
rH 1



00 00
CN 00
rH rH






in ro
• •
rH O





m co
• •
co cn
CM
O ro
• •
CN rH

O^ O
• •
O rH

rH OO
O O
1 1
•P 4-1
ft U
0) O
CO

U)
£t rg
V-I 0)
O C
Cn -H
rQ
rH E
rH O
tf C_)

0 1
0 1
rH 1
rH 1



P» rH
CN r~-
rH rH






in ro
• •
CN O





CN rH
• •
vo co
CN
oo ro
• «
T rH

ro ro
• •
rH rH

rH 00
0 O
1 1
4-> ±>
ft U
CU O
CO


>,
id
3-*
CU =«=
U)
3
(Q
U

-------
Aquatic Ecology




 simply stress the importance of the upper basins of  this  lake

 as phosphate regulators.  This is generally attributed  to the

 extensive macrophyte beds and their associated epiphytic  algae

 along with the greater diatom populations in this basin  (Allanson

 et al., 1973).


 7.  Phosphorus (Total Hydrolysable Phosphate).

      Total phosphate tends to follow rather closely  the general

 scheme for soluble reactive phosphate.  During stratification,

 the greatest concentration is found near the bottom but as mixing

 occurs the concentration is uniform in the vertical water column.

 Table 4.16 shows that all stations had similar surface concen-

 trations on September 7.  There is a tendency for an increase

 in total phosphates as the fall progresses,  perhaps indicating

 an increased algal biomass.   This same trend can be traced in

 the upper basin.   The higher soluble reactive  phosphate levels

 are closely paralleled with higher total phosphate (greater algal

 biomass)  and as the soluble reactive phosphate declines, so does

 the total P04.


 8.  Nitrogen

      The forms of nitrogen present in lake waters may be

 grouped as:

      (1)   molecular nitrogen (N_)  in solution;

      (2)   organic nitrogen compounds,  including decomposition
           products (ranging  from proteins to simple compounds
           like amino acids and  urea);

      (3)   ammonia (NH* and NH4
-------
                                                      Aquatic Ecology










       (4)  nitrite  (N0~);



       (5)  nitrate  (NO~).



 The combined nitrogen of lakes is probably derived mainly  from




 inflowing water  (Hutchinson, 1956).  However, recent evidence



 shows that precipitation can carry considerable quantities  of




 nitrogen into a lake (Likens and Bormann, 1974) .






 9.  Nitrogen (Nitrite).



      Nitrites are intermediates in the oxidation or reduction




 processes of bacteria.   The low concentration of this nutrient



 throughout the current  investigation suggests that this form of



 nitrogen plays a very minor part in the nitrogen dynamics of




 Lake Monroe.  A more typical year with a longer stratification



 period might have yielded a different conclusion.






10.   Nitrogen (Nitrate).



      The extremely low concentrations of nitrate-N found through-



 out the reservoir is surprising when one views the stream data for



 Station 6 on North Fork and those on Middle and South Forks of



 Salt Creek (Tables 4.7  and 4.17).  The efficiency of the macro-



 phytes,  etc. in removing this nutrient is obvious.  These



 extremely low readings  do not coincide with Allanson's mean



 value of 124 ug/1 NCU-N for 1971.  Only when the water begins



 to cool  and light decreases does one see an appreciable increase




 in  nitrate concentration (Station 1 on Nov.  6).






11.   Nitrogen (Ammonia).



      Ammonia is produced by practically all heterotrophic bacteria
                                B-31

-------
Aquatic Ecology










 in the course of organic decomposition.  This explains  the




 large accumulation of ammonia during stratification on  the




 bottom of the lake, as seen at Station 1  (Table 4.15),   The




 ammonia also became uniformly distributed during the fall mixing.




 Large amounts can leave the system at this time and may explain



 the decrease in ammonia concentrations during October.   However,



 several algae are capable of utilizing this nutrient as well




 (Hutchinson, 1957).  When one looks at the surface concentration



 across the lake  (Table 4.16), there is no apparent trend to the



 varying concentrations.






12.  Silicate




      Silica is the most abundant acidic substance other than



 bicarbonates in lakes, and is of immense significance as a



 major nutrient for diatoms.  At the pH values of natural water,




 Silica occurs mainly as ortho silicate (reactive) in an undis-



 sociated condition  (Hutchinson 1957).



      The distribution of silicate throughout the lake is puzzling,



 The data indicate that the high concentrations at Station 6 and



 the Middle and South Forks  (Table 4.17) are effectively removed



 as the water moves down through these upper basins.  However,



 the gradual increase of reactive silicates from Station 4 to  1




 (Table 4.16) is difficult to explain.  On November 6, sampling



 again showed the greater concentration of silicate at Station 1.




      The apparent difference in silicates throughout the basins



 has two possible explanations:  (1) the respective diatom
                               B-32

-------
                                                     Aquatic Ecology









 populations of the basins may vary considerably, with the lower



 basin having the least diatoms; or (2) this difference may




 depend upon the morphometric slope and depth of the respective



 basins.  This problem needs more investigation, specifically



 because the relation of phytoplankton distribution and abundance




 to the silicate concentration is not clear.






13.  Oxygen




      There is a close relationship between the thermal regime




 and the distribution of dissolved oxygen.  This thermal regime



 affects both the concentration of the gas dissolved in the water



 and its distribution in the water column.




      Figures 4.5 and 4.6 compare the temporal distribution of



 oxygen at these stations.  One must agree with the statement of




 Allanson et al. (1973), that "rapid changes in the distribution



 of dissolved oxygen are linked directly with the thermal regime."




 During the midsummer mixing of the basins, the oxygen is evenly



 distributed in the water column.  As the water cools during the




 fall, the concentration of oxygen increases due to its increased



 solubility.



      Allanson found no significant change in the dissolved oxygen



 content between the period of 1968 and 1971.  Only in the deeper



 Salt Creek channel does one find any serious oxygen depletion.



 The relative volume of this old creek bed is minor, though,  in




 comparison to the  basins.  The 1974 oxygen concentrations agree



 with the findings  of Allanson et al.  (1973).
                               B-33

-------
Aquatic  Ecology
                 QJ
                EH
                0)
                fl
                •H
rtf
T3
^
,
o
c
o
u
CM
o


II

U)


0
tN
T)

> >
O rH
;a o
1 (0 _+.
ITS Ul -*
:t -rl
O '
•

ft (MO
' S H
 t--'
o rH
o p
. 1A 1 U ...-
H r\ a -*
i Tt -H ,
r n
'
' ~T n! E <\|-
" 4-> 0,
UJ 'J,
^ fO .^v-
H °
C


C











' "~ * ~




3 (M -* >J3 
t
p*
• 12
o
• fH

OO
• rH


, 0-
H

*
^O
rH




                en
                C
                O
               •H
               -P
                fl
               -P
               CO


                o
ffl
W
1
^
C^
0
^ 00
X
o •

Ti >^J
O
H
o J-.
U)
M
•H
CM-
E
P. •
O.



...-••*--..
V'~ ""**





— . — . — . — - — «^^ 	 % 	 ^ 	 t




O • ' ' ' ' ' 1 » ' 1
•
o
.0
*^*
•
' S
HI
• H

(\J
' rvj


•oj

•
O
(M
O fvJ -^j1" ^-O co
O P<
rt rH*1 ' ' ""
LO
sT en'
-4- 0
13
?S vo-
'-3 O
1 •••>
f\ ra -)--
•t H
Q
rt R „,
-PP. ^
t/1 P4
-1



""'f'-*(- *.«,«,
- ----^
':\
" »

w
** -J. \.
'
' i i > 1 1 i 1 1 1
o
• E-1
VO
• ,
            •H  X
            fe  O
                                  -O
                 
-------
TJ
                                                  Aquatic Ecology
4J
-U

G


*

c
•H
(0
cq


o
75
H

Hi
*)







f3
0)
bO
>>
X
0


O
W
•rt
13
Pi
P.



o

_
i
ay



vo.
_
-*..


rvi-

VJ
C




r 	 *••••....*...
X f "> **^ "" J > i < -*^i J TU  «M J- vO to

ifN

fl
5 £
^ X
C^ ^3
***»
*~* O > fl>
o o >
tAj^ ^ *0
P< ^fc W
M  rU ^t vo CO o



,
.-*"



"^o
o
^
'H •
Pi
4;

o
>)

m































• •
vO
•
•V

0)
M
D>
fe

^•^
-H
0}

n

«.
0)
o

J.-J
r-y
u>
C
o
-H
n)
4J
07

o ^
^ 1 o

wo*
1 10 ^
H M
Q
5fl *
01 Pi
p<
C



o
X
fi
O i
1° °°-
x"
o
c*.
iH TJ VO-
' 0
>> >
•H r-t
4S ^
I W
fH H
U° *-
a i;
4> Pf
") M,
O

O















^"^•''T**^*'***'!^]^!* _,K -- J.
" ** "

i^
\-.-.~.
*"~*"~*^«.^
•
•*• H


) 
"* >1 co'
N » X
 »
0 P, >
*~* 9 r-t
PJ . UJ O
OJ P, 1 10 J-
E -*• «J
« Ifc -rl
c^ n
rvj 4> c
01 Pi
p.
O O-
nj
C



c^ o
«

M) j
> > .
^ H r-l
3 O J-.
-^ 0. rj Ul
(MB 1 10
« .f -r4
l-« It Q
"\ or
(M at a
*> P,
nJ w kl< __
•>J OT

o













^•*-*..

*'^**^ • •* •£*«






•—•— .-_.~.^
^*^
) f>J J- \O CO O





	 ^,^ j_r--a
^•«te^ ^fc
"***"<'l**^\
9 •
\ v v
'"*.
•*..*•.*..»..,
L
r — i i i i i — i — i — i — i — r

f\l -^ vo *X5 O
H











vO
•nl
•
*
^-.
> »
• *
Pi
.0 e
(V 01

*
AX
rf





.
™f>j

_~ •
-^ o
Tu'ri
. R
41
-O E-t
f\l
CO
H















-------
Aquatic Ecology










 D.  ORGANISMS




      Methods of biological assessment of the lake waters are




 described in Table 4.18.




 1.  Phytoplanktqn




      A list of net phytoplankton from Lake Monroe is given in




 Table 4.19.  Nannoplankton algae identified from a 19 October




 1974 sample are listed in Table 4.20.




      With few exceptions, the diatoms, Melosira, Fragilaria,




 and Asterionella and the chrysophyte, Dinobryon divergens were




 the dominant forms on all sampled dates and at each depth.




 Diatoms, Dinobryon, and the blue-green algae, Anabaena, were




 most abundant in 57, 38 and 10 percent, respectively, of the




 samples counted.




      Correlation coefficients were calculated by Schaefer  (1974)




 for relationships between selected algae and three environmental




 variables:  light, temperature, and dissolved oxygen.  Melosira.




 and Dinobryon showed little correlation with temperature and



 oxygen.  Fragilaria was correlated with dissolved oxygen and had




 low negative correlation with light  (as did Melosira and Dinobryon)




 Asterionella showed high positive correlation with light  (r=0.5139)




 and negative correlation with dissolved oxygen  (r=0.6177).




      Schaefer (1974) also computed the Shannon-Weaver index of




 general diversity  (H),  which indicated that one or two forms were




 predominant in the upper lake levels  (0-3 meters).  At greater




 depths, increased diversity was found.  The index ranged from




 0.0473 to 0.9050, indicating that the composition and abundance
                               B-36

-------
                                                     Aquatic Ecology









of plankton populations were highly variable and not static.



Well stratified algal populations existed in areas not circulated



by wind action  (e.g., Station  4), and during calm periods



(Station 3).



     Large-scale differences were apparent when plankton popu-



lations from the three basins  were compared.   (Tables 4.21, 4.22,



and 4.23).  For example, the middle basin may  contain more plankton



organisms per liter  than the upper basin or much less than the



upper basin.  It may become essential in further work to regard



the reservoir as three separate, functional units, since dramatic



chemical plankton changes occur in moving from the upper basin to



the middle basin, and again to the lower basin.



     Both the large  number of  phytoplankton genera present and



the prevalance of diatoms and  Dinobryon suggest a low electrolyte



situation.  Nutrient loadings  above current levels would serve



to bring about the dominance of fewer algae and a decrease in



community diversity  and stability.  Blue-green algae would



probably show the largest increases since they are capable of



fixing atmospheric nitrogen, and are not retarded by low



concentrations of dissolved nitrogen that occur in summer and



early fall (see Table 4.15).   One of those blue-green algae,



Anabaena is presently dominant in 10% of the sample.



     Seasonal changes in phytoplankton population density



were measured by pigment estimation, which has been found to



be a good indicator  of nutrient conditions and an accurate



estimator of population density and primary production (Brylinsky
                              B-37

-------
Aquatic Ecology
 Table 4:18
 Methods of Biological Assessment
 1.
Phytoplankton:

     Sampled with Kemmerer sampler operated at various
     depths and preserved with Lugol's solution.

     Qualitative sampling with vertical hauls of a
     Wisconsin  standard plankton net.

     One ml aliquots of concentrated samples were placed
     in a Sedgwick-Rafter cell and enumerated under 100X
     magnification with a Leitz Wetzlar Ortholux micro-
     scope.

     Nannoplankton were observed with  a Nikon inverted
     phase microscope.

     Phytoplankton/1 = cell count X 1000mm3   125 ml   ,nnn
                      50mm (1.74mm) (1mm) (2)    V (ml)  X
                   where:
                      1000mm3  = volume  of Sedgwick-Rafter cell
                        50mm  = length  of Sedgwick-Rafter cell
                      1.74mm  = width of strip counted
                         1mm  = height  of Sedgwick-Rafter cell
                         2     = number  of strips  counted
                         V     = sampled volume of water in mis.
                       125ml  = concentrated volume of sample
     a)   Chlorophyll determination

              Pigment estimations  were  determined by the Strickland
         and Parson (1972)  technique  of dissolving 0.34  u Millipore
         filter paper following  filtration  in  10  ml of  90% acetone
         solvents  for about 20 hours  in the dark,  then  stirring and
         centrifugation.   The top  supernatant  liquid was decanted
         into a 1  cm cell.   Readings  were made on a Beckman DU-2
         spectrophotometer at 665,  645  and  630 mu.   Triplicate
         determinations were made  at  each depth and samples were
         taken from each  meter 0-8.   The  results were  then
         calculated,  using the equations formulated by  Strickland
         and Parsons (1972):

              Chi  a = 11.6 E665  -  1.31  E645 -  0.14 E630

              Chi  b = 20.7 E645  -  4.34  E665 -  4.42 E630

              Chi  c = 55    E630  -  4.64  E665 -  16.3 E645
                                                       continued,
                               B-38

-------
                                                Aquatic Ecology
b)  Algal Bioassay Tests

    Method I

         The March 6-10, 1973 experiment was made, using water
    taken from the surface at the causeway with additions of
    three different levels of phosphate (PO.-P) 5, 15, and 50
    ug/1 and of three different levels of nitrate (NCK-N) 75,
    225, and 750 ug/1, which were added into 300 ml B.O.D.
    bottle in 250 ml of water.  Seven different concentrations
    of samples and one opaque control sample, were inoculated
    with 1 ml of Naai,CO,, and placed into an environmental
    chamber on a shaker set of 100 rpm under 450 + 20 foot-
    candle illumination for 4 continuous day's incubation.

         At 6 hours, 25 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, and 96 hours,
    after incubation, 50 ml of sample was removed from the
    bottle and filtered through 0.45 y Millipore membranes
    at a vacuum of 0.25 atmospheres.  The filters were placed
    onto an aluminum planchett for desiccation, then exposed
    to HC1 fumes for 10 minutes to remove inorganic Cllf.  The
    filters were counted on a Geiger-Miiller counter.

    Method II

         The October 1-3, 1974 experiment was conducted, using
    the standard algal assay procedure (EPA, August 1971).
    The water sample was taken from the surface at Station 3
    with two different concentrations of phosphate (PO^-P),
    5 ug/1 and 25 ug/1, and two different concentrations of
    nitrate (NO-j-N) , 25 ug/1 and 125 ug/1, added into a 2
    gallon jar with 2 liters of lake water.  This constituted
    8 different levels of concentration.  There were:
    1)  Control (pure lake water),  2) Control plus 5 ug/1
    phosphate, 3)  Control plus 25 ug/1 phosphate, 4)  Control
    plus 25 ug/1 nitrate, 5)  Control plus 125 ug/1 nitrate,
    6)  Control plus 5 ug/1 phosphate and 25 ug/1 nitrate,
    7)  Control plus 5 ug/1 phosphate and 125 ug/1 nitrate,
    and 8)  Control plus 25 ug/1 phosphate and 125 ug/1
    nitrate.   Then the 8 jars with different concentrations
    of nitrogen and phosphorous were placed into an environ-
    mental chamber with previously described conditions.
    After an initial measurement,  every 24 hrs. 50 ml of sample
    were removed from each bottle.   Triplicate measurements
    of each concentration were made.  Each sample was filtered
    through 0.45 u Millipore Membrane at a vacuum of 0.25
    atmosphere and washed with distilled water to remove
    inorganic C11*.   The filters were counted using an LS 100
    Scintilliation Counter.   The counts after corrections
    were coverted to obtain relative rates of growth to
    the control.
                                                  continued

                         B-39

-------
Aquatic Ecology
 Table 4.18  (continued)
 2.
Zooplankton:

Sampled with a metered Clarke-Bumpus trawl equipped
with a no. 18 wire mesh bucket.  Integrated vertical
hauls as well as horizontal tows were taken at depths
of 0, 3, 6 arid 9 meters.  Samples were concentrated
to a volume of 125 ml and entire 1 ml sub-samples were
counted on a Sedgwick-Rafter cell at 40X using a
Leitz Wetzlar microscope.

                 Total volume of concentrated sample  (ml)
Zooplankton/m3 = X zooplankton/ml of cone, sample   1000 liter
                 volume of water sampled  (liters) x    m"3
                               B-40

-------
                                                    Aquatic Ecology
Table 4.19:
Phytoplankton Organisms Identified from Lake Monroe,
June-August 1974.
    Cyanophyceae
       Chroococcales
         Chroococcus
        *Coelospaerium
         Dactylococcopsis
         Gloeocapsa
         Gomphosphaeria
         Marssoniella
         Merismopedia
         Microcystis
       Chaemaesiphonales
         Pleurocapsa
       Osciliatoriales
        *Anabaena
         Lyngbya
         Oscillatoria
    Chlorophyceae
       Chlorococcales
         Ankistrodesmus
         Crucigenia
         Lauterborniella
         Oocystis
         Pediastrum
         Scenedesmus
         Tetraedron
       Tetrasporales
         Gloeocystis
       Volvocales
         Volvox
       Zygnematales
         Closterium
         Cosmarium
         Gonatozygon
         Micrasterias
         Spirogyra
         Staurastrum
Chrysophyceae
  *Dinobryon
   Mallomonas
   Ochromonas
Xanthophyceae
   Asterogloea
   Ophiocytium
Bacillariophyceae
   Centrales
     Cyclotella
    *Melosira
     Stephanodiscus
     Terpisnoe
   Pennales
     Amphiprora
     Amphora
    *Asterionella
     Cymbella
    *Fragilaria
     Gyrosigma
     Navicula
     Neidium
     Nitzschia
     Surirella
     Synedra
     Tabellaria
*most commonly encountered phytoplankters.
                              B-41

-------
Aquatic Ecology
 Table 4.20:
 Nannoplankton Algae and Protozoa.  Identified from a
 19 October 1974 Lake Monroe sample at Station 4  (Upper Basin]
                         Melosira italica
                         Melosira sp.

                         Dinobryon divergens
                         Dinobryon bavaricum

                         Stephanodiscus sp.

                         Merismopedia tenuissima
                         Merismopedia minor

                         Ankistrodesmus sp.

                         Cryptomonas sp.

                         Fragilaria crotonensis

                         Chroococcus limneticus
                         Chroococcus minor

                         Mallomonas akrokomas
                         Mallomonas sp.

                         Coelastrum sp.

                         Asterionella formosa

                         Anabaena lemmermanni

                         Coelosphaerium kutzingianum

                         Stombidium viride
                                B-42

-------
Table 4.21:
Phytoplankton organisms per liter from
integrated vertical samples, 15 June 1974
                                                     Aquatic Ecology


Dinobryon
Asterionella
Fragilaria
Melosira
Neidium
Ceratium
Chrysophyceae
Pediastrum
Gomphosphaeria
small Chlorococcales
peritrichs
Pleurosigma
Totals
% Dinobryon
% diatoms
% blue-green algae
(Middle Basin)
station 3
X/i
1562
4778
233
144
18
539
18
18
18
162
18
-
7508
20.8
68.9
0.2
a
76
560
76
51
25
102
25
25
25
25
25
-
559



(Upper Basin)
station 4
X/Jt, a
1035
3506
230
374
-
201
29
-
29
58
-
29
5518
18.8
75.0
0.5
0
490
81
122
-
41
41
-
41
81
-
41
410



                             B-43

-------
Aquatic Ecology
 Table 4.22:
 Phytoplankton organisms per liter
 From integrated vertical samples
 28 June 1974
Fragilaria
Synedra
Melosira
Asterionella
Dinobryon
small chlorococcales
Microcystis
(Lower Basin
station 1
X/£
483
39
39
248
575
91
39
Anabaena 1280
peritrichs , 52
Ceratium
f
Staurastrum
Gornphosphaeria
Crucigenial
Stephanodiscus
Navicula
Gloeocapsa
Pleurosigna
Ankistrodesmus
Surirella
Chrysophyceae
Totals
% Dinobryon
% diatoms
% blue-green algae
157
52
13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2835
20.3
28.5
45.6
a
166
18
18
18
111
18
18
333
37
74
37
18
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
794



(Middle Basin)
station 3
X/£
599
240
1030
814
264
96
-
24
-
383
240
-
24
96
96
24
24
24
24
-
3760
7.0
77.7
1.3
a
373
0
34
68
373
68
-
34
-
136
0
-
34
0
68
34
34
34
34
-
305



(Upper Basin)
station 4
X/£
86
86
115
86
1610
-
-
230
345
316
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28
2902
55.5
12.8
7.9
a
122
41
163
122
410
-
-
163
0
203
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
41
41



                                 B-44

-------
Table 4.23:
Phytoplankton organisms per liter
from integrated vertical samples
5 July 1974
                                                    Aquatic Ecology

Tabellaria
Asterionella
Nitzschia
Navicula
Cymbella
small Chlorococcales
Ceratium
Synedra
Fragilaria
peritrichs
Chrysophyceae
Gloeocapsa
Microcystis
Amphora
Dinobryon
Melosira
Stephenodiscus
Anabaona
Stauastrum
Synedra
Crucigenia
Totals
%Dinobryon
% diatoms
% blue-green algae
(Lower Basin)
station 1
X/£
594
441
19
399
19
38
57
38
1974
307
38
57
57
19
192
651
498
2050
77
-
—
7530
2.5
61.3
28.7
a
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
-



(Middle Basin)
station 3
X/l
-
166
-
11
-
-
33
-
796
387
11
44
11
-
1360
-
-
2708
44
44
11
6157
22.1
16.5
44.9
a
-
16
-
16
-
-
16
-
156
47
16
31
16
-
109
-
-
109
0
31
16
234



(Upper Basin)
station 4
X/SL
-
205
-
-
-
20
123
82
328
801
-
20
20
-
7944
862
-
1663
28
-
82
12340
64.4
11.3
13.8
a
-
58
-
-
-
29
116
116
58
87
-
29
29
-
784
58
-
261
29
-
116
1393



                                 B-45

-------
Aquatic Ecology









 and Mann, 1973).   The correlation of estimation between phyto-




 plankton chlorophyll a and biomass,  as indicated by Brylinsky




 and Mann, was 0.98.   This value indicates that it estimated




 chlorophyll a almost as well as phytoplankton populations.  The




 correlation between photosynthetic efficiency and chlorophyll a.




 was 0.92.  All these suggest that pigment estimation constitutes




 a good means of  estimating primary production and population




 density (Brylinsky and Mann, 1973).




      Pigment estimations were made from August to October




 (Figure 4.7).  The highest total chlorophyll reading was found in




 the beginning of  August.   The lowest measurement was taken in the




 middle of September.   Maximum difference,  excluding the month



 of August,  was less  than 8mg/m3,  which was insigificant compared



 to the variance of any single measurement (Figure 4.8).  The




 exceedingly high  variance shown in the month of August was




 probably due to strong patchiness of aggregated phytoplankton




 biomass at certain depths in the water column.   Maximum



 chlorophyll content  was frequently found from 0-3 meters in



 depth.   Little vertical difference was obtained after August's



 measurements,  indicating  circulation in the  lake.



      An increase  in  population density is  generally associated



 with increases in light extinction as measured by the minimum




 extinction coefficient.   However,  no strong  correlation was




 found between  them in Monroe Reservoir.   Poor correlation is




 likely due to  the contribution to varying  quantities of organic




 and inorganic  detritus and dissolved colored matter (Bindloss
                               B-46

-------
                                                     Aquatic Ecology









 et  al.,  1972).   It  may also be  influenced by changes in species



 composition  of  the  phytoplankton.



     No  significant relation was  found  between  population  density



 and nitrogen concentrations, but  a  negative  correlation was  seen



 with soluble reactive  phosphorus  and  also with  reactive silicate



 (Figure  4.9  and 4.10).  This appeared to  be  an  immerse  relation



 to  what  Brylinsky and  Mann  found.   If,  however,  total phosphorus



 was plotted  against population  density, a strong positive  cor-



 relation would  result.  Brylinsky and Mann found the following



 correlations between chlorophyll  a  and  mean  nutrient concen-



 trations:  soluble  reactive  phosphorus, +0.78;  nitrate,  +0.59;



 and total nitrogen,  +0.49.  Exactly the opposite correlation



 found here may  be due  to the rapid  consumption  of dissolved



 phosphorus and  reactive silicate  by phytoplankton populations



 in  Lake  Monroe.  This  suggests  that a great  increase of  aquatic



 macrophytes  competing  for available nutrients would  essentially



 control  phytoplankton  blooms in the upper  basin.  Similarly, if



 the weeds were  removed, increases in  phytoplankton would result.



     Two separate algal assay tests were  conducted during March



 6-10, 1973,  and October 1-3, 1974.  The techniques applied to



 the two  experiments were somewhat different, and are stated



 separately in Table  4.18.  The readings for  the  first method



were corrected and plotted in Figure  4.11; results of Method II



 are shown in Figure  4.12.



     The two bioassay  experiments show  similar results.   The



addition of phosphate  (PO -P) stimulates a rapid rate of growth.
                               B-47

-------
Aquatic Ecology









 Prolonging the time of incubation stimulates a much higher growth




'rate.   The addition of nitrate,  after an initial increase,



 produces no significant increase in growth rate (Figure 4.12).




 The addition of phosphate and nitrate shows a continuous increase




 in rates of production with longer incubation periods.  It is




 shown that the rate of growth of combined nutrients has a 1.7




 times higher rate than the control (Figure 4.12).




      To summarize the data, the increase of phosphate content



 is of great importance in the growth of algae in Monroe Reservoir.




 Limiting the phosphate (PO.-P)  input to the reservoir is the



 best method of controlling algal blooms.






 2.  Zooplankton




      In the fall of 1971, the zooplankton population was



 dominated by a calanoid,  a cyclopoid, their copepodites and




 nauplii.  Rotifers, especially Keratella, were abundant.



 Daphnia laevis and Daphnia retrocurva were both present, although



 less important.  Ceratium was locally abundant (Allanson et al.,



 1973).  Allanson et al. also concluded that a pelagic community



 of zooplankton is present in Lake Monroe, even though the reservoir



 is fairly shallow.



      Table 4.24 lists zooplankton observed from June to August,




 1974.   Tables 4.25 and 4.26 show variations in integrated vertical



 samples between stations.  Table 4.27 gives populations at dis-



 crete levels.




      Codonella, a vase-shaped ciliate,  showed wild population



 fluctuations,  varying between 0  and 60,000 organisms/m3 in
                              B-48

-------
                                                       Aquatic Ecology
Figure 4.7:                               ,-,    i_  -, -,
Phytoplankton population density as mg. Chlorophyll
per nr vs,  depth and temperature.
           (I)
  August 12     Chi. mg/rrT
            0.5        1.0
                   (I)              ,
            September 16  Chi.  mg/m
                     Q.5        1.0
                                    0
                                    1
                                    2
                                    3
                                    4
                                    5
                                    6
                                    7
                                    8
           Temp.   21 22 23 24 25°C
                        Temp.  21°C    21.5
  September 28(1)	Chi.  mg/m"
            0.5        1.0
 0
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
            October 8   (I)  Chi. mg/m'
                     0.5        1.0
          1
          2
          .3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
         Temp. 18°C
19°C
15°C Temp.    16°C
                                B-49

-------
 Aquatic Ecology


Figure  4.8:
Variations in population density shown  as ing.
Chlorophyll per m3  (n = 9)
  cm. a
       IS
  CM. b
 CM. c
      /o
      10


    «. J°
      /o
-f
                   U     .Sept I     Sept ife   Sept 3.t I     Stp-t 16   Sept at*   oc.t 8     Oct
                                  B-50

-------
                                                        Aquatic Ecology
Figure 4.9:

Regression between  Total Chlorophyll and PO4~P (soluble reactive
phosphorus).
       \n u3/l
                                   /.O
                                           
-------
Aquatic Ecology
 Figure 4.10:



 Regression  between Total Chlorophyll  and reactive Silicate,
           ISOO
       SIO,
           10 00
                                               T= -
                                   1.0
                             Chlorophyl I
                                 B-52

-------
                                                     Aquatic Ecology
   Figure 4.11:



   Algal bioassay incubation test, March 6, 1972.
                                -"    Li«iVvt Control (
                                       OT»AQUE C.ONTROL (•	)
                                             LflKE RON'ROt
/oo
                                                 -time
                              B-53

-------
Aquatic  Ecology

Figure 4.12:

Algal assay with  different additions of  nutrients.
       1-7
 Relative.
  rate. cV
      0
                          i
                                                         /.  Control
                                                         2.  Control  f 0.005."i<]?Ov/L
                                                         3.  Control  t
V-  Control i- 0. o2S;«
5.  Control f 0.125m
*.  Control
 i 0- OOSMtJ^C., f 0. W-
7.  Control  ^
 •r 0. 005*3 TOiyt-o.
8.  Control
 -t- o. o^crTo^ +- o.

                         21 Hours
                                                Hours
                                     B-54

-------
                                                     Aquatic Ecology










 one month.   The  dinoflagellate  Ceratium,  as  well,  showed  great



 variation  in population  size.




     A very  diverse  assemblage  of  rotifers was  found  (12  genera).




 Of these,  Keratella  cochlearis  and Polyarthra vulgaris  were



 most common.



     One calanoid and  two  cyclopoid copepods were  found.   Their




 larval stage,  the nauplius, was quite  abundant  throughout June



 and July.




     Bosmina coregoni  was  the most abundant  Cladoceran, reaching



 a density  of 140,000/m3  on 24 June 1974 at a depth of 3m  at



 station 4.   It declined  logarithmically after this peak.



     Two species of  Daphnia were encountered, retrocurva  and



 laevis.  D.  retrocurva was much more abundant and  also  showed




 pronounced helmet development (cyclomorphosis).




     Other Cladocera were  more  rare than  Bosmina and Daphnia,



 although Pseudosida  and  Holopedium were at times quite  common.



 Genera peculiar to a littoral habitat  are discussed in  the




 macrophyte section.



     It is apparent  from Tables 4.25 and  4.26,  that in  lake areas



 not widely separated,  differences  can  be  found  in  their plankton



 populations.   Stations 3 and 4  supported  similar populations,  but



 they had developed independently.   The upper (and  sometimes the



middle)  basin  contains the greatest density  of  zooplankters,



both being larger than populations  in  the lower basin.  In




addition,  the  percentage of Cladocera  of  the total zooplankton



population could be  nearly identical (cf. 15 June), or vary



markedly (cf.  24 June),  from station to station.






                            B-55

-------
Aquatic Ecology
 TABLE 4.24:

 Zooplankton  in Lake Monroe
 June - August 1974.
               Protozoa
                  *Codonella
                  *Ceratium
                  *Difflugia cristata
                  *peritrich
               Rotifera
                   Ascomorpha
                   Asplanchna
                   Brachionus
                   Colurella
                   Conochilus
                   Filinia
                   Gastropus
                  *Kellicottia
                  *Keratella cochlearis
                   Polyarthra euryptera
                  *Polyarthra vulgaris
                   Rotatoria
                   Trichocerca
               Cladocerna
                  +Alona sp.
                  +Alonella sp.
                  *Bosmina coregoni
                   Ceriodaphnia lacustris
                  +Chydorus sphaericus
                  *Daphnia laevis
                  *Daphnia retrocurva
                   Diaphanosoma leuchtenbirgeanum
                  *Holopedium gibberum
                   Leptodora kindtii
                  +Pleuroxus denticulatus
                  *Pseudosida bidentata
                  +Sida crystallina
               Copepoda
                  *Cyclops (2 sp.)
                   Limnocalanus
                  *Diaptomus
               Ostracoda
                  *most commonly encountered organisms

                  +Cladocera associated primarily with
                    aquatic plants
                              B-56

-------
                                                     Aquatic Ecology
Table 4.25:

Zooplankton Organisms/m3 from  integrated  vertical  samples
(15 June 74)

Codonella
Ceratium
Keratella
Polyarthra
Trichocerca
Colurella
Bosmina
Daphnia retrocurva
Holopedium
Nauplius larvae
Cyclops
Diaptomus
Totals
% Cladocera
(Middle Basin)
Station 3
3125
143000
6250
2344
781
781
30500
3125
3125
14060
2344
781
170216
21.6
(Upper Basin)
Station 4
7500
100000
11250
8750
3750
-
38750
-
-
8750
-
—
178750
21.7
                               B-57

-------
Aquatic Ecology
 TABLE 4.26:

 Zooplankton from an integrated vertical sample,
 28 June 74, organisms/m3

Codonella
Ceratium
Keratella
Polyarthra
Trichocerca
Filinia
Conochilus
Kellicottia
Bosmina
Daphnia
retrocurva
Daphnia
laevis
Pseudosida
Holopedium
Nauplius
Cyclops
sp. 1
Cyclops
sp. 2
Diaptomus
Ostracod
Chaoborus
Total
%Cladocera
(Upper Basin)
Station 4
2500
110000
8750
2500
-
2500
-
-
26250
6250
-
1250
1250
10000
1250
1250
2500
-
-
176250
19.8
(Middle Basin)
Station 3
2083
162500
6250
13540
-
1042
14580
-
15625
-
1042
-
-
7292
-
-
1042
4170
-
229166
7.3
(Lower Basin)
Station I
2273
71590
5680
5110
-
3409
1136
568
23925
5110
-
568
2841
4545
-
-
-
-
-
131755
28.4
                                B-58

-------
                                                     Aquatic Ecology
TABLE 4.27:

Vertical Variation in Zooplankton  (organisms/m3) at
Station 1.  Lower Basin, 28 June 1974.

Codonella
Ceratium
Keratella
Polyarthra
Trichocerca
Filinia
Conochilus
Kellicottia
Bosmina
Daphnia
retrocurva
Daphnia
laevis
Pseudosida
Holopedium
Nauplius
Cyclops
sp. 1
Cyclops
sp. 2
Diaptomus
Chaoborus
Totals
% Cladocera
0 meters
595
20635
6350
1885
-
-
1190
595
3175
290
-
-
992
4266
-
-
198
99
40270
11.1
3 meters
426
14347
4830
4260
142
142
3125
-
20170
2273
852
284
568
2840
142
426
1562
-
56389
51.7
6 meters
2261
67154
7980
5850
133
266
7048
-
9574
798
931
266
665
3058
133
665
133
-
106915
11.4
                               B-59

-------
Aquatic Ecology









      Vertical variation in populations was also found  (Table 4.27).




 Certain zooplankters are capable of dramatic vertical movements,



 usually away from the surface during the day and towards it at




 night, which further complicates the pattern of their distribution.




 Cladoceran peaks during daylight hours were commonly at 2-3 meters.



 As lake water transparency increased during summer, their peak




 occurrence was at greater depths.  Similar results were found




 in 1971 (Allanson et al., 1973).




      Similar consequences to that suggested for phytoplankton



 species diversity, following nutrient additions, apply here




 as well.  Large increases in numbers of a few species and a




 lower number of total species present would be expected.  The



 diverse congregation of zooplankters is indicative of low nutrient



 conditions.  The occurrence of the genus Holopedium in the lake




 suggests a low calcium content and oligo- or mesotrophy (Flossr.er,



 1972).  Secchi disc transparency in a Holopedium lake should be




 at least 1.8 meters (which it is).  Leptodora, also, by its



 presence implies similar conditions.  With greater nutrient



 loading per area of lake surface, surface blooms of blue-green




 algae would develop.  The resultant light attenuation from these



 blooms would deny sufficient light to certain forms and alter




 the composition of the phytoplankton.  In turn, any changes in




 the phytoplankton would involve the replacement of some zooplankters



 (e.g., Holopedium) with more tolerant forms.  The increased



 eutrophy would place more biomass in undesirable forms and reduce



 the energy available to fishes.
                               B-60

-------
                                                     Aquatic Ecology










3.  Bacterioplankton



     Studies of bacteria  in the  lower basin were made by  Smith



in 1971  (Allanson et al.f  1973).   She found a predominance  of



Gram negative organisms.   Gram positive organisms  (Cprynebackterium,



Micrpcoccus, Staphylbcoccus) rarely exceeded 25% of  the total



bacterial population.  Of the Gram negative organisms, only



two were facultative aerobes.  Shigella and Salmonella, both



enteric pathogens,  showed maxima of 5.2 and 2.5 percent of  the



total population, respectively.   Obligate aerobes  (Pseudomonas,



Achrobacter, Alcaligenes,  Flavobacterium) normally comprised



greater than 80% of the total bacteria.





4.  Benthos



     No studies on  benthic animals have been conducted on Lake



Monroe.  Shallow-water insects are an important prey item for



fishes, incorporating animal or  plant tissue into larger  mass



units.  Tubificids, and chironomids as well, serve as food



sources; in addition, they may have profound effects on the



sediment through which they burrow, recycling materials from the



rich organic deposits (Davis, 1974).





5.  Macrophytes



     Aquatic plant  distribution  and development in 1974 was very



similar to that found in  1971 (Allanson et al, 1973), yet much



different from that encountered  in 1972 by Docauer (1972).  (See



Figures 4.13 and 4.14).   Macrophytes were well-developed  in the



relatively shallow upper basin,  especially in the North and
                              B-61

-------
Aquatic Ecology










 Middle Forks of Salt Creek.  Allanson et al. (1973) described



 two separate communities:  a Potamogeton-Najas-Myriophyllum-



 Ceratophyllum association found in open water and a Sagitaria-



 Potamogeton-Najas grouping in sheltered cover.   The Sagittaria



 community was found along the margins of the upper and middle



 basins, and off the western shore of the lower basin (near



 the Fourwinds Marina).



      In addition to the plants described in Allanson,  Najas



 quadalupensis was found to be widespread.   It was distributed



 across nearly the entire bottom of the lower basin, with the



 exception of the deeper channels,  probably due  to the  increased



 light penetration at Station 1 (see section on  Secchi  disc



 transparency).



      An above-average rainfall in spring would  increase reservoir



 water level and turbidity resulting in later,  and perhaps less,



 weed development.   Conversely, low stages  would permit increased



 weed growth.



      In 1974,  dense growths of Myriophyllum were found in the



 upper basin.   Weed beds developed slowly until  July and then



 increased rapidly.   The Myriophyllum beds  appear to be extremely



 important to the reservoir,  acting as sediment  traps of the silty



 flow from the  North Fork.   Plans  to decrease weed beds by various



 means,  whether  for better fishing  success  or water quality, appear



 unwise in light of recent evidence (Mulligan, 1969;  Peterson,,



 Smith,  and Malueg,  1974).   Aquatic plants  have  been demonstrated



 to have an antagonistic or antibiotic effect on algae  (Hasler and
                              B-62

-------
                                                                               Aquatic Ecology
ro

G
QJ
AS

m
Q
I

-H
0
 Q)
 co
 Q)
 K

 (U
 O

 C
 O
 s
co
•a
01
-P
a
o
o
ITS
s
-d
G
(0
                                                        *
                                                       H
0)
M
       x:
       •P
        a
        0)
     0)  CO
     CO  14
     3  (1)
     ttf -P
     U  0)
     X! 0
     •P S
       4J
     0)
     > O
     O -P
     eg
     Q) T3
     M 03
     (D XI

       CO
     CO 0)
     G >
     O O
    •H
    -P
     (0 S
     > O
     M rH
     0) rH
     co n)
        0
     O  to

     [ 1 jj
     CO  CO
     o  o
     S S
                                              B-63

-------
Aquatic  Ecology
 cu
•H
fa
         .
         -4J
         a,
         0)
       CU 0)
       tn -p
       3 CU
       fC £H
       u
tn
c
•H
tn
to
ffl

cu
cu
X!
EH

CU
X!
-P

tn
C
•H
U
O
,£
CO

1

^1
•H
0
[>
^1
CU
tn
cu
PS

0)
o
M
C
O
s
cu
CU C
x; o
-P
(0
d)
> 0
O -P
Xt
4J
e ?
0 O
M n
t3 m en
cu
C CU tJ
cu n to
X CU X!
M 3»
to w
Q tn CD
1 C >
WOO
T3 -H O
CU -P
CQ fO £
> O
i tn tO
X! 43 X!
di O W
O
!-i -P -P
o t/) tn
fO O O
S S S


-------
                                                     Aquatic
Jones, 1949; Fitzgerald,  19€9) .  Large blooms  of the noxious



blue-green algae Anabaena and Microcystis have resulted  following



weed removal  (Brakke,  1974) .



     Primary production  in Myriophyllum  is mainly  accomplished



by only the active photosynthetic  leaves forming a canopy near



the water surface.  The  factors most  important in  Myriophyllum



net production are light penetration  and the distribution of



leaf tissue  (Adams, Titus,  and McCracken, 1974).



     In addition to macrophyte production, there is also an



additional utilization of nutrient inputs and  production by the



abundant growths of attached periphyton  (especially diatoms) .



Macrophytes and their  associated periphyton act together as a



complex, and compete with the phytoplankton for available



nutrients.



     Aquatic plants are  colonized  by  an  algal-fungal-bacterial



assemblage.  In turn,  this  grouping serves as  a substrate for a



very diverse community of  animals  that either  graze on the periphtic



algae and bacteria or  prey  upon other animals.  (All of  these



organisms are collectively  referred to as Aufwuchs.)  Further,



the diverse animal community appears  to  be very important as a



food source for fish fry  and fingerlings.



     The animal component of the Aufwuchs, identified from a



29 June 1974 sample,  were collected from a Myriophyllum  bed.



They included:  Cladocera  (Daphnia retrocurva, Chydorus  sphaericus,



Pleuroxus denticulatus, Sida crystallina, Bosmina coregoni) ,



copepods (Cyclops) ,  snails, several species of rotifers,  ostracods,
                               B-65

-------
Aquatic Ecology









 midges, damselflies and the oligochaete worm, Chaetogaster.



 Cladocera were not abundant in the June sample, but showed



 increases in September.





 6.  Fish



      Fish stocking began in November 1964, and was completed in



 December 1965.  Table 4.28 shows a list of species and numbers



 of fish introduced.



      On January 1, 1967, Monroe Reservoir was opened to fishing.



 Annual surveys were conducted for 1968, 1969, and 1970 and 1971



 by the Fishery Research section, Indiana Department of Natural



 Resources,  Division of Fish and Wildlife.



      Table  4.29 shows species composition and relative abundance



 of fish collected in Monroe Reservoir.



      Bluegill is the only sunfish species of any significance



 to the fishery.  Others are so few in number that they contribute



 little except as forage.  Bluegill population growth was high.



 Yellow perch are increasing rapidly due to lack of predation upon



 them and what appears to be ideal habitat.   Crappie numbers



 fluctuate to some extent but are high enough to provide good



 fishing.  Although channel catfish reproduction seems to be



 limited,  an excellent channel cat fishery exists.   Carp and



 suckers appear to have no threat to the fishery;  however,  an



 adequate predator population must be maintained.



      Monroe Reservoir is following the  typical aging pattern.



 The bass population,  which was larger,  is  now decreasing,  a
                               B-66

-------
                                                             Zoology
TABLE 4.28:
Species, size, number and number per acre of  fish  stocked
in Monroe Reservoir.
Species Size Number Number/acre
Large mouth bass
Blue-gill
Channel catfish
Flathead catfish
Red ear
Northern Pike
Black crappie
6.0-12.5 in.
4.0-7.0 in.
6.0-22.0 in.
1.0-25.0 Ibs.
5.0-6.0 in.
1.0-25.0 in.
9.0-12.0 in.
14,821
2,816
113,275
433
56
48
87
1.38
0.26
10.54
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Source:  Ridenour, 1972.
                              B-67

-------
 Aquatic Ecology
 TABLE 4.29:
 Species Composition and Relative Abundance of Fish
 Collected in Monroe Reservoir, 1968-1971.
                                        PERCENT OF SAMPLE
SPECIES
Largemouth bass
Bluegill
White crappie
Black crappie
Yellow perch
Yellow bass
Carp
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead
Channel catfish
White sucker
Spotted sucker
Redear sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Longear sunfish
Green sunfish
Warmouth
Orange- spotted sunfish
Redhorse
Rockbass
Smallmouth bass
Flathead catfish
Northern pike
Total Number of Fish
in Sample
Total Number of Species
Represented
1968
37.3
16.2
0.9
0.4
6.4
*
0.3
0.3
9.0
3.5
9.6
0.1
0.7
*
*
4.9
3.4
0.1
0.6
0.2
*
*
0.1
3,103
18
1969
26.2
38.8
8.9
*
3.7
*
1.7
2.0
0.4
1.9
4.0
3.7
0.7
*
1.4
2.2
1.5
**
0.2
0.1
**
**
*
2,298
19
1970
18.1
24.7
23.5
0.7
11.0
3.4
2.4
1.5
1.5
1.0
4.9
3.1
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.6
1.4
*
0.1
*
*
*
*
2,491
18
1971
23.7
35.5
4.6
2.9
16.9
0.6
1.5
*
0.1
1.2
4.4
0.5
1.6
*
3.3
0.6
1.9
0.1
0.1
*
*
*
*
856
17
 *None collected.

*:VLess than 0.1 per cent collected.

  Source:   Ridenour,  1972.
                                  B-68

-------
                                                       Aquatic Ecology

phenomenon that occurs in artificial reservoirs.  The 1972 fishery
survey  (Ridenour, 1973)  indicated  the following order of  abundance:
bluegill  (30.59%), yellow perch  (18.38%); largemouth bass (15.23%),
yellow bass  (5.56%), warmouth  (  ?? ), carp  (3.98%), golden shiner
( ?? ); redear sunfish  (3.5%) white and black crappie  (5%); bull-
heads (brown, yellow, black)  (5%),  channel  catfish  (0.96%).  This
suggests  that Lake Monroe will sustain a good bass population for
a longer  period of time.
     Yellow perch and yellow bass,  which do not have the  habitat
preference of largemouth bass, are potential threats to Monroe's
fishery.  Predator-prey  relationships between northern pike and
yellow perch and between walleye and both yellow perch and
yellow bass suggests that stocking northern pike fingerlings
and walleye fry in Lake  Monroe may be a solution  (Ridenour, 1972).
E.  SUMMARY
      (1)  Watershed — Nashville, Indiana is a major point source
of nutrients on the North Fork.  Other sources may contribute
heavily, especially during spring rains.  A regional land- and
water-use management is advised.
      (2)  Lake Monroe Morphometry — Three distinct, major basins
are present; mean depth increases from the pond-like upper basin
(above the causeway) to the lower basin  (near the dam).
      (3)  Nutrients — Phosphorus and nitrogen in 1974 were lower
than previously reported.
                                B-69

-------
 Aquatic Ecology










      (4)  Thermal Stratification — Cool weather  in  mid-  to



 late-summer may bring about  isothermal conditions and  result




 in partial or complete circulation.  Allanson  et  al.  (1973)




 showed  stratification into October in 1971.



      (5)  Chemistry — Hydrogen ion concentrations and conductivity



 have not changed much since  1968 or 1971.  Alkalinity  results  did



 not agree (1971 results are  in error by a factor  of  2X).



      (6)  Secchi Disc Transparency — A decline in mean trans-



 parency indicates increases  in turbidity from  1971-1974,  from



 added phytoplankton or non-biological particulate matter.  Continuous



 study of plankton and sedimentary conditions is advised.



      (7)  Bioassay — Experiments demonstrate  that in  spring algal



 growth is limited by phosphorus concentrations and not retarded



 by nitrogen.   In fall, (October 1974)  growth was limited primarily



 by phosphorus; additions of nitrate enhanced phytoplankton develop-



ment.



      (8)  Chlorophyll — A strong negative correlation occurred



between chlorophyll a^ and soluble reactive phosphorus and also



with reactive silicates.   This indicated a fast uptake of reactive



phosphorus and silicates by the phytoplankton.



     (9)  Plankton — Need for a continuation of studies on



seasonal succession and other quantitative aspects of both phyto-



plankton and  zooplankton.



    (10)  Benthos — Need for initiation of studies on benthic



animals and  secondary production in general.
                               B-70

-------
                                                      Aquatic Ecology




     (11)  Macrophytes  — Aquatic  plants,  especially  in  the

 shallow, upper basin,  appear  to effectively  compete  with the

 phytoplankton for available nutrients.  Decreases  in weed

 distribution would result  in  increased phytoplankton density.

     (12)  Trophic Status — Lake  Monroe is a low alkalinity,

 oligotrophic system.   Whole lake  experiments have  shown that'

 lakes of this type are quite  sensitive and respond rapidly  to

 phosphorus enrichment  (Schindler,  1974).  Steps must be taken

 to avoid phosphorus effluents from entering  the reservoir.

     Research is currently underway under the directorship  of

 Dr. David G. Frey with student assistance to establish  the

 following:  (1)  a general study  of the watershed  and lake  to

 provide a baseline for observing  the rate and duration  of bio-

 logical changes;  (2)   an understanding of the lake's biology

 useful in predicting the probable  importance in biotic  changes

 connected primarily with eutrophication; and (3)   special studies

 to contribute original information to reservoir biology.
F.  REFERENCES

Adams, M.S., J. Titus, and M. McCraken  (1974).  "Depth Distribution
     of Photosynthetic Activity in a Myriophyllum spicatum
     Community in Lake Wingra."  Limnol.  Oceanogr. 19:377-389.

Allanson, B.R., C.J. Zimmerman, and O.K. Smith  (1973).  "A Report
     on the Limnology of Monroe Reservoir, Indiana."  School of
     Public and Environmental Affairs-Occasional Papers No. 1,
     January 1973.  Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
                               B-71

-------
Aquatic Ecology
Bartsch, A.F. (1971).   Algal Assay Procedure Bottle Test.  National
     Eutrophication Research Program-Environmental Protection
     Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.

Bindloss, M.E.,  A.V. Hoiden, A.E. BaileyWatts, and I.R. Smith.
     (1972).  "Phytoplankton Production, Chemical and Physical
     Conditions in Loch Leven."  In:  Productivity Problems of
     Freshwaters, pp.  639-659.  Z. Kajak and A. Hillbricht-
     Ilkowska (eds.).   Proceedings of the IBP-UNESCO Symposium,
     Kazimierz Dolny,  Poland, 1970.

Brakke, D.F. (1974).  MS,  "Primary Production in Culturally
     Enriched Lake Sallie, Minnesota Following Weed Harvest."

Brylinsky, M. and K.H. Mann  (1973).  "An Analysis of Factors
     Governing Productivity in Lakes and Reservoirs."  Limnol.
     Oceanogr.  18(1):  1-15.

Davis.  R.B.  (1974).  "Stratigraphic Effects of Tubificids on
     Lake Sediments."   Limnol. Oceanogr. 19:466-488.

Docauer, D.  (1972).  "Human Development and Its Effect on Lake
     Monroe."  (unpublished) Environmental Protection Agency
     (1971).  Algal Assay Procedure Bottle Test.  National
     Eutrophication, Research Program.

Fitzgerald, G.P.  (1969) .  "Some Factors in the Competition or
     Antagonism Among Bacteria, Algae and Aquatic Weeds."
     J. Phycol.   5:351-359.

Flossner, D. (1972).  "Branchiopoda, Branchiura."  Die Tierwelt
     Deutschlands,  60. Teil:l-501.

Golterman, H.L.  and R.S. Clymo (1969).  "Methods for Chemical
     Analysis of Fresh Waters."  IBP Handbook No. 8. Blackwell
     Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Hasler, A.D. and E. Jones (1949).  Demonstration of the Antagonistic
     action of Large Aquatic Plants on Algae and Rotifers.  Ecology
     30:359-364.

Hutchinson, G.E.  (1956).  "A Treatise on Limnology."  Volume 1.
     Geography,  Physics, and Chemistry.  John Wiley and Sons,
     Inc. New York.

Lee, G.F.  (1969).  "Analytical chemistry of plant nutrients."
     pp 646-658.   In:   Eutrophication;  Causes, Consequences,
     Correctives.  Rohlich, G.(ed)Proceedings of a Symposium.
     National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
                               B-72

-------
                                                     Aquatic Ecology
Likens, G.E. and F.H. Bormann  (1974).   "Linkages Between
     Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems."  BioScience 24:447-446.

Loehr, R.C.  (1974).  "Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude
     of Non-point  Sources."  Journal WPCF 46:1849-1872.

McAhron, R.  (1972).  "The Nashville Sewage Plant."   (unpublished).

Mulligan, H.F.  (1969)'.  "Management of  aquatic vascular plants
     and algae."   In:  Eutrophication;  Causes, Consequences,
     Correctives,  pp 464-483. G. Rohlich  (ed.).Proceedings
     of Symposium.  National Academy of Science.  Washington,
     D.C.

Nelson, M.  (1974).  "Some Chemical and  Physical Aspects of the
     North Fork of Salt Creek Near Nashville, Indiana."   (unpublished)

Peterson, S.A., W.L. Smith, and K.W. Maleug  (1974).  "Fullscale
     Harvest of Aquatic Plants:  Nutrient Removal from a Eutrophic
     Lake.  J. Wat. Poll. Contr. Fed..  46:697-707.

Ridenour, R.L.  (1972).  Monroe Reservoir — Fishery Status Report
     1968-1971.  Fishery Research Section, Indiana Department of
     Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife.

Ridenour, R.L.  (1973).  Monroe Fisheries Survey 1972.  Fishery
     Research Section, Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
     Division of Fish and Wildlife.

Rodhe, W. (1965).  "Standard Correlations Between Pelagic
     Photosynthesis and Light."  In:  Goldman, C.R.  (ed.)
     pp. 365-381.  Primary Productivity in Aquatic Environments.
     Mem. 1st. Ital"Idrobiol. 18 Suppl. University of California
     Press, Berkeley.

Schaefer, A. (1974).  Phytoplankton Cycling and Species Diversity
     in Lake Monroe, Indiana and Relations to Environmental
     Factors.  1974 NSF Summer Science  Institute, Indiana University,
     Bloomington.

Schindler, D.W. (1974).  "Eutrophication and Recovery in
     Experimental  Lakes:  Implications  for Lake Management."
     Science 184:897-899.

Stainton, M.P., M.J. Capel, and F.A.J. Armstrong (1974).  The
     Chemical Analysis of Fresh Water.  Research and Development
     Directorate, Freshwater Institute, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
                                B-73

-------
Aquatic Ecology
Strickland, J.D.H.  and T.R.  Parsons (1972).   "A Practical
     Handbook of Seawater Analysis."  Fisheries Research Board
     of Canada-Bulletin 167  (second edition).   Ottawa.   R.A.
     Vollenweider(1971).Scientific Fundamentals of the
     Eutrophication of Lakes and Flowing Waters,  with Particular
     Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as factors in
     Eutrophication.   U.N. OECD

Zimmerman,  C.J.  (1968).   Progress Report on  Limnological Investi-
     gations in the Monroe Reservoir Basin-1968.   Indiana University
     Water  Resources Center  and Department of  Zoology,  Bloomington,
     Indiana.
                             B-74

-------
c-i

-------
             APPENDIX D
 LAKE MONROE LAND SUITABILITY STUDY
          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

         Indiana University
School of Public Environmental Affairs
Center for Urban and Regional Analysis
             July 1975
                 D-i

-------
                                        PREFACE
The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide a concise, easily read review of the major points
of the Lake Monroe Land Suitability Study Technical Report for the benefit of elected and appointed
officials as well as other persons with a general interest in the topic.
                                        D-ii

-------
                                      CONTENTS'
 INTRODUCTION  	  1
        Description of the Watershed 	  2
        Study Area Defined	  2
        Reservoir Purposes	  2
        The Demand for Use	  3

 GEOLOGY  	  5
        General Information	  6
        Geologic Description of the Area	  6
        Soil Material Characteristics	  7
        Land-Use Considerations	  8

 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY	11
        General Information	 12
        Forests  	 12
        Wildlife	 12
        Forest and Wildlife Management	 13
        Land-Use Considerations	 13

 AQUATIC ECOLOGY	15
        General Information	 16
        Physical-Chemical Properties	 16
        Organisms	 18
        Land-Use Considerations	19

 LAND USE	21
        General Information	22
        Land-Use Survey	22
        Land-Use Maps	23
        Land Capability Model  	24
        Land-Use Considerations	24

 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK	25
        General Information	26
        Federal Agencies	27
        State Agencies	29
        Local Agencies	32

*  Maps Identified In The Executive Summary Have Not  Been Reproduced In
   This EIS.

                                      D-ui

-------
INTRODUCTION
    D DESCRIPTION OF THE
      LAKE MONROE WATERSHED
    D STUDY AREA DEFINED
    D RESERVOIR PURPOSES
    D THE DEMAND FOR USE
           D-J

-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE LAKE MONROE WATERSHED


        Monroe Reservoir, with a surface area of 10,750 acres, is the largest impoundment of water in Indiana.
        It is situated in the south-central part of the state, about ten miles south and east of Bloomington. The
        major portion of  the reservoir lies within Monroe County with the upper end of the reservoir
        extending into Brown and Jackson Counties. A very small part of the reservoir's drainage area lies in
        Lawrence County.

        The reservoir occupies the main valley of Salt Creek and extends into several tributary valleys. From
        the reservoir, Salt Creek flows southwesterly through Lawrence County to its confluence with the
        East Fork of the White River about five miles southwest of Bedford, Indiana. The drainage area of the
        Salt Creek basin is 647 square miles, of which 441  square miles he upstream from the damsite. The
        dam is located 25.6 miles above the mouth of Salt Creek, about two  miles east  of Harrodsburg in
        Monroe County.
STUDY AREA DEFINED


        The specific focus of the geology, ecology, and land use studies ol this report was an area of
        approximately  100 square miles immediately surrounding the lake (see Map 1). The institutional
        study describes the jurisdiction of county, regional, state, and lederal agencies within the entire Lake
        Monroe drainage basin.
RESERVOIR  PURPOSES


        Monroe Reservoir was constructed for two primary purposes:

               • Flood control

               • Low flow augmentation of Salt Creek below the dam and the East Fork of the White River

        The reservoir's secondary purposes are:

               • Recreation

               • Fish and wildlife

               • Water supply
                                         D-2

-------
THE DEMAND FOR USE


        Since 1965, the demand for the multiple use of Lake Monroe beyond the original purposes hasgrown
        considerably. As a result, the following are emerging:

                • Lake Monroe provides drinking water to Bloomington and Bedford. It is estimated that the
                  City of Bloomington, alone, will have an average daily use of 12 million gallons per day by
                  1980 and 16 million gallons per day by 1990. Maximum daily  use is expected to be 21
                  million gallons in 1980 and 28 million gallons in 1990. The available pool can supply 36
                  million gallons per day.

                • A "major center of commerce" has been predicted for the Lake Monroe region due to the
                  presence of Lake Monroe and the attractiveness  of other recreational  sites nearby.
                  Tourism and recreation are  already  major industries in the area. Development of
                  numerous residential areas are proposed.

                • Eutrophication and other deterioration of the lake may be significantly accelerated due to
                  human activities around the lake. The usual resultant problems  of prolific weed and algal
                  growth, deteriorating fisheries, impaired water quality, and sediment infilling may pose a
                  serious threat to the utilization of the lake.
                                             D-3

-------
GEOLOGY
    D GENERAL INFORMATION

    D GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
      OF THE AREA

    D SOIL MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS

    D LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS
              D-5

-------
GENERAL  INFORMATION


        The geologic and soil conditions of an area are important factors in determining the suitability of land
        for a particular use. Among the land-use factors that are directly affected by the underlying geology
        are:

                • Suitability for septic tank waste disposal

                • Foundation and excavation conditions

                • Slope stability

                • Ground water availability

        The purpose of this section is to identify basic geologic features of the Lake Monroe area and to relate
        them to these land-use factors. Many other land-use factors, such as soil fertility, tree growth rates,
        and erosion hazard, also are influenced by geologic features and are discussed in other sections of this
        report.
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION  OF THE AREA


        In parts of the Lake Monroe study area, bedrock is  the most important geologic element and the
        overlying soil materials are directly related to the bedrock. In other parts, soil materials are not
        directly related to the underlying bedrock and the soil materials themselves are the most important
        geologic element.

        There are principally two types of bedrock in the Lake Monroe study area: limestone and siltstone.
        Siltstone bedrock underlies much of the eastern part  of the study area, whereas limestone bedrock
        underlies some of the central and most of the western part of the area. The two bedrock areas are
        subdivided based on steepness of topography into areas of less than 20 percent slope and areas of more
        than 20 percent slope. These are shown on the geologic map (Map 2) as:

               • Area I:    Limestone bedrock arid less than 20 percent slope

               • Area II:   Limestone bedrock and greater  than 20 percent slope

               • Area III:  Siltstone bedrock and less than 20 percent slope

               • Area IV:  Siltstone bedrock and greater than 20 percent slope
                                            D-6

-------
        Parts of the study area where soil materials are not directly related to bedrock are divided into two map
        Areas (Map 2):

                • Area V:   Valley-flanking terraces along Salt Creek and its tributaries
                • Area VI:  Flat bottomland areas underlain principally by stream-deposited materials

        Areas severely disturbed by man are shown (Map 2) as:

                • Area VII:  Quarries, rock cuts, fills, and other disturbed areas

        These  seven  Areas differ in geologic  characteristics and land-use  capability. Many geologic
        characteristics such as slope, depth to bedrock, and soil texture vary somewhat within each Area. The
        discussion that follows is in terms of these Areas.
SOIL MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS

        Thickness of soil materials in the study area ranges from a few inches to more than 70feet. The thicker
        soils generally are in areas of the gentler slopes; the thickest soils are in terrace or valley-bottom
        positions. The soil materials specific to each area are as follows:
Area
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Soil Materials
0-5 feet of silt loam and silty clay loam overlying up to 20 feet of
plastic silty clay and clay, slightly stony in places
0-2 feet of silt loam and silty clay loam overlying up to 5 feet of plastic
silty clay and clay, stony in places
0-10 feet of silt loam and silty clay loam with some silty clay at depth,
slightly stony
0-3 feet of silt loam and silty clay loam, very stony
Contains a complex of soil materials ranging from 5 to 70 feet in thickness,
mostly silt loam with some pebbly, sandy loam, sandy clay loam, and
loamy sand at depth
Generally silt loam but contains some clay rich zones, stony or pebbly in
places
                                            D-?

-------
LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS

        The geologic features of the Lake Monroe study area importantly influence four land-use factors:

        On-Site Septic Disposal

        Adverse geologic and soil conditions are important factors leading to the failure of private septic tank
        waste disposal systems. Overloading of the drainfield is the primary cause of failure, and conditions
        that cause overloading are in many ways tied to the geologic and soil conditions. The following factors
        influence the effectiveness  of the drainfield:
                • Permeability and thickness of the soil
                • Highest seasonal water table
                • Slope of the land

        The geologic data indicate that much of the study area is unsuitable for private septic tank waste
        disposal. Specifically:

                • All of Areas JI and IV are unsuitable for septic tank disposal because of excessive slope.
                  Area VI  is  unsuitable because oi high water lable and/or frequent flooding.

                • Use of septic tanks in parts of Area I and parts of Area V is limited by the presence of
                  impermeable fragipan or heavy clay zones in the soil.

                • Area I is underlain by cavernous bedrock. Therefore, pollution of local ground water
                  supplies  may result if the septic systems fail.

                • Parts of Area III are suitable for septic tanks, dependent on local slope, water table depth,
                  and soil thickness.

        Foundation and Excavation Conditions

        Many geologic and soil factors influence the type and design of footings and foundations for buildings.
        In particular, the following factors should be considered  in foundation design:

                • Slope of the land

                • Depth and  type of bedrock

                • Water table conditions

                • Soil drainage

                • Strength, compressibility, and shrink-sweH capacity of the soil
                                             D-8

-------
Parts of the study area are potentially hazardous for residential and light commercial construction
because of one or more of the above factors (larger industrial buildings require a much more detailed
analysis of soil conditions than has been presented in this study).

         • Areas I and II, which are underlain by limestone, present two potential building problems.
          The bedrock surface is irregular and rock that is difficult to remove may be encountered in
          basement excavations. In addition, clay and silty clay in the subsoil possess high shrink-
          swell properties that may cause damage to footings and foundations unless adequate soil
          drainage is provided.

         • Area III is underlain in places by soft consistency materials of low bearing capacity.

         • Area VI has a high seasonal water table and the possibility of surface flooding.

         • Areas II and IV have bedrock at shallow depth and slopes which are too steep for most
          conventional types of construction.

Slope Stabiity

Some parts of Area IV and adjacent parts of Area  V are prone to landslides, particularly along cut
slopes parallel to hillsides where soil material is removed by excavation. This leaves material on the
slope above the excavation with no lateral support. Slope stability problems in Area IV result from
steep slopes and impermeable bedrock at shallow depth. Foundations, roads, utility lines, and other
kinds of construction should be designed so as to avoid problems with this kind of earth movement.

Ground Water

The same geologic features that make the study area an excellent location for a reservoir also make it
an area of very limited ground water supply. As a result, nowhere in the study area are ground water
sources abundant enough for more than private residential use.

         • In the eastern and central parts of the area, wells completed in siltstone are dry or yield
          water at only a few gallons per hour.
         • In the western part of the area, wells completed 100 to 150 ieet through the limestone into
          the  top of the underlying siltstone  generally have yields adequate for single  family
          domestic use. In the limestone area, however, pollution of the ground water by effluent
          from faulty septic tank systems is common.
        • Soil materials of the terrace and valley-bottom areas (Areas V and VI) are insufficiently
          permeable to yield water in usable quantity.
                                       D-9

-------
TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
    D GENERAL INFORMATION
    D FORESTS
    D WILDLIFE
    D FOREST AND WILDLIFE
      MANAGEMENT
    D LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS
          D-ll

-------
 GENERAL INFORMATION


         The forests surrounding Lake Monroe are one of the most valuable assets of the region. Land uses such
         as outdoor recreation, timber production, wildlife management, watershed management, and the life
         of the reservoir itself, al! depend, directly or indirectly, on these forested lands.

         The purpose of this section is to identify the structure and composition of these forests and to indicate
         the importance of the forests to land-use considerations. In addition, the wildlife common to the area
         will be discussed.
FORESTS


        To help identify the structure and composition of the forested areas, a generalized vegetation map
        (Map 3) was compiled to show the extent and location within the study area of the following:

                • Early "old field" successional vegetation

                • Young successional or disturbed forests

                • Mature forests

        Analysis of forest species composition, on the basis of the vegetation map and the data obtained from
        field surveys, revealed that the forests of the Lake Monroe region have remained very much the same
        in species composition as that of pre-settlement time, namely, Beech-Oak-Maple-Hickory forests. This
        type of vegetation is not extensive in  southern Indiana  and is one of the most interesting plant
        communities of the state because of the great number of species sharing dominance.
WILDLIFE


        Due to its ruggedness and sub-marginal value for farming, much of the Lake Monroe region has
        remained forested. As a result, an abundance of wildlife exists within the area, including:

                • 50 species of amphibians and reptiles
                • 40 species of mammals
                • 30 species of birds which are common permanent residents, 55 which are common summer
                  residents, 15 which are common winter residents,  and 64  which are common migrants
                                            D-12

-------
        It should also be noted that two species of birds occurring in the Lake Monroe region have sub-species
        (the Southern  Bald Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon) which are classified as "endangered" by the
        Department  of the Interior. Although the sub-species have not actually been sighted in the Lake
        Monroe region, their range does encompass the area.
FOREST AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT


        A large extent of the forested areas in the l^uko Monroe region are public lands under the supervision
        of the National Forest Service and the Division of Fish and Wildlife. These agencies currently have
        management programs which utilize the forests for multiple purposes including:

                • Timber production
                • Soil and water conservation

                • Wildlife protection and production
                • Outdoor recreation
LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS


        Land-use changes in the Lake Monroe region can be expected in the future, especially in the immediate
        vicinity  of the lake.  When such changes require extensive  clearing and construction, terrestrial
        ecosystems will be affected. Of particular importance is the clearing of forested areas which often
        results in accelerated runoff and erosion. Forests help retard runoff and erosion because:

                • The forest canopy intercepts the falling rain and  diminishes the energy of impact.
                • The canopy, understory vegetation, and leaf litter layer are effective in absorbing rainfall.
                • Forest soils  typically absorb large quantities of water rapidly.

        Since much of the Lake Monroe region is characterized by sleep slopes and credible soils, the
        extensive forests present in the area are clearly important in retarding runoff and soil erosion as well
        as moderating stream flow and  sediment discharge into the reservoir. This should  be kept in mind
        when major land-use changes are proposed.
                                            D_13

-------
AQUATIC ECOLOGY
    D GENERAL INFORMATION
    D PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL
      PROPERTIES
    D ORGANISMS
    D LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS
           D-

-------
GENERAL  INFORMATION

        Monroe Reservoir is a shallow lake with a mean depth of 10-13 feet and a surface area of approximately
        10,750 acres. The lake is comprised of three distinct basins (see Figure 1), with the mean depth
        increasing from the pond-like upper basin (above the causeway) to the lower basin (near the dam).
        The old Salt Creek channel meanders across the bottom of the reservoir as a 23-36-foot trench.
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL  PROPERTIES


        The physical and chemical conditions within any body of water largely determine what aquatic
        communities can exist within it. While there are many different physical and chemical characteristics
        that can be discussed, only several of the more important  ones will be dealt with here.

        Transparency

        Suspended materials can interfere with the penetration of light into water by scatteringand absorbing
        the rays. If enough suspended material is present, the water will become turbid and, as a result, the
        photosynthetic zone will become restricted. A comparison of transparency readings taken from 1968
        to 1971 with the readings obtained in the Land Suitability Study reveals that there is a decline  in the
        mean transparency of the  lake. Two possible explanations for this are:  (1) an increase in planktonic
        populations as a result of nutrient additions and (2) an increase in suspended soil particles and other
        non-biological particulate  matter.

        Oxygen

        Oxygen is important to the survival, reproduction, and growth of a variety of aquatic organisms, most
        notably fish. Oxygen is also an essential element for the decomposition of organic materials. When
        organic materials are present in relatively large quantities in the water, the demand for oxygen by
        microorganisms to decompose these materials is high.  Under such conditions, oxygen depletion may
        result and this, in turn, may  have a deleterious effect upon fish and other organisms.

        The Land Suitability Study shows that the dissolved oxygen levels are not significantly different from
        those obtained in  the 1968-71 study. Only in the deeper Salt Creek channel does serious oxygen
        depletion occur, and the relative volume of this old creek bed is minor in comparison to the  three
        basins.
                                           D-  16

-------
                                                                   o
                                                                  u.
                                                                  -o
                                                                  -3
w
OS
       en
       C
      '33
      H
       v
      _c
      H
       M)
       O
       £
       £
       c
       o

-------
        Nutrients

        Phosphorous and nitrogen are essential nutrients for aquatic plant growth. When present in large
        quantities, however, these nutrients can cause unnatural enrichment of the lake, commonly referred
        to as eutrophication. Readings taken during the course of the Land Suitability Study indicate that
        phosphorous and nitrogen levels in the lake are generally low.
ORGANISMS
        Plankton
        Tests  indicate that nutrient loadings above  the  current levels would serve to bring about the
        dominance of fewer species and a decrease in community diversity and stability of phytoplanktonand
        zooplankton within Lake Monroe. An increase in phosphate content, in particular, would likely lead to
        the development of large surface blooms of blue-green algae. These blooms would deny sufficient light
        to certain  forms  and alter the composition of phytoplankton.  In  turn, any changes  in the
        phytoplankton would involve the replacement of some zooplankters with more tolerant forms.

        Macrophytes

        Aquatic plants, especially in  the shallow upper  basin,  appear to  compete effectively with the
        phytoplankton for available nutrients. Any decrease in weed distribution would most likely result in
        increased phytoplankton density.

        Fish

        A 1972 survey indicated  that Lake Monroe contains the following fish:

        •  Bluegill (31%)                                  •   Carp (4%)
        •  Yellow Perch (18%)                             •   Redear sunfish (4%)
        •  Largemouth bass (15%)                          •   White and black crappie (5%)
        •  Yeltew bass (6%)                                •   Bullheads (brown, yellow,  black) (5%)

                                   •  Channel catfish (1%)

        Golden shiner and warmouth  are also present within the lake, but their abundance  is currently
        unknown.
                                            D- 18

-------
        The fact that the bass population has not declined as much as typically occurs in artificial lakes
        suggests that Lake Monroe is potentially a greater producer of bass and should sustain a good bass
        population for a longer period of time.
LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS


        On the basis of the Land Suitability Study, Lake Monroe does not appear to be mildly eutrophic as
        suggested by the 1968-71 study. However, experiments have shown that lakes of Monroe Reservoir's
        nature are quite sensitive and respond rapidly to phosphorous enrichment. The resultant problems of
        prolific weed and algal growth, deteriorating fisheries, and impaired water quality can pose a serious
        threat to  the utilization of the lake. Therefore, care should be taken to minimize the entrance of
        phosphorous effluents into the reservoir.
                                          D-19

-------
LAND USE
    D GENERAL INFORMATION
    D LAND-USE SURVEY
    D LAND-USE MAPS
    D LAND CAPABILITY MODEL
    D LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS
           D-21

-------
GENERAL INFORMATION
         A land-use survey is carried out to provide a description of the surface utilization of an area at a certain
         moment in time. In essence, this type of survey provides an answer to the question, "How is the land
         being used in this region?" The information gathered in a land-use survey permits the construction of
         a land-use map. This map shows the clustering of certain uses and the stringing out of others. It shows,
         in total, the impact of man  on the natural landscape.

         The purpose of this section is to provide  detailed information about the use of land around one of
         southern Indiana's most heavily used recreation areas—Lake Monroe. Both a land-use survey and
         land-use maps are employed to generate this information in a format suitable for forming the basis for
         future planning decisions for the Lake Monroe area.

         It should be carefully noted that for the results of this section to be meaningful, it is essential that the
         land-use  information  is  periodically updated.  This  can most easily   be  accomplished  by
         institutionalizing the whole process by making it a function of an agency such as the Monroe County
         Planning Commission.
LAND-USE SURVEY
        The classification system for the land-use survey is designed to be:

                • Easily followed and understood by someone not involved in either its construction or in
                  the actual data collection;
                • Comprehensive enough so that if the decision is made to complete the land-use inventory
                  of the entire watershed, then the original classification will need little or no modification;
                • Comprehensive enough at the outset to eliminate the need for any kind of expensive and
                  time-consuming reconnaissance  study;
                • Compatible with computer data  processing procedures.

        The land-use classification system encompasses rural as well as urban land uses. The classification has
        nine major categories:

               •  Residential                                      •  Agricultural

               •  Commercial                                     •  Communications and Transport

               •  Business Services                                •  Public and Quasi-Public

               •  Industrial                                       •  Recreational and Open Space

                                           • Forestry
                                            D-22

-------
        Within each of these groups, further subdivisions were instituted giving a more detailed breakdown of
        a land-use category. (A complete listing of these categories can be found in Appendix A of the Land
        Use Survey section of the Land Suitability Study Technical Report.)

        Data was collected using a grid system for the study area. Each section was divided into 64 ten-acre
        cells and these cells were the unit for which data was categorized. The data gathered in the land-use
        survey reveal that:

                •  Forests comprise 30,362 acres (63%) of the study area, of which 15,613 acres (32%) are
                   public lands.
                •  Parks and  recreation areas comprise 2,997 acres (6%)  of the  study area.

                •  Agriculture accounts for 6,659 acres (14%) ol the study area, ol which 2,494acres (5%)
                   are utilized croplands and 2,419 acres (5%) arc abandoned croplands.

                •  The total number of acres classified as residential in the study area is 1,762  (4%).
LAND-USE MAPS


        Two types of land-use maps have been constructed:

                 • A general map (Map 4)  which portrays all major categories of land use;

                 • A set of maps showing individual land uses (refer to the Appendix in the Land Use section
                  of the Land Suitabilitv Study Technical Report).

        When the reader examines these maps, there should be the realization that since the east side of the
        lake is largely in public ownership, the pressures for development will be primarily on the west side of
        the lake.
                                             D-23

-------
LAND CAPABILITY MODEL
        A land capability model is being designed on the basis of the information gathered in the Land
        Suitability Study. This model will be a useful tool for considering alternative development proposals
        in  terms of their environmental impact.  While the model will be of particular  use  to the
        planner/analyst, it can be used by almost anyone who is willing to study carefully the Computer Model
        User's Manual which provides the procedure for using  the model as well as the accompanying data
        base.
LAND-USE CONSIDERATIONS
        One of the most demanding and complex issues facing the residents of the Lake Monroe region is that
        of land development, zoning, and the impacts of land-use change. Questions such as the following
        emerge:

               • What is the impact of an individual development on the whole community?

               • What are the legal ramifications of a given land-use decision? Will these be long-term
                 implications?

               • What are the potential costs to the community (police protection, solid waste disposal,
                 etc.) of a new development?

               • Are there environmental impacts of a given development which have not been considered?

               • Is low-income housing being considered as well as high-income housing?

               • What is the recreational carrying  capacity of the lake and the implications of this on
                 residential and commercial development?

        This section on land use does not, and cannot, provide complete answers to these problems. It does,
        however, provide the basic information for land-use decision making.
                                           D-24

-------
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK




    D GENERAL INFORMATION




    D FEDERAL AGENCIES




    D STATE AGENCIES




    D LOCAL AGENCIES
           D-25

-------
GENERAL INFORMATION
        A myriad of federal, state, and local agencies exist which have powers that directly bear on the
        planning and development of the Lake Monroe region. The purpose of this section is to identify these
        agencies and to clarify their roles as they relate to the Lake Monroe area. To assist in this process, a
        series of charts is presented on the following pages. While the charts discuss in some detail the
        functions of each agency, it should be kept in mind that these descriptions are by no means complete.
        The Land Suitability Study Technical  Report should be consulted if a more detailed description is
        desired.
                                          D-  26

-------
   en
   w

   U

-s
H O
 fc

I
           o
O  tu
 o
u*


"c3

 o


 n
is


ti
      -o  v
      a  ~a
      a  •£



      §1
               en  w
                             S£
                    •-  -  o       -c
                    ~rt  ^  *- ^a "^ -^
 n s
-a

 £
 a,

-S
                    h  ° -a
                                  cu
                       S  «
                      C  n
                  C     3
                  « "3  °

                   -  S T
                  a  2  u

                 •2 j'S
                 .«Z  S
a
o  **  c
—  en  O  •-
"  ~~ -.3  to

      "  on
         cu
                          en  eo .S _C^
 o jS


I"  3
t-  u.  "-
                •5 .2  — •£
      a

      •B 13
      o  S
      g^ 2


      §."£
      i^
      «>  m  U

      2  §  2P

      SK^2

      o  a  m

      = ^'M

      S -|  £

      S  *  2


      *  I  2

      '—' ''S  *•

      1 5  a


      2 .S  I
         a  &>

        I  8P
        <  a
            n)

        ^2  S
                   .    o
                       2 o
                         o
                    o -2 —


                 **H
                 V
                    u
           3  tu "O

           s§  o  i

           17  a  ^

           ^  - .2 .§
           "p  a  M  >
                            C  —  jjjj O.

                            o  -r  cu  3
                            O  S  S  en
                                           a
                                          -e
                                   cu _e  co  •-
                                   HJ  BO e  2

                                   3  g .2  3
                                   o  2 "0 -JT

                                        .S 5
                                           §
                                            -
                                   u  O

                                   1  s - £
                                                         C  C
                                   cu
                                   o
                                                 , o -c .5  a.  o

                                                ^2 « -H  «•  E .£,
                                        j        --
                               1  ! •- i -s j! -5 1
                                        «--*--
                                S   1    -
                                a. 2  2

                                2  2  *
                               a,  E  E
                                        kA» p»  -•
                                        j- E  o
                                        o ~•  "j
                                                      a -a ;- o

                                                       *    '
oe
protectio


Lake Mo
                                              cu  *"

                                              §  2
he
 _.  ^
-a  o
 *^  a
 o  2


 «  §.
-2  E
 cu • —




II



11

 £'•3
 3  ...
<-+*  -_1
                                                   II
                                                   CU O

                                                   M ">
                                                   > a
                                                            "  T3

                                                            tP  t.
                                                            §"£

                                                            •*-  T^

                                                            0  0
                                                            cu  t-
                                                            ot
                                                            t-  i'
                                                            n)  —

                                                            J3  5
                                                            0  on
                                                                             a  "


                                                                             >
               tu


               •o


               3

               u
               tU
               a.
               o
                                                                       -o


                                                                        as
7\j  ~  tn —

^2  ^

    3  .   u
.,__, —•  >-»  tfl


 = JI»

< "o •£  o

 -  »  2 -
 3  g  w  5
                                                                       £ s  S.-2

                                                                          I  «^
                                                                             O  tu
                                                                             *- -3
                                                                    .
                                                                  cu


                                                                  5
                                                                  cu
                                                                  u
                                                                  a.
 to  o

 CU  CU
-o  ac

-1"  !3
-^  2

 « "3
                                                                       "•*-     /5
                                                                              D

                                                                        a
                                                                       JO

                                                                        a.
                                                                                              S  0 ^

                                                                                              C  ""  O3
on


fo

               u
            u  >  ~

            BC o  a
            tO  k-  u
            I*  Q.  -
            tu  a.  •£
            'T,  a •—
                  co  ~ _2


                  S.H I
                  o^£
                                                                                .2  o
                                                    «-2  «

                                                    en CO  —
                                                    cu a  5
                                                    >    2
                                                    IT", «  at
                                                               u —i
                 cu
                 b

                 3
                 3

                 U
                                                         u
                                                         a
                                                         v
                                                         ac



                                                         a
                                                         o
                 C
                 cu


                'u

                 a
                 cu

                Q
                                          I


                                          'I
                                                         a
                                                         v


                                                         a
                                                         o
                                                  D-27

-------
 O "O co
   4i *••
 „ <£ c

 ooc
 5L~ S

 SIS
1
 ca  o> —


*l&
•B  *.l
T3  ° —

 §S3
 v  5 *>
     8.8
     O


     '>


     V

     u-l
     o
       o c

       I s
       S a
      -S 'a
       c ap
       3 '«

       §2
      'So g
       S i
       u <_,

       S.S
       c **

      s^=
      2 «
ke
      J S

       c °-
       O en
                2
u
13 -d
* -JJ

•^

    JS 5 *;
     - B 2
     3 E  2 -t:
                2.2
g.SS.4}

8..&JI
              -O 4)
     >

    "
Top-leve
   ""- 5,  -
  —^   ™ -^
   CO tn -d  a;

   B -S - -

   I 11  s
              ^2 >»
           ca  u

           -I
            o


 S I


 11'
• S g>
  >- >->


 11
 IP
 « ^
t-i
scessa
V

J


In
S
bfl
£
H
 -^ '
aoZ
.5  >*•
§  S:
S  c *
S^ S
8"? o
^  £ S
                                     00^
                                     a, a <-i o
               CD en O
              -c 2 -o



              ^|s
               en h C
               f   5
               en u. O
               C O .i-
   - 2
 *»  ea "*3
 -  8..-
 c  o.1^
 O  cd u

1  £ |
 E <2 §
 E  £S
 o  tu _,
a -s -S



 Ml
 0—3
OH -3 i

   b   ^1
   2 hr D    O.
                                         .S iu  t-
                                         — *  o
                                     en BO O ""

                                    J2 .S -3  ed
     at

    o>
                       o
                       'C
                                         o

                                         E
     c
     o


     'o
     B
     3
     O
     CJ
                  o



                  1)


                  k«
                  cd
                  OH
                  
-------
 1
I
•2
•*•*
a,
C -^ 0
o c i
• - <* c
m
o ;." 2
-C •£
^•^ _3
2 -S "o
5^
••Eg
» ts i;
SoS^
u HI
15 S -
tv
1 <8 "s
• j!-*
g£g
!£J8
§: 2 -
cS C en
1_ u
>%to o
_i e^-i (n
*-" U. Ui
C tp tu
CD Q. >
u. O
U en w
3 * -C
en ^3 en
'" CD —
., -^ _Q



-3
IM
§
CQ
"o
1*
c
o
U
c
^o
_3
"o
0<
LH
<
CD
-3
n)
-o
exercises
ry service
-3 2
§ I
CQ en
C 3
I *
ll
JJ
rough which the Environmental
possesses a wide variety of powers
•S ^

S 2
v
en
V
-C
CD
Js
bC
Si
03
en
Ul
V
•3
u
O
e*-i
eluding:
The issuance and enforcement o
.S — *
en
CD
V
V
E
o
c

o
-3
rt
-C
en
V
en
>-,
(13
>->
^
a.
a.
3
en
l_
eU
a
&
CB
.~ en
ca be
-1
11
"1 -2
3 -Q
•3.S.
°.»
.1 a>
*-• nj
s *
J s
-3 "S
C8 "3
en
t. O
U O,
o .2
M "3



»^i
3
-C
'%
en
La
U
M
en
'«
rt
en
V
-C
u*
0
C
.0
3
"o
D-
C
V
~,
c
ca

jr modification of
Issue permits for construction (
pollution control facility.
csi


       0  S
      as  6
 °
oa
 2  3
       a
       o
      CQ

       C
       v


       v


       1°
       a)
       C
       o
.£

"ta
 tu


<-*.
 o

-3
 fcn
 n
                                                           O
                                                          03
                                                           C
                                                           O
                                                                           C
                                                                           o
                                                           o
                                                          a-

                                                           E
                                                           0)
                                                           i;
                                           D-29

-------
   W
— W
H H
OS <
< H
£-2
"1
O u_
•S 0
CO
.s & .
E s 5
~ -C *
2 0 In
a'SJI
<«.s<;

p
1
^
1
1






""•
Administer the National Pollution Disc
co





*- u
£S
s*
t« tu
ao u
e<2
°"3
<_. en
S *•«
S °
8.S
^•fi
C« 3
W .3
d 5
CU 0
z .S
en
6 c
JH 5






en
b»
V
!
en
o
fc«
v2
-8
-S
c
CO
en
£g
§ c
N
« w
« Jj
* J
g 8P
•11
ep "tj
TJ .S
§ £
J5 2
en en
2 _§
a-
O) u_
W o
-f1







o
1
8.
-S
en
CO
C
tu
2.
UN
O
Q
CU
_C
H
(A
'So
£
"O
CD
>-,
5
S
"s
U
Ui
tu
CO
u
^
en
O
4-<
JO
t)0
£
•g
CO
i ">
_tu
"3
^
_c
eo
IS
CO
en
u
f— H







4
T3
?
•o
eJS *
2 js
SeS
S -
S Jl
«£
tN





o a !-§
- en e .
U u C en en
'S 5 u IS g
. n t s. r .§
ec en V eu -C S
.2 . £ Q •- c
3 "CO " « * «
"3 3 'o - - .5
^ "» c £ ^ S o
34 1^ l§£
__° SSi*. *ofe
Lease state-owned lands for lodging and
Set aside nature preserves and lands
historical significance.
Approve the sale of timber from state li
Purchase or condemn land for constr
well as approve changes in shorelines o
Assist in the prevention of floods.
this is not a complete listing of all the po
1 Resources, it demonstrates the need t
n almost any project involving Lake Moi
ro *f m -c i~ c- 2 —
ae 3 c
§S 6
J= z r
*-* M
< "o S.
I
CO
Oj
c
'3
u
O
^
1
tu
bri
po
1
•«
o
u
V
JS
0
V
>
Ji
•^tu
u
(/>
c
o
'S
'>
o
b
p ,
(n
tu
O
u
£
C
u
!•* s.
» en tn
10 t" T1
111
-S rt ">
72 ~o c
tn -3 co
flj W — ^
S o o.
>?"% "^
III
o a °
* ~3 §•
i??
-psi
g a JS
§29-
'o'g 1
B,« §
•Bo 8
S"1? g
X <
S *>
u cu tu
« •£ 3
1 ll
'? 2 "
MJ^ S
f-°-f
"° "is
"a 3 ^
ja *- m
= 1 "s
« -C B
*.
o cT o


or variances may be necessary.
-,
                  II              I                                           I                 I
                 en -J-            Q                                            <                en
                                                    D-  30

-------
"S C/)

 3 W
 O W
Bo
   w
<:
B
u












i
Q
ft.
o^

1
•5-
5













en

C

.8
c
CO
feb
O

Jc
.y
'C
CU
en
"o
X

t_l
$
CU
Js
3
t*
CU
u
en"
.21
is
u
c
£
T3
CO


en

1
i
3
e—

CO
-C
en
s
en
_g
'en
-Q

£
.1
Ui
S
cn
cO
U
U
4P
C
J{
>-.
CO
uience
CU

C
o
o
-o
CO



Ift
necesi
~o

CU
en




8.
en
•3
-o
C
CO
CO
CD

*"*
tj
_CU
"3
u

_c
o
IS

u
o
£
V
a
Q.
CU
«
^

-S
.M)
„

?

-------
en
w

c
description of POUH
•-••i






J
1. a)
the Lake Monroe
the Commissioners
§a
» .2
U 4->
SJ
II
-1
b S
S o
C N
*C t^^
a. o
sioners'
issuance
CO
'3 V
E J3
E -
O -C
U M)
II
^
S,
o
. Q-
£* >.
I!
l-s
21
BC
1 .2
«>-
o 2
1 S
"S 1-
J £
8:5
a •-
u £
"3 S
C co
co C
•• V
Z3 u
u :£
CO „_,
.£§
0 CQ O

£ -1 "N
*
8.
u
S £
ItS B
i§
CO V
« -5
£.S
-§,•3
-2 g
ir —
e *
8 |
c -S,
S .SP
O.J3
0 u
S S
en
CD „,
^_, ijp
8:5
> .S
, 3
« £
bO 5
S '*
CO H
jB C
u
. -a
lain tain,
athorize
•* (0

CO


"5
8.
n
'-5
S
swers.
1 sanitation as well i
«^§
I15
CO f
It
2 "
"° 2
0 «
u *}
<~ S
-o c
C n)
-2 S
-S
11
v *-
-o a.
c o
o -o
U <

•* LO




CO
c
'3
Ui
-o
"a,
_u
£
V
cu CO
I!
&0.
u- 0-
0 <

0


rdinances;
o
QO
1
>-.
C
3
O
u
C^ri
e enforcement o:
^
t-,
£
^
"33
SP
J3
en
.H
'u
en
-3
u- i
Q
(A
OJ
•S
c
J
00
'S
u
V
mmissioners cone
o
U
>^
c
3
O
U
u
ft
CU
.2
-a
CO
O
_co
"3
§ E
co o
*-l Q
V
O, co
^^
B
to be enforced. A
area should consult
and restrictions
:he Lake Monroe ;
LO
G C
o •-
'A 8
II
CO
U
JC 6C
- .s
(/I *^
n J2
P<
1 1
* C
to O
CO O


c
o
'o
CO
^
CO
BO
G
.2
2
V
-o
3
u
._o

ja
c
^o
CO
'i
'o *
oc
B-S
I a
Is.
Monroe County si
, organizing, and o
encompasses the
ions are planning
— 0
o C
'S3
to
^ .2,
u 2
ts s
5 •-
? U
o

2 c
S o
.2 S
&C*5
CP CD
U J<
< J


E
V
CO
>^
cn
"i
8.
to
•3
JD
to
CO
J
"T3

CU
C8
C
^
O
0
o
-o
B '
(S
1
«
ner technical assis
S
o
-a
B
jS
"3
o
_o
CO
jB
CP
70
>.
£
ex
to
.2
o
B

BC
CO
U
to
V
H
ew regula-
owners.
he agencies have i
n control property
~ CO
	 B
c *•
O ti
•S 2
§1
•g-S
S s
_CO «
'o "3
CO u
u
SP c
C v
•— hn
concern
ind, in j
B m
S t-
.2 u
11
o >->
•-i. ti
.S 2
w.
o
-o
u
CO
o
CQ
cu
S
c/5
u
to
CO
CO
_O
U
B
5
S
cu
i<
co
Q.
to
O
E
V
u
£

c/r
JN
S S
c£ 33
                                                                     Q

                                                                      B
                                            C

                                            o
                                                         co
                                                         >


                                                         S

                                                         B
                                                                                "g

                                                                                -f*
                                                                                3C


C
3
o
                                            B
                                            a
                                            o
                                                            c
                                           D-32

-------
           I
          1
owing them to


bly, this could


mile radius of
us powers all


mits. Conceiva


s within a 10-
6^7
3 «  •-
B§
          I
          Q
u
           •3
           £
            I
S 8  S  *

2 -  "  2
ttb'S  _g  u

c-S  -^

» 
-------
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
        AUTHORS: Henry H. Gray, Indiana Geological Survey

                  Richard S. Howe, School of Public and Environmental Affairs
                  J.C. Randolph, School of Public and Environmental Affairs
                  Michael C. Roberts, Department of Geography
                  Nicholas L White, School of Law

                  Indiana University
                  Bloomington, Indiana


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EDITED BY: William A. Kelley, School of Public
                  and Environmental Affairs
        FINANCIAL SUPPORT: Office of State Planning with the cooperation of the
                  Monroe County Commissioners
                  Mr. William Cook, President, Cook, Inc.
                  The City of Bloomington Utilities Board
                  Caslon Development
RELATED REPORTS

       • Lake Monroe Land Suitability Study: A Technical Report on a Selected Portion of the Lake Monroe
         Watershed

       • Land Capability Model for the Lower  Lake Monroe Watershed

       • Computer Program User's Manual



FURTHER INFORMATION
       For further information contact:
                  Richard S. Howe
                  School of Public and Environmental Affairs
                  Indiana University
                  400 East Seventh Street
                  Bloomington, Indiana 47401

                                       D-34

-------

-------
E
in
M







































•




z
o
v n
-* K-
** 13
r^
•< o:
r^ K-
*X I 1
C H
CJ . —

"an
c» i , K-
M r- <
r- li 1-
't .£.'.











3 »
r-
iS « U. •
l/l r-.
• 13 u.
n cj 10 •
M CI CJ
l»! LJ I'l
CJ • •• CO CC

. 0 b) Z 0
3: ti M (•- 3 .. x
M '•> Cl 0 _,
U ll CJ C1 (. , 11
M • M a- o >; ij
C~i r1' b>
• » LJ u H-
O 10 > > I/I
0 .. C' 0 Ll
•n 11 LO <-'> •• "i ui r«
t-1 M Z 0 " <
.. M ^ •!
• • U .. I M Z Z r-
LJ O IJ »- r- ° O ^
O IJ z Q>1/1 H n C»
13 t- o O «t *~ r-
K- n r 4 z uj  > U.
r- ZZ^JcULjU-
— CJ
r—
n I
i )
>-
CJ t-

l> <-> 2
„ -41
t K M
0 ,_ U o


-^ l.J tj LJ LJ

c. — *•- ci ' o.
_l LJ ID LJ •• ,_
Ll CJ r •• — ^
n ..>=•. CJ o >"
.. n o: >- rl 13 o »~

0 t J 17 CJ <-< z °
H 3— ^X O *^ ^* o
t-l r- H >4 U.
CJ 3 ^- «t 0 I 3
c/ o n K~ o y Zj cy
_J CJ (,1 Ll << > i _j LJ
0 r-
u. Z
Cl
a: c>
n
i -z
( 1 ...1 M
PI u) <
^1 M ^"" c~)
• « • «J: LJ
!•> f~ H r-
-* if O "^
in z <•» 10

iH .-1 _l X
CJ C J UJ • • «~l
CJ U. (- >- '1
CJ •*•••! CJ 1-4 LJ
CO •• f- Z Z 2 >
I/) t— (/i c^ o CJ t 1 H
LJ CJ r 4 H '-1 O r- r- .

rH ~5 UJ «t «I • • f*t
0 C- .J -J I" Ci
•• Ct >-73^O^ «•
UJ CL K- d. Cl- M M tl
il V. 0 CJ 0 K- r-
cj >- >. o. a. iij a. z
o o o a: o LJ
1.1 Z Z >• 0 1 U. i
t— LJUI*— cj**a.3£
n c*j o M c. o r> o
i

1
U
o
u
M a
a. £

u
s:
o
UI Z J
o < - i
UI
3:
i


a:
(- C')
M >
o: -<.





f- X
11 <
MI '



Q X
Z «*
-CM E



in
01





u
01
I/I
LJ
_J
M
I-
Z 0
-LJ r~
u
rv
Ll
0.

O
UI





-J
r





Lv
. -4





i: ci
H CO
>- o





Ecn
Z 0







LJ
C) 11
O r- •
CJ M
r- ii
Z o 3
< 0
I-- X 0
13 r- Z
_J U «<
of -J
Q. r- <
z- :>
•t n o:
re r^ o ui

i- _i >- z
CC _l LJ M
«T O 3"
-3 CX
C^
I
CK
*C
UI |
i


a- o
en , ID
> • •
M H


I
i
' UI f*l

• •
IM Kl
*)' . H






• •
CO Cl
en ui




• * •
01 en
CO O
r-t • «-<
"
_
« «
CM • l>-
ro LO
r-4


. . .
01 01
CO CJ
r-t iH


•
• ' •
01 Ol
CO . CJ
.-4 r-l


• , •
r~ »
CO CJ




• «
r- tj
i h* co


1


CJ r-4
h- Ul


•

1 • . t
O Iff
' " - rj •



• •
en ' i
(- O t~ CJ
LJ -S UN.
1 s: co x: o
>H 0 H 3
LJ > t LJ >
1 
r-< r-4 -1 O M .H _l O
r-OO-T r-ClCJT
D. ^ » | C, rf> |
< ri 1 *r «t n 1 «.
O. »-4 M rl ' O- r-l M CJ.
Ml MX
r-4 T4
M 1 M
U ', U
1 I 1
M ' M
r- i t-
i
' t
, !
1  »H tO 4T




•

M ^ CJ CJ
O , t> O

in LT in
r-j M rj
, *— V- M* '

a a; D:
L| Ll Ll
H- 1— t- •
11 LJ L |
OH 0 yr U5J 0
M -M H H
a: is C£. ^ a: r> : o.
h- O HO HO H
LJ X Ll X U X LJ
a: o ac c-> i: to ' z
M n , H Z3 M 3 H
CJ > U > UJ > I J >
*r,o: orce  o r> °
M r-4 -J O « HrH-JO MM -JO MrH-J
r-ClOx HOO-n HOOT HOO
D.rH>i ^,^>| o_^*>i o: ,-< >
*t f i 1 j* **n'rf ** r> 1 ^ «*^il
a. H H M a -H n (J a ^^ M rj a. H n
,rHX »HI rHX HX
*H rl rj «H
fO ^ rH * f'J
U C) U CJ i
1 1 . 1,1
M M ' * ^*
(*- r- r- r-
>* ! !


fO


r .
'



i
M

t
.
_ j

i
j

i

9 1
^
t >




,
r-

i

t
r-
h-
i


•
i^.
r-




•
r-
(*-



•
j
fw *




•
>>-
10




*
r ' ,
« )




•
! 0
tf
1



*
r-
CJ






i )
_>


^ i
**

tt:
r^
J
E t
1 f
*3 ' (
^ t
tl 3
D »
LJ :
< c
4J c
3 0
3 H r-4 .
I 1- 0 <
1 0 M ?

•J 0- r-l r
rH ;
, r4
Hi
O
1
£•
f~


-------
in
,-4






































"Z.
O
^ n
'' 1"
«jt 3
iJ (XI
t-
t IX
I- »-
«f (.1
O 1 I •
I) f
i) 2
1 4 Ji. *t .
rr u 1 4
*~ ': "

~ rJ 1 4
0 0
r- LJ ..
i ' re —
«t U. Cl
.4
' 3- -

~ tr i l
<"• L. *~
H H- -t
1- u- t-
«t «f 1 1
-" ^J
*"

















-







f



111
f^
1
rt
1
r-
CJ









l
I

31 •
t~
z • u, •
i/i (-
• CJ U-
L1 CJ IJ
•H CJ CJ

cj • •• o> o:
2: c j u 3
• O LJ Z O
E: ci ,-4 r- 3 .. i
n M u o _i
IJ UJ [J C 11 Cl
T 4 • r- 1 a- c> i: c i
r CD
< cr 1 1 LJ t-
CJ 0 > > 11
Cl .. C> 0 1 .
ri i J 3 ? • • cj to :*
r j H n cj «* «x

. • UJ . . I n z i: t-
LJ Cl LJ ^~ K- O cj SI
cj :> 2 re n M M o
:j i- o -- M r-j -- LJ «t  > u,
t- 2 i: >! x; UJ LJ U-
«tO(..K-|_.J_||.'
J -J LJ 3 3 U LJ 0






,_
z

»< ' ••
^j;

OJ

X -I
t- «*
a- n
0
_J C
_l 11

x r
o
>- ' '
1—
H 1
o
>-
CJ 1-
-I M «*
o " IT

 _i

o •«• *', ^ a:
_J O 0 1. 1 • • H-
t ( C ' c * • *^ il
c.-« . . >- « CJ 0 >-
.. n c: H- M cj o >~
^ — t j ( j (.3 H
o LJ ^ o cj i: <->
>-*>•< o ** — o
»-i- n r^ u.
O --^ h- *I O *•! ^3
OOHl--Oj-_JOC
_j O e'l C1 < O _J U
O t—
' a. z
i j
' ct o
H

Cl 4-1 , H
O LJ «t
o r> 2 f^
» » < LJ
cj r» . n i-
& .3* ^ i *t
U) ' 2 O U>
M 0 LJ
H »-l _J X
U CJ LJ l ** *~*
O U- f- > O
t_j <(•••• O^^LJ
CQ •• |- *: 2 . 2 >
M K- VI O O UJllM
O  3 u o z ••
LJ O- i- a. L. M n n
CJ V O 0 CJ (- t-
O>->-O-tl.LJCL.Z
o o o ct: o uj
LJ z z >- o. l cj. i:
H* LJ L*J K* U *t CL 
o: ««





t- X

•H s:



O X

J, 2:

0



o
0"*
tl
u
_J
n
K-
•^ (J
ui r-

1 0
t- a: o
3 »- 2
-J IJ <
-J 3~
0 1 _l
a t- t
1 Z >
< 0 CK
a; K- o uj
uj n x »— '
Ct "_J LJ M
•a o x.
3 Q.
a
\ 1
ct ,
•c '
UJ ;
*
,
1 !
01 M 1*- 10 ' U> H U>
eo  a~ ^
o


01 t J f- ul *J Cl •>
^ rH ' m 0 CJ hi M
LJ
(-J UJ J» U» ^1 L.) f >
r- rsj h- %tj M * *
o


o j r* L> ^» ct o>
M " i-i " M t> ^' . _ f > ^
C-J
f-*


• . * • • • " • i •
Ol t'i •&" r- > i— * CJ •f
LJ --H M ^ f J f J r 1
h,

*

• • • • • • •
co tj ej ri r-t M r*-
U3 H 's* t-1 «H r^ rH



1
**•••• •
r-4 LJ U> "l 1 11 ri M
^f ^^ r-4 iH '-* rH . «H




• • ' * • • ' * •
rH ^J u> " f j , 1 » M tH
.1*1 '1 »H i-*


O tl O O O
« • h 1 • H «f-l • »M • M •
LJ *•! C_> MO M O t-;- CJ " M tJ 05
M •«« < -t rH«* rH«C

O O O O . O
M M M M M
i; z a: ir r
*««*«<«<«<
L. U. b_ U- U.
* >-* -J ''> -J LJ _J . (O J UJ _J L.1
!-« *^ M 3 •*• «-| ^ -* ,-|r>« 5« ^ O — . H «
(J LTO HO Ho I'-V 1>O CJ
1 1 1 1 1
Ul , 1 1 Ul Ui Ul lij L> lit L) I-J U*) LI
rj , ^ M ;r csi 2» rj 7 oj 2* M * fJ
«- • ( M — M «- M — M w M »- ' »-
1 -4 J -J _J J !
tt.Mo; MCC MCC *~*Q: M[X.I oc
UJ ' ^ U r* Ul ^ U 21 IjJ ^* UJ ' LJ
h- LU I'l LJ tl UJ t'1 Ui Cl LJ
1 os: oi- oa. oz 01 OE O3C
M , CT. C ft C' CV x
OCZ>' — 3
h-o c;o c'o ceo ceo oso'ouo
uv, uj «*s u <\ u  X - X X X X H. 1 J
H«* oo; o ' o: oc. OC^.OQ; oj
«t a M LJ M LJ M i-i M *-i H uj n
i — J<0 C") • J O-J O_J O_J O»J "we
la'oi cocr net me; no: COCCLJKO:
Mr-*-JO -OrHZJO Z>rH^O I3tHnO I^i-irJO r3t-4r?O O>HIJO
iv- o» o I u. en en x u. 01 tri i u- OT o i u. *o n x u. en tn x cc 01 o x
PT»-*>I _J»H t _JrH 1 _JrH t J«H 1 _J»H l'»-fMtJl

H X '(MO  CJ O C\J O CM -3

i* * H, Mi M ' * ' ' *r
la a ' o u ' o a a
i | i i i : i i

-------
u
u            u
j             T           '.)
LI
<-<




































_^
0
5C 1- 1
Z l~
< ^
Ul 01
H
«t cr
t- t-
«t 1,1
u t
f - «
o: o r i
l- 11 i j
u t.i z
s: j n
O c^
c: L, ••
ui ci: «
< U- Ll
rt
J ^~ **
< - J
z r: L
C) Ul (~
iii—.*
1- •
LJ o LJ
0 n Z
13 (- o
1- |- , Nl

*- z s:
** O *"
-1 -j S>





h.
_l
-
1—
M
C)

Ci
_J
o

«*
CJ H-
CJ 11

^- uJ LJ
O (-> .1;
^ a. '-1
0 -,' U.
-- 0
M >r j
0 .. 1—
c ~- z
-1 UJ CJ
1 1 wj
o ••
•• -!>.««
t- 1-
 I .
0 0-
• • cc v
ij a. t-
O V
o >- >-
C> CJ CJ
LJ Z Z
1— LJ UU

W < «


•
»-
L. «
»-
U U.
C) U
u>
• •CO
IJ LJ
UJ L-l z
r-l f*- ^ • •
fl C) o -1
L 1 I J CC I I
r 1 «• o S£
r i L>
31 LJ L.I
> >
«. CJ 0
O • • CJ CO
Z c> < <
n Z
I n z z
K- l~ [j O
l£ L) n M
0 < 1— 1—
>- LJ < <
> >
E E LJ LJ
^• ••- -J -J
13 Z> LJ Li












i
c(
M
(J
t.
U J
j;
j;
O
<_j

1

>-
1—
n <
o —
•t
fc n

^ z
^ n
LJ CJ
CJ Z CX
C- •<
.« LJ O
— ^ rl
M t-
— C3 ti
c ' rc
LJ •• (-
i. •• ~ z

1— *•> CJ CJ
'O UJ

c5 — — o
n n
l— or 
t- o »: -i
Ll t C'l _|
O
a.

cc
M
-
• • -. o
z z z
0 0 Ll
1 1 M Ul CD
1- 1- t

-1 -J Z CI
3 O O Z
Ci- CL M »• <
O 0 CJ 1-
tL 0- CJ CC
CC O
>- CL 1 OL
1- 0 «f Cv
M c< ft. 3
CJ < LJ I/I








I/I
££
~\
O
I

1 1
CJ

^_
L 1
LJ
;*

• •
^j.
^~
0

*
U.
u.

t.)












































y~
h-
H ""
O

U-
o

C£
LJ
»-
Z
LJ
(j

;£
M

a
LJ

<-
O UO
o *.o
J V
f-l
11
M LJ
>
IJ M
I- I—
H U •



1/1
1-
z
u
JE
I
0
0 ,


Ul
0
o
M 0
CC D-
LJ
I
O
U Z
0 <
Ul
E



I
l~ O
' H >
a <
-
k- -J >- Z
o: _i LJ n
«r 0 T.
t> 0.
CT
1
a
^
UJ
r


u>
i-
t
T\



U)
^
•
0"»
^1






*
rj
(NJ




•
^
*


, •
n>
•1
•
t-->
*
•
n
t*




•
^
'O




«
h-
r-4




•
M
•H




t
*H
^



• H-

iX
U.

1

LJ
H-
u> n
•* 2 —
u: <-J
to
ft: ui
 a:
»-< u
Cl f-
O LJ
1 1 y.

LJ z r>
O L , 0
M *t N
X Z O
o o
H
u cr
LJ
Z J
UJ cu re
O CJ O
0 4- =J 0
G: 01 CQ i
H- r. |
H n M .f
z 10 < n
OJ CD
1 "*
^ •
u
1
1 to
t-



)




























































































IJ
CI

X
CJ
M
U
Z
. u

o
a
h-
M
Z


• rH
U
1
a-
r-



Q
^
•
f^



rvj
M
•
M
•rj






•
r>
r j




•
t/>
i>


t
01
*
•
I-)
ti*
• •
n
y




•
f-4
if




•
j^
rj




•
o
r4




•
fO




• *—
a- n

* u.

I

LJ
1-
y n
r* Z **
UJ 
Ll O
«< X
Z CJ)
D

U
-J
oi a -
a) "~y
a- 3 0
fl CJ 3f
TJ 1
r 1 H .t
o < rsi
rj CD
d-

































•
ID
. Ul


•
n
a-

CO
Lt
•
**">
10




•
Cl





*
CJ
M




t
*
(M




•
K>




, *
'*







in

o

irt
rJ
««

0,
LJ

CJ LJ
0 f.
I
LJ 1- 3
C3 Ll U
M H V
x e>
O 3
M LJ
0 •_!
CO
Z 
rl
CJ
1
7
r-



H
t~
•
r<



Ul
CO
•
M
(SI






•
h-
C-l




•
M -
CO


»
a
M
•
c j
. L3
*
CM
U




«
UT
rj

•


9
&
ft




•
t^
(M




•
rj



-
. • »~
n n
cc
lj_

1

u
h*
en (H
• z —
L, CJ
Lt
CC Ll
< M
»!•
H
3 CC
. M Ll
U) 1-
O Ul
Ll 3Z

LJ Z ^J
CJ 1 1 C>
M *t X
X Z CD
O O
H
a a
Ll
Z _l
LJ CJ CC
o cj n
O » 3 O
D. C'l Cl I
h- rj |
M n "1 «•
Z 10 < M
fsj O
^
C4
u
1
a1
r^



en
ui
•
H



in
o
t
PI
M •






*
10
M




•
U0
in


t
01
*
•
u>
' i/i
•
01
a-




•
r-
^




•
o
1




•
ii
r i




•
I-
,-1



• t-
v>
in
•
0)
to
•
M
1.1




•
* 11
if




•
rH
J"




•
^*
M




•
J
f >



• 1-
uo D*i
rj a:
u.

1 •

UJ
I—
UJ M
- rt Z —

CI
1 CC 10
J ^ (M
" ta«
r
K 3 CC
J H IJ

J 0 i J
; HE

3 LJ Z 0
> C3 HO
•v H • < N.
0 X Z C3
30 ^J
M
Q a
LJ
Z -J
K LJ CO (C
DO 0) 13
D a » o o
c ci. n oj 3;
l H- r, i
tc M r j ui »
••i z o < IM

-------
                  Ambient Air Quality Standards
TSP  (ug/m3)
Annual geo. mean
Max. 24-hr cone.**
Primary

  75
 260
Secondary

   60
  150
SO?
Annual arith. aver.
Max. 24-hr cone.**
Max. 3-hr cone.**
  80 (.03 ppm)
 36b (.14 pp-n)
                           1300  (0.5  ppm)
CO  (mg/m3}
Max. 8-hr cone.**
Max. 1-hr cone.**
  10  (9 ppm)
  40  (35 ppm)
   10
   40
O_3_  (ug/m3)
Max. 1-hr cone.**
 160  (.08 ppm)
  160
HC
Max. 3-hr cone.**
 160  (.24 ppm)
  160
     (ug/m3
ANNUAL ARITH. AVER.
 100  (.05 ppm)
  100
**Not to be exceeded more than once  a year.
Source of data:  36 F.R. 8187, April 30,  1971;
                 38 F.R. 25678, Sept. 14,  1973.
                                  £-  H-

-------
                             APPENDIX F
                   ENGINEERING  & COST CALCULATIONS

I.        TASK 2 EVALUATION OF PURE OXYGEN PROCESS

          A.   Two Stage Aeration (Air)

               Design Flow = 16 MGD

               Assume Detention Time 4 hours

               Assume three parallel reactors

               Reactor Flow = 16 MGD/3 = 5.33 MGD

               Reactor Volume = 5.33 x 10^ gals x 4 hours
                                   24 hours

                              = 8.85 x 1.0  gals per reactor

               8.85 x 105 gal
               7.48 gals/ft3  = 1.18 x 105 ft3 per reactor

               Assume liquid depth of 15 ft

               118 x 103 ft3/15 = 7.8 x 103 ft2 = 78 x 102

               Use 90 x 90 x 15 SWD @ 3 each

               Volume supplied - 90 x 90 x 15 » 122 x 103

                    Io22 x 105 > 1.18 x 105  O.K.

               Air Required for First Stage

               Lbs. of BOD = 16 x 8.34 x (144-5) = 18,600# BOD

               Lbs. of BOD/Tank = 18,600/3 = 6.200 # BOD

               Air Requirements - 1,500 c/air/lb of BOD
                                  (includes 50% safety factor)

               Total Blower Capacity = 1,500 cf/air x 18,600

                                     - 2.8 cf x 107/1.44 x 103

                                     = 2 x 104 cfm of air

               Return Sludge Pumps

               Assume Aerator Vss = 3,000 mg/1
                                    F-l

-------
Assume Return Sludge Vss = 10,000 mg/1

3,000 (Q + Qr) = 10,000 (Qr)

3,000 Q = 7,000 Qr

Qr/Q = 3/7 = .43


Oxygen Requirement for Salt and Clear Creek; calculate 02
requirement by the following equation.

     Lbs. 02/day = 1.5 BOD + 4.6 NH3-N

Assume carbonacious demand (1.5 BOD) is negligible.


Salt Creek

Winter - No requirement
Summer - 3 mg/1

(12-3) x 8.34 x 16 x 1.5 = 1,800 Ibs. of NH3-N

Lbs. of 02 = 4.6 x 1,800 = 8,300 Ibs. 02/day


Clear Creek

Winter - 6.5 mg/1
Summer - 1.5 mg/1

Winter (12-6.5) x 8.34 x 16 x 1.5 = 1,100 Ibs. of NH3-N

Summer (12-1.5) x 8.34 x 16 x 1.5 = 2,100 Ibs. of NH3-N

Lbs. of 02   Winter 4.6 x 1,100 = 5,100 Ibs. 0,/day
	   Summer 4.6 x 2,100 = 9,700 Ibs. 02/day


Volume for Second Stage

Source of Design Data:"Nitrification and Denitrification
Facilities" EPA Technology Transfer Seminar Publication.
                     F-2

-------
Assume

Q - 16 MGD
NH3-N concentration « 12 mg/1
MLVss = 1,500 mg/1
Minimum operating temperature = 10°C
Operating pH » 7.8

Effluent requirements

Salt Creek - 7.9 mg/1 summer
             N/A      winter

Clear Creek - 3.0 mg/1 winter
              1.5 mg/1 summer

It is to be noted that effluent requirements will affect operating
costs (amount of air required) rather than capital costs (size of
tanks).
NH-^-N Load

Maximum

     Salt Creek

          1.5 x 16 x 8.34 x (12 - 7.9) - 1,100 Ibs/day

Maximum

     Clear Creek

          1.5 x 16 x 8.34 x (12 - 1.5) =

          2,250 Ibs/day


Tank Volume

From Figure II-3,  page 24
     Volumetric Load =8.2 lbs/1,000 ft3

Clear Creek
     2,250/8.2/1,000 - 275,000 ft"3

Salt Creek
     1,100/8.2/1,000 = 134,000 ft3


Tank Volume Adjusted to pH 7.8

Correction factor according to Figure III-4, page 23 = 0.88
                      F-3

-------
Salt Creek
     134,000/.88 = 153,000 ft

Clear Creek
     327,0007.88 = 315,000 ftj

Detention Time                  ,
     315,000 x 24 x 7.48/16 x 10° =3.6 hours     Clear Creek
     153,000 x 24 x 7.48/16 x 106 = 1.8 hours     Salt Creek

Therefore, assume the detention time is 4 hours on Clear Creek
and 2 hours on Salt Creek for nitrification.
Estimate Concrete  (Two Stage - Air)

90 x 90 x 17  (2 ft of freeboard)

J
i
270'






_ Ty 	
•j*1 i
"' f
r
 Assume Thickness  - Bottom Slab      1.25*
                    Walls           1'

 Concrete  Slab - 1.25 x 270 x  90/27 =
           Walls - 4 x 1 x 90 x  17/27 -
           Walls - 2 x 270 x 17  x 1/27  =
 Rock = 10' x 90 x 270/27 =

 Excavation = 5' x 270 x 90/27

      1/2 bh

      1/2 5 x 90 x 2 + 1/2 x 2 x 5 x 270
           450    +   1350
           27          27
1,110 yds
  230
  340
1,680 yds

9,000

4,500
  100
 4600
                      F-4

-------
     Construction Cost
          Concrete
          Rock
          Excavation
           1,680 x 400
           9,000 x 10
           4,600 x 4
     Two Stage
           2 x 780,000
     Concrete, Rock, Excavation
     Equipment
     Install
     Project Cost

     Project Cost @ 15 MGD

     Salvage Value » 1,560 x 1.30 x 30/50

     Salvage Value @ 15 MGD
   672,000
    90,000
    18.000
   780,000

 1,560,000

 1,560,000
   390,000
    80.000
$2,030,000

 2,639,000

 2,474,000

 1,216,000

 1,140,000
B.   Single Stage Aeration (Air)

     Detention Time = 6 hrs
                         /
  vo
                                                       2.'
     Concrete
          Slab
          Walls
          Walls
     Excavation
     Excavation
270 x 115 x 1.25 x/27
4 x 1 x 115 x 17/27
2 x 270 x 17 x 1/27
                   10 x 115 x 270/27
      1,420
        300
        340
      3,020
                                        11,560
                   5'  x 270 x 115/27                        5,750
                   1/2 x 2 x 5 x 115 + 1/2 x 2 x 5 x 270      100
                                                            5,850
                         F-5

-------
     Construction Cost

          Concrete       2,060 x 400                     824,000
          Excavation     17,300 x 4                       70,000
          Equipment                                      310,000
          Install                                         62,000
                                                       1,266,000

     Project @ 15 MQD                                 $1,645,000

     Salvage Value

          1.30 x 10/30 (824,000 + 108,400)  = 811,000


C.   Two Stage, Aeration - Oxygen System

     The following parameters were given by oxygen manufacturers.

     Detention Time - 1-1/2 hours for first stage
                      1-1/2 hours second stage

     MLSS - 4,500 mg/1

     Depth of reactor 13 deep

     Allow 4 ft freeboard for oxygen absorbtion.

     Each unit should have three cells

          Recycle Flow   30%
          Mixing BHP     261
          Oxygen BHP     365       Turndown 60%

     Assume three reactors

          Q/reactor = 5.33 MGD
          Liquid Depth = 13 deep
          Detention Time = 1.5 hours

     Volume req'd = 5.33 x 10  gal/day x 1  day/2.4 x 10'  hrs x
                    1.5 hours

                  = 3.33 x 105 gallons

     33.3 x 104 gals/7.48 gals/ft3 = 4.45 x 104 ft3
                          F-6

-------
Surface Area - 44.5 x 103 ft3/13 ft

               3.423 x 103 ft2

               3423 ft2

Use 60 x 60 x 13 SWD Basins

Volume Supplies

     60 x 60 x 13 = 46,800 ft3

     46,800 > 44,500  O.K.
                                   Uc.lU
                I So
Concrete
     Bottom Slab
     Walls
     Walls
     Top Slab

     Rock

     Earth
1.25 x 180 x 60/27 =
4 x 1 x 180 x 17/27
4 x 60 x 1 x 17/27 •
1/2 x 180 x 60/27 -

8' x 180' x 60'/27 =

5 x 180 x 60/27 =

2 x 1/2 x 5 x 5 x 180/27
2 x 1/2 x 5 x 5 x 60/27
  500
  450
  150
1,100

  200

3,200 yds

2,300 yds

  200
	50

2,550 yds
                    F-7

-------
     Construction Cost

          Concrete
          Rock
          Earth
1,100 x 400
200 x 200

3,200 x 10
2,550 x 4
     Two stage will require 2 x 522,000

     Concrete, Rock, Excavation
     Equipment
     Install
     Project (30% does not apply because of equip)

     Project @ 15 MGD

     Salvage Value

          1,044,000 x 1.3 x 30/50 =

          @ 15 MGD
                                             I,
                                              I
   440,000
    40,000

    32,000
    10,000
  $522,000

 1,044,000

 1,044,000
 1,900,000
    80,000
$3,024,000

 3,639,000

 3,420,000
                                     814,000

                                     765,000
D.   Single Stage Oxygen System
     Concrete
          Bottom Slab
          Walls
          Walls
     Earth
     Earth
1.25 x 180 x 120/27
4 x 1 x 180 x 17/27
4 x 1 x 120 x 17/27
                         8'  x 120 x 180/27
                         5 x 120 x 180/27

                         2 x 1/2 x 5 x 5 x 180/27
                         2 x 1/2 x 5 x 5 x 120/27
     1,000
       450
       300
     1,750
                                       6,400
                                       4,600

                                         200
                                         110
                                      11,300
                      F-8

-------
     Concrete       1,750 x 400                          700,000
     Earth          11,300 x 4                            45,000
     Equipment                                         1,900,000
     Install                                              80.000
                                                       2,725,000

     Project Cost                                      3,260,000

     Project Cost @ 15 MGD                             3,064,000

     Salvage Value

          1.3 x 30/50 (700,000 + 45,000) = 581,000

          @ 15 MGD 546,000


E.   Clarifiers for Air & Oxygen Systems

     Size Air Clarifiers

     Assume 3 units

     Overflow rate - 700 gals/ft2/day

     Solids Loading - 25 Ibs/ft2/day


     Q clarifier = 16/3 =5.33 MGD

     Area Req'd = 53.3 x 10^/7 x 102 = 7,650 ft2

     Use 100 ft dia. units

          7,850 ft2 > 7,650  O.K.

     Check Solids Loading

     Lbs. to Clarifier = 3,000 x 8.34 x 5.33 (It. 43)

                         3,000 x 8.34 x 7.6

                         191,000 Ibs/day/reactor

          191,000/25 Ibs/ft2/day = 7,650 ft2

          7,850 ft2 > 7,650  O.K.
                          F-9

-------
Assume 12 deep clarifiers

7,850 x 12 = 94,000 ft3

94,000 ft3 x 7.48 gals/ft3 = 705,000 gals.

 705,000 gals.      =    131 days =3.1 hours  O.K.
5,330,000 gals/day


Size Oxygen Clarifiers

Assume 3 units

Overflow Rate = 550 gal/ft2 (oxygen mfs received)

Solids Loading 25 Ibs/ft2/day

Area Req'd 5.33 x 105/5.5 x 102 = 9,750 ft2

Check Solids Loading

     Q recycle = 30%
     MLSS = 4,500 mg/1

     I 4,500 x 8.34 x 5.33 (1 + .3) = 260,000*

Area Req'd = 260,000/25 = 10,400 ft2 req'd

     10,400 > 9,750 solids loading governs

Use 115 i unit = 10,400 ft2

     10,400 - 10,400  O.K.

Depth 11 ft (supplied by oxygen mfs)

Construction Costs
     \ c
                     F_10

-------
Concrete
     Slab      1.25/27 x .785 x 1002

               1.25/27 x 7,850 = 330 yds     1.25/27 x 10,400 = 470

     Walls     14/27 x .798 (1012 - 1002)    13/27 x .785 (1162 - 1152)
               14/27 .875 x 201 = 80 yds     13/27 x .785 x 231 = 90

               330 + 80 - 410/each           470 + 90 = 560/each

     Rock (assume 5 deep)

          7'/27 x 7,850 = 2,000 yds/ea.    6'/27 x 10,400 = 2,400 yds/ea.

     Excavation

          5/27 x 7,850 = 1,400 yds/ea.     5/27 x 10,400 = 2,000/ea.

     Clarifier Mechanisms & Weirs & Baffles

          100' 6    $52,000/each
          115' 6    $71,000/each

     Source - Envirex phone call.


     Area Required
                                   Air                 Oxygen

     Single Nitrification     3 x 7,850 = 23,000  3 x 10,400 = 31,200

     Dual Nitrification                   47,000               62,400


     Air - Single Stage

     Concrete       3 x 410 yd x $400/yd =             492,000
     Rock           3 x 2,000 yd x $10 day              60,000
     Earth          3 x 1,400 yd x $4/yd                16.800
                                                       568,000

     Equipment      52,000 x 3                         156,000
     Install        156,000 x .2                        31,200

Installation cost assumes 20% of equipment price.
                     F-ll

-------
               Oxygen - Single Stage
                    Concrete
                    Rock
                    Earth
                    Equipment
                    Install
                 3 x 560 x 400
                 3 x 2400 x 10
                 3 x 2000 x 4
                 71,000 x 3
                 213,000 x .2
                                     672,000
                                      72,100
                                      24,000
                                     768,100

                                     213,000
                                      42,600
                                     255,600
Equipment
Inst.
Concrete
Rock
Earth
30% Project.

@ 15 MGD
       Air
  1 stg     2 stg

156,000
 31,000
492,000
 60,000
 16.000
756,000

982,000   +  1,965,000

923,000      1,847,000
                                                       1 stg
                                                            Oxygen
                                     2 stg
213,000
42,600
672,000
72,100
24,000
1,024,000
1,332,000 +
1,252,000






2,662,000
2,502,000
Salvage Value (982,000 - 187,000) 30/50
                  477,000
                             (1,332,000 - 256,000) 30/50
                                   645,000
@ 15 MGD
448,000
896,000
606,000
1,212,000
                                 F-12

-------
                    o o
                    o o
                    CM O

                    ON CD
                    t-H 10
                    •CO-
           o
           O
           CM
                               •co-
          O
          O
          vO

          CM
          r-.
                        O O
                        O O
                        O O
                          M  A

                        Ol f-
                        CM O\


                        •co-
          o
          o
                                                         vO
                                                         CM
                                                                                      O
                                                                                      O
                                                                   co
              g
              bC
                                                                     CM
 m
•u
 to
 o
S
««
O

Q
  N  r»
     rH
 VO

•x  x
     o
 o  o
 o  o
 CM   "
   * 00
 ro  co
                                                                  vO
                                      O
                                   o o
                                   o o
                                   00   ~
                                    •> m
                                   •* vO
vO
 c
 (U
 60
 o  o
 o  o
 vO  O
                     •CO-
O
O
VO

cT
vO
O
O
                                          vO
o  o
o  o
CM  O

Oi  vO
tH  CO
O
o
CM
  M
m
o>
•CO-
GS
o
m
  ft
o\
00
 §
 4-1
 0)

 ^
 CO
 0)
  II  ^1

 vO  «


  X  O
     O
 O  O
 o   •>
 vO  O
   •• CM
 CM  H
  3 cd
  O -H
 a ^
  I  
-------
                                              M


                                             vO
                                             •CO-
 CO
 o
CJ
 -ll
•Hi

O O
O O
r^ r^.
ft f,
CM rH

O
O

o
o
-3"
f.
CT>
CM
C
0
•H
4-1
Cfl

0)
P.
O ^O
i-H
1

H CU
- 1 Kf
^n OL

W rH
rH
p3
o
^_f
4J
CO
^4
CU

-------
                                              VD
                                              •CO-
 o
u

 at
 o

 s-

 £
4-1
 e
•H
 a
                      0)

                      M

                      at
                      4-1

                      CO
                                    o o
                                    o o
                                    m o
                                     A   A
                                    .
co


 §
                                   o o
                                   o o
                                   O CM
                                  •cn-
O

O
CM
  A

en
o
o
CM
                                                    •CO-
                                o
                                o

                                °J
                                enl
o
o
CM
  A

CM

-------
I.   Return Sludge Pumping Costs

     GPM x HEAD x SP. GR/3,960 x EFF. = B.H.P.

     16 x .43 = 6.88 HGD      30'

     694 (6.88) (30) (1)/3,960 x .75 = 48.2 hp

     @ 95% Motor Eff » 50.8 hp

     50.8 x 24 hr x 365 x .0149 $/hp hr = $6,630/yr

     @ 15 MGD                             $6,232


     16 x .30 = 4.88          20'
     694 x (4.8) (20) (1)/3,960 x .75 = 22.4 hp

     @ 95% Motor Eff = 23.6 hp

     23.6 x 24 x 365 x .0149 = $3,080/yr

     @ 15 MGD                  $2,895/yr


J.   Air & Oxygen Power Costs

     The following data were supplied by manufactuers of oxygen
     systems and air systems.  The air systems were based on a
     submersed tubing with 30% efficiency.

     The following data was supplied by manufacturers and pertains
     to oxygen systems.

     Salt Creek

     16 MGD

          Winter
               414 x 24 x .0149 x 270        =    39,972

          Summer
               594 x 24 x .0149 x 90         =    19.117
                                                 $59,089
     6 15 MGD                                     55,543
                          F-16

-------
11 MGD
     Winter
          289 x 24 x .0149 x 270        -     27,903

     Summer
          415 x 24 x .0149 x 90         -     13.356
                                              41,259

Clear Creek

Oxygen

16 MGD

     Winter
          520 x .0149 x 24 x 270        -     50,205

     Summer
          626 x .0149 x 24 x 90         -     20.147
                                              70,352

@ 15 MGD                                      66,130

11 MGD

     Winter
          364 x .0149 x 24 x 270        =     35,144

     Summer
          438 x .0149 x 24 x 90         -     14,096
                                             $49,240

The following data was supplied by manufacturers and pertain
to Air systems.

Clear Creek
15 MGD
     Winter
          485 BHP x 24 x .0149 x 270    -    $46,831

     Summer
          317 BHP x 24 x .0149 x 90     -     16.536
                                             $63,367
                     F-17

-------
     11 MGD
          Winter
               361 BHP x 24 x .0149 x 270

          Summer
               380 BHP x 24 x .0149 x 90
     Salt Creek
     Air
     15 MGD
          Winter
               342 x 24 x .0149 x 270

          Summer
               516 x 24 x .0149 x 90
     11 MGD
          Winter
               254 x 24 x .0149 x 270

          Summer
               317 x 24 x .0149 x 90
     $34,855


      12,229
     $47,184
     $32,947
      13.668
     $46,615
     $24,698
      10,202
     $34,890
K.   Present Worth Comparison of Air & Oxygen at Clear Creek

     Operating Costs
                              Air
11
63,784
47,184
29,400
9,140
15
89,500
63,367
39,500
12,464
     Clarifier
     Aeration

     Return Sludge
                        149,508   204,831

     (204,831 - 149,508)720 = 53,323/20

                            =  2,766
          Oxygen
       11

     84,420
     45,240
     30,000
      4,246
  JJj

118,400
 66,130
 41,100
  5.790
    167,894    231,420

(231,420 - 167,894)/20

          3,176
                          F-18

-------
     Present Worth of Constant 0 & M

                    Air                              Oxygen

     11.47 x 149,508 - 1,715,000        11.47 x 167,854 = 1,925,744


     Present Worth of Variable 0 & M

     86.01 x 2.766 - 238,000            86.01 x 3176 - 273,167


     Initial Project Cost

                      Air                    ,          Oxygen

     Aerators       2,474,000                        3,420,000
     Clarifiers     1,847,000                        2,502,000
     Add              500.000                          500.000
                    4,821,000                        6,422,000


     Present Work of S.V.

     Aerators       1,140,000                          765,000
     Clarifiers       876,000                        1,212,000
     Add              300.000                          900.000
                    2,336,000                        2,277,000

                      714,000                          696,000


     Initial Cost   4,821,000                        6,422,000
     P.W. of O&M    1,715,000                        1,926,000
     P.W. of O&M      238.000                          273.000
                    6,774,000                        8,621,000

     S.V.             714.000                          696.000

                   $6,060,000                       $7,925,000

L.   Present Worth Comparison of Air and Oxygen at Salt Creek

     Operating Costs
                       Air                             Oxygen
11
41,662
34,890
21,000
4,570
15
56,900
46,615
28,700
6,232
11
53,268
41,255
22,200
2,123
15
72,600
55,543
30,400
2,895
     Clarifier
     Aerator
                102,122    138,447              118,850   161,438

     (138,447 - 102,620)720 - 1816       161,438 - 118,850 = 2129


                          F-19

-------
Present Worth of Constant 0 & M

               Air                              Oxygen

11.47 x 102,120 = 1,171,000        11.47 x 118,852 - 1,313,232


Present Worth of Variable 0 & M

86.01 x 1816 = 156,000             86.01 x 2,129 = 183,115


Initial Project Cost

                    Air                         Oxygen

Aerators          1,645,000                  3,064,000
Clarifiers          923,000                  1.252.000
                  2,568,000                  4,316,000

Present Worth of S.V.

Aerators            542,000                    546,000
Clarifier           448.000                    606.000
.3058               990,000                  1,152,000

                    303,000                    352,000

Initial Cost      2,508,000                  4,316,000
P.W. of Con. O&M  1,189,000                  1,363,000
P.W. of Var. O&M    159.000                    183.000
                  3,916,000                  5,862,000

S.V.                303.000                    352.000
                  3,613,000                  5,510,000

Assume oxygen system will  eliminate sludge thickening device.

Construction Cost  =  $210,000
Project Cost       =  $274,000

Assume Equipment Cost = $30,000

S.V.  =   (274,000 - 30,000)30/50

                 146,000
                      F-2C

-------
               0 & M @ 15 MGD      «   $   28,000
                     @ 11 MGD      -      20.600
                                           7,200/20  =  360

               P.W. of Constant 0 & M  -    20,600  x  11,470  -  236,287
               P.W. of Variable 0 & M  »    360 x 86.01      -   30,963

               P.W. of S.V.    m  1,146,000 x .3058   =             44,000
               Project Cost             274,000
               P.W.  of 0 & M            236,000
                                         31,000
                                        541,000
               S.V.                       44.000
                                        497,000
II.       PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS - SOUTH BLOOMINGTON

          A.   Site Development

               Winston Thomas

               1.   3200 feet of stream relocation
                    (Assume 5' deep)

               2.   Flood elevation 675'
                    Length 3800'


               South Rogers

               1.   Relocate Trailer Park
                    Assume $500,000

               2.   Relocate streams
                    1300 feet and 3200 feet.   Assume  5'  deep

               3.   Levee Elevation
                    Upper 676 and lower 672

                    Length of Dike   =  2500
                    Depth


               Dillroan Road

               1.   Levee
                                   F-21

-------
2.   Stream Relocation

     2000 Feet.  Assume  10* deep cut.


Salt Creek

Stream Recollection      1000'

Assume 10* deep


Ketcham Rd

1.   Levee

     Length  -  2200'


2.   Relocate stream

     2500 ft.                 Assume 10' deep


Salt Creek

Salt Creek Flood Elevation - 512

Assume grade is 505 and top of levee 515

L = 3400 feet


CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Winston Thomas^

Stream relocation


Volume = 3200 x [20 x 5 + 2 x 1/2 x 5 x 2]/27
         3200 x [100 + 10]/27

         13,037 yd x $10/yd  =  $130,000

Rip Rap  2 x 3200/9 x (5.4/2)  =  1920 sq.yd.

         1920 sq. yds x $20/yd. = $38,000

Stream Fill = 5 x 1600 x 20/27 x $l/yd  =  $6000




                     F-22

-------
Dike
Volume -  3800/27  [10 x  10 +  1/2 x 10 x 10 x 2]
       -  28,148

          28,148 x $15/yd  =        $422,000

Stream Fill                           6,000
Stream Relocation                   130,000
Rip Rap                              38,000
Levee                               422,000
Construction Cost                   596,000
30%                                 179,000
Total                              $775,000
South Rogers

Stream Relocation
Volume  =  (1300 + 3200) [20 x 5 + 2 x 1/2 x 5 x 2]/27
           4500 [100 + 10]/27  =  18,333
           18,333 x 10  =  $183,000

Rip Rap =  2 x 4500/9 x 5.4/2  =  2700

Stream Fill  =  2700 x $20  =  $54,000
                1500/27 x 20 x 5 x $l/yd  -  $6,000

Dike
Volume  -  4500/27 [100 = 100]   =  33,333 yds.

Land    -  33,333 x $15/yd         $500,000
           40 acres x 2500          100,000
  Stream Fill                        60,000
  Land                              100,000
  Trailer Park Relocation           500,000
  Dike                              500,000
  Stream Relocation                 183,000
  Rip Rap                            54,000
  Construction                   $1,343,000
  Project Cost (30%)              $1,745,000

     S.V.   =   100,000
     P.W.S.V. =  30,000
                     F_23

-------
Ketcham Rd.

Stream Relocation


Volume  =  2500 [20 x 10 + ]/2 x 4 x ]0 x 2]/27
           92.6 [200 + 40]
           21,574 yd.
           21,574 x 10  =  $216,000

Rip Rap    2 x 2500/9 (10.5/2)  =  2516
           2516 x 20            =  $58,000

Stream  =  1800/27 x 20 x 5 x $l/yd.  =  $7,000

Dike


2200/27 (10 x 10 x 1/2 x 2 x 10 x 10) + 900/27 (10 x 5 x 1/2 x 2 x 5 x 10)
16,296 + 3,333
19,625 x $15/yd.  =  $294,440

Land  -  60 acres x 2,500  =  $150,000
Land
  Stream Fill                    7,000
  Stream                       216,000
                                58,000
  Dike                         295,000
  Land                         150,000
                              $726,000
  Project                     $943,000
                            *

P.W.S.V  =  $45,000

Dillman Site

Land  -  60 acres x 2500  =  $150,000


Stream Relocation
Volume  =  2000/27  [20 x 10 + 1/2 x 2 x 10 x 4]
           74  (200 + 40)
           17,777 yds.
           17,777 x 10  =  $178,000

Rip Rap =  2000 x 2/9 x 10.5  = 4667
           4667 x $20  =  $94,000
                     F-24

-------
Stream Fill  =  3000/2 x 20 x 5 x $l/yd  =  12,000
Dike
Volume  =  1500/27 (10 x 10 + 1/2 x 2 x 10 x 10)
           40.74 x 200
           11,111 x $15/yd.  =  $167,000

Land                             150,000
Stream Fill                       12,000
Stream Relocation                178,000
Rip Rap                           94,000
Dike                             167.000
                                 601,000
Project Cost                    $781,000

P.W.S.V.  -  45,000


Salt Creek

Stream Relocation

1000/27 (20 x 10 + 2 x 1/2 x 10 x 4)
8888 yds. x $10 day  =  $89,000

Rip Rap  =  1000 x 2/9 [105 x $20/yd]  =  $47,000

Stream Fill =  $l/yd x 10/27 x 20 x 2100  =  $16,000

Dlke      . - LJSL,
Volume  =  3400/27 (10 x 10 + 1/2 x 2 x 10 x 10)
           125.93 x 200  =  25,185
           25,185 x 15  -  $378,000

Land  =  160 x 2,500    =  $150,000

Stream Relocation            89,000
Rip Rap                      47,000
Stream Fill                  16,000
Dike                        378,000
Land                        150,000
                           $680,000

Project Costs              $884,000

S.V.  =  45,000
                     7-25

-------
                                                       P.W.

     Winston Thomas  -                            $  775,000

     South Rodgers   -  1,745,000 - 30,000        $1,715,000

     Ketcham         -    943,000 - 45,000        $  898,000

     Dillman         -    781,000 - 45,000        $  736,000

     Salt Creek      -    884,000 - 45,000        $  839,000

     Salt Creek (extra land)   -                   $  455,000


B.   Calculated Cost of Treatment Plant

     Items Required

     1.   Preliminary Treatment

          a.   Grit removal equipment
          b.   Pumps
          c.   Pump station building

          0    =16 MGD
           avg
          Tnax
                 32 MGD
          Construction Cost  =  $700,000  (1971)
          Construction Cost  =  7000,000 x 232/151  = $1,075,000 (1975)
          Project Cost = 1,075,000 x 1.3  =  1,398,000

     2.   Administration Building

          a.   Clerical
          b.   Laboratory

          Construction Cost  =  $150,000 (1971)
          150,000 x 1.54  = 230,000 (1975)
          Project Cost = 1.3 x 230,000 = $300,000

     3.   Garage & Shop Facilities

          Construction Cost  =  $45,000  (1971)
          Construction Cost  =  $45,000 x 1.54 =  $70,000
          Project Cost =  $70,000 x 1.3  = $90,000
                         F-26

-------
4.   Chlorine Building and Equipment

     32 x 8.34 x 8  =  2135 Ibs/day

     Construction Cost  =  $110,000
     Construction Cost  =  $110,000 x 1.54 = $170,000
     Project Cost  =  $170,000 x 1.3  =  $220,000

5.   Chlorine Contact Basins

     TO   ir>6 gals      day      1C        1 hour
     32 x 10  -5 -  x „. J —  x 15 mm. x 77; — —   =
              day     24 hour              60 mm


                     •  » x .0
-------
9.   0 & M

     Manhours
     N = ^       80
     N = 460 x 16'°^          A60 x 5.2 = 4232 hours
     N = 460 x 11             460 x 6.8 = 3128
     Materials & Supply


                              F = 1.0;   Q = 16
S = i (FQ)J         i = 17.40; j = .8
          at 16 MGD       „
               17.40 x 16    =  17.4 x 9  =  $150,000

          at 11 MGD      „
               17.4 x 11     =  17.4 x 6.8 = $120,000

10.  Equilization Basin

     Basin size required  =  10 Mg

     Basin size - 2.4 MG      Costs = $595,000
                    ,  595,000/.36
            10

     $1,700,000 x 232/175  =  $2,253,000

     Source:  Flow Equilization EPA Bulletin

 11.  HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical Work

     Assume 25% of other work costs

     .25 x 11.942,000  = 3,000,000

 12.  Yard Work

     Assume 20% of other construction costs from EPA Bulletin

     .20 x 14,942,000  =  2,988,000

     Use $3,000,000
                      F_28

-------
Summary of Costs - Project Costs

     Preliminary Treatment              $ 1,398,000
     Administration Building                300,000
     Garage & Shop                           90,000
     Chlorine Bldg.                         220,000
     Chlorine Contact Basin               1,078,000
     Return Sludge Pumping                  500,000
     Pumping to Filtration Units            500,000
     Filters                              1,550,000
     Electric Substation                    750,000
     Pond                                 2,253,000
     Aeration & Clarifiers                2,566,000
     Electrical, HVAC, Plumbing           3,000,000
     Yard Work                            3,000.000

     Project Cost                       $17,205,000
     @ 15 MGD                            16,130,000

C.   Calculate 0 & M Costs

     Wastewater pumping                 11                  16

     Labor                           1500 hrs.            2000 hrs.
                                   $ 9000              $12,000
     Electricity                   10,000               20,000
     Material & Supply
       (1800 x 1.53)                3.000    (2800 x  )  4,500

                                  $22,000              $36,500

     Use above figures for pumping to filters

     Preliminary Treatment              l±                  16

     Labor                           3600                 4800

                                  $22,000              $29,000
     Material & Supply              4.5QO                6,000
                                  $26,500              $35,000
                          F-29

-------
Chlorination                       11                   16

                                  1850                 2500
Labor                          $ 11,000            $  15,000
Material                          2,500                3,000
Chlorination                    180,000             117,000

Yardwork                           l±                   l<±

Labor
Material & Supply
Laboratory

Labor

Material & Supply


Administration

Labor

General Expense


Pumping
               Manpower        	            	
                               $9,074            $ 12,630

Filtration  (Source:  Gulp, Weiser & Gulp)

EPA STP Index - 200

@ 16 MGD = 180,000 x 231/200 = 208,000
@ 11 MGD = 130,000 x 231/200 = 150,000

Equalization Basin

Assume same costs at 11 MGD as 16 MGD
Assume 300 HP

Power costs  *  200 x 24 x 365 x .0145  =  26,000
Material                                    2,000
Manpower     =  3800 x 6                   23,000
                                          $51,000
>iy

'ly


Electric
Manpower

$

$
$

$
$
$
2,000
3,000
15,000
U,
4,100
25,000
2,000
27,000
n.
2,800
17,000
7,000
24,000
4,574
4,500

$

$
$

$
$
$
3,500
4,500
25,500
li
4,300
26,000
4,500
30,500
I6.
4,500
27,000
8,000
35,000
6,630
6,000
                       F-30

-------
Summary 0 & M
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Raw & intermediate
pumping
Preliminary Treatment
Chlorination
Aerator Clarifiers
Filtration
Pumping
Yardwork
Laboratory
Administration
Equalization Basin

II
$ 44,000

27,000
80,000
99,000
150,000
10,000
15,000
27,000
24,000
SljOOO
$527,000
                                                                      16

                                                                 $ 73,000

                                                                   35,000
                                                                  117,000
                                                                  141,000
                                                                  208,000
                                                                   13,000
                                                                   26,000
                                                                   31,000
                                                                   35,000
                                                                   51,000
                                                                 $730,000
                    @ 15 MGD                                      684,000
                    P.W. and 0 & M

                    $527,000 x 11.47  =  $6,045,000

                    P.W. - ($684,000 - $527,000)/20 x 86.01  =  $675,000

                                                       = $6,720,000

III.      TASK 6 - PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS - LAKE MONROE

          Smlthville and Sanders at Dillman

          One P.S.       Q    = .08
          6500 FM @ 4"    avg
          5500 @ 8 gravity
          Head - 820 - 730 - 90 static - 80 friction
u & n 	
Labor

.5



6
$6
:?/uu
,000
,700
          P.W.  of 0 & M  11.47 x 6700                    77,000

          P.S.                                            55,000
          6500  @ 15                                      98,000
          5500  @ 27                                     149,000
                                                        302,000
          Project Cost                                  393,000

          S.W.  = 393,000 x 31/50 x .3052  =              72,000

          P.W.                                           393,000
                                                         77,000
                                                        -72,000
                                                       $398,000
                                F- 31

-------
Smithville and Sanders Costs at Dillman

Smithville and Sanders require .08 MGD reserved capacity.  Their
proportionate share is .08/15 x 100  = .53%.

Smithville and Sanders are responsible for:

.0053 x (28,583,000 - 2,319,000)  =  139,000


Smithville and Sanders (Clear Creek)

Gravity Line - 18,500 @ 8"
Construction Cost  =  18,500 x $17/ft  =  $499,500
Project Cost  =  $499,500 x 1.3  =  $649,000
S.W.  =  $649,000 x 30/50 x .305  =  $118,000
P.W.  =  $531,000


Clear Creek Plant

Castore        500,000 - 100,000             =   $400,000
Harrodsburg                                       120,000
Smithville                                         80,000
                                                  600,000 gpd

Assume package plant

Equipment                                         $500,000
Instrumentation                                    100,000
Building - $20/sq. ft.                             100,000
                                                  $700,000

Project Cost                                      $910,000
S.W.      910,000 x 6                   =          546,000
P.W.S.V.  546,000 x .3058               =          166,000

P.W.      910,000 - 133,000             =         $777,000

Interceptor    Q    = .12 + .08  =  .20
Use existing interceptor for Castore

500 ft @ 8" x $27/ft.                   =         $135,000
Project Cost                                       176,000
S.V.P.W.  =  176,000 x .6 x .3052       =           26,000

P.W.                                              $150,000
                           F_32

-------
Land = 5 acres x $2500
S.V.

Clear Creek Plant Construction Cost

     Plant
     Int.
     Land
                                             $13,000
                                             $13,000
                                           $ 700,000
                                             135,000
                                              13,000
Project Cost
                                           $ 848,000

                $910,000 + $176,000 + $13,000  - $1,099,000
0 & M

For 1 MGD
Filtration
Q Start-up
                             $100,000
                               30.000
                             $130,000
                                   Q Down
Caston
Harrodsburg
Smithville

.03
.10
.06
.20
.5
.12
.08
.70
     Cs/(QL/Qs)

     Cs/(l/.20)

     CT/(5)'55
      Lt

     CL/2.4
Cs

Cs

Cs

Cs

Cs = .42 Cs
.55
               Cs  = Cs/(l/.70)

               Cs

               Cs

               Cs
          .6
Cs/(1.43)

Ca/1.24

.81 Cs
         .6
0 & M @  .2  =   .42 x $130,000

0 & M @  .7  =   .81 x $130,000

Present worth

     55,000 x  11.47
     50,000/20 x 86.01
                                $55,000

                                $105,000
                                   $630,850
                                    215,025
                                   $845,875
                          F-33

-------
Fairfax to Caslon

5000 ft @ 8" gravity
16,000 ft @ 4" P.M.
3 p. s.

0 & M Pump Station

     Power =        3 @ $200
     Labor
 $   600
  12,000
 $12,600
5000 ft @ $27/ft.
16,000 ft @ $15/ft.
P.S. + $55,000 @ 3

Construction Cost
Project Cost
$135,000
 240,000
 165,000

$540,000
$702,000
$ 81,000
 240,000
 165,000
$486,000
 146,000
$632,000
                          F-34

-------
IV.
TASK 6 - PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS - INTERCEPTORS AND PUMPING STATIONS




A.   Unit Prices - Interceptor Sewer




     Normal Excavation   -    $5/c.y.




     Rock Excavation     -    $25/c.y.




     Trench Backfill     -    $6/c.y.






                         PIPE PRICES
Size
24"
30"
42"
48"
54"
60"
60"
66"
72"
78"
Type
D.I.
D.I.
RCP
D.I.
RCP
RCP
RCP
RCP
RCP
RCP
Mat. & Labor
$66/L.F.
71
88
105
132
149
149
165
187
209
Normal Rock
Excav . * Excav . *
$37/L.F.
42
51
56
60
65
$13/L.F.
14
15
16
Backfill*
$9/L.F.
10
12
13
15
16
16
17
18
19
Total
$112/L.F
123
151
174
207
230
178
196
220
244
          *Trench depth « 10'




           Trench width = pipe  diameter +  2 feet
                                   V—"

-------
B.   Interceptor Systems - Construction Costs




     Alternative 1 - Gravity Interceptor to Salt Creek Site
Item
42" RCP (rock)
54" RCP (rock)
60" RCP (rock)
66" RCP
72" RCP
78" RCP
Manholes
Railroad Boring
Quantity
10,000 L.F.
7,500
29,000
6,000
8,500 L.F.
10,000
134
15
Stream Crossing 25
Total Construction Cost
Alternative 2 -

Item
42" RCP (rock)
48" DIP (rock)
60" RCP (rock)
60" RCP
72" RCP
78" RCP
Manholes
Railroad Boring
Steam Crossing
Unit Price
$151/L.F.
207
230
196
$220/L.F.
244
$1,500 ea.
L.S.
L.S.
Gravity Interceptor and Force Main to
Creek Site
Quantity
10,500 L.F.
13,000
14,800
3,700
6,500
9,000
78
2
2
Pump Station 1
Total Construction Cost
Unit Price
$151/L.F.
174
230
178
220
244
$1500 ea.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
Total
$ 1,510,000
1,550,000
6,670,000
1,180,000
$ 1,870,000
2,440,000
201,000
426,000
365,000
$16,212,000
Salt
Total
$ 1,590,000
2,260,000
3,400,000
660,000
1,430,000
2,200,000
120,000
40,800
31,900
2,500,000
$14,232,700
                          F-36

-------
Alternative 3 - Gravity Interceptor to Ketcham Road Site
Item
42" RCP (rock)
54" RCP (rock)
60" RCP (rock)
Manholes
Railraod Boring
Stream Crossing
Total
Quantity
9,600 L.F.
8,800
5,000
45
6
5
Construction Cost
Alternative 4 - Gravity Interceptor to
Item
42" RCP (rock)
54" RCP (rock)
Manholes
Railroad Boring
Stream Crossing
Total
Quantity
9,600 L.F.
3,000
29
2
2
Construction Cost
Unit Price
$151/L.F. $
207
230
$1500 ea.
L.S.
L.S.
$
Dillman Road Site
Unit Price
$151/L.F. $
207
$1500 ea.
L.S.
L.S.
$
Total
1,450,000
1,820,000
1,150,000
68,000
151,200
67,500
4,706,700

Total
1,450,000
620,000
44,000
40,800
24,200
2,179,000
Alternative 5 - Force Main to South Rogers Street Site
Item
24" DIP (rock)
30" DIP (rock)
Pump Station #1
Pump Station #2
Railroad Boring
Total
Quantity
6,000 L.F.
9,000
1
1
1
Construction Cost
Unit Price
$112/L.F. $
123
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
$
Total
672,000
1,107,000
1,000,000
1,400,000
61,200
4,240,200
                     F-37

-------
C.   Stream Crossings

     For stream crossings,  use 2 x excavation and backfill prices and
     1.5 x material and labor prices.

     Stream crossings are 40', manhole to manhole.

     Alternative 1
Size #
42"
54"
60"
66"
72"
78"

Alternative
Size #
72"
78"

Alternative
Size #
42"
54"
60"
Crossings
1
3
15
3
1
2
Total
2
Crossings
1
1
Total
3
Crossings
1
3
1
L.S. Per Crossing
$ 10,320
13,920
15,420
12,380
13,860
15,340


L.S. Per Crossing
$ 13,860
18,060


L.S. Per Crossing
$ 10,320
13,920
15,420
Total
$ 10,320
41,760
231,300
37,140
13,860
15,340
$365,060

Total
$ 13,860
18,060
$ 31,920

Total
$ 10,320
41,760
15,420
                         Total                          $  67,500
                          F-38

-------
     Alternative 4
D.
Size # Crossings
42" 1
54" 1
Total
Alternative 5
No stream crossings.
Railroad Borings
Railroad borings are 80 ' .
Unit Prices
24" - $150/L.F.
30" - 180
42" - 230
48" - 270
54" - 300
Excavation for boring pit
Alternative 1
Size # Borings
42" 2
54" 2
60" 7
66" 3
72" 1
Total
Alternative 2
Size # Borings
42" 2
L.S. Per Crossing Total
$ 10,320
13,920



60" -
66" -
72" -
78" -
- $2,000/pit.
L.S. Per Boring
$ 20,400
26,000
29,200
31,600
34,000
L.S. Per Boring
$ 20,400
$ 10,320
13,920
$ 24,240



$340/L.F.
370
400
450

Total
$ 40,800
52,000
204,400
94,800
34,000
$426,000
Total
$ 40,800
                          F-39

-------
     Alternative 3
Size
42"
54"
60"
# Borings
2
2
2
L.S. Per Boring
$ 20,400
26,000
29,200
Total
$ 40,800
52,000
58,400
                         Total
     Alternative 4
     Size
     42"

     Alternative 5
//Borings

     2
     Size
// Borings

     3
L.S. Per Boring

   $ 20,400



L.S. Per Boring

   $ 20,400
     42"

E.   Pumping Stations

     1.   Construction Costs (based on peak flows)

          Pump Station within S.T.P.

          40 MGD Peak (16)
                                      $151,200
  Total
$ 40,800
  Total
$ 61,200
               Basic cost
               Total cost

          16 MGD Peak (6.5)

               Basic cost
               Total cost

          9 MGD Peak (3.5)

               Basic cost
               Total cost
               $650,000 x 232.1/150.6  =  $1,001,000
               $820,000 x 1.54         =  $1,263,000
               $300,000 x 1.54  =  $462,000
               $400,000 x 1.54  =  $616,000
               $190,000 x 1.54  =  $293,000
               $230,000 x 1.54  =  $354,000
                          F-40

-------
     Pump Station outside of S.T.P.
               62
     c = 250 Q*   - Camp. Dresser and McKee

     40 MGD    250(40)*62  =  $2,500,000
     16 MGD    250(16)-62  =  $1,400,000
     9 MGD     250(9)-62   =  $1,000,000

2.   Labor Costs (Ref. EPA)

     40 MGD

     Operating labor          1200 mhr
     Maintenance labor         930 mhr

                              2130 @ $6/hr  »  $12,780/yr.

     16 MGD

     Operation                 730 mhr
     Maintenance               600 mhr

                              1330 @ $6/hr  =  $7,980/yr.

     9 MGD

     Operation                 600 mhr
     Maintenance               510 mhr

                              1110 @ $6/hr  =  $6,660/yr.

3.   Material and Supply Costs - Based on Average Flow

     16 MGD    $2500 x 171.2/112.2  -  $3,825/yr.

     6.5 MGD   $1050 x 1.53         =  $l,606/yr.

     3.5 MGD   $650 x 1.53          =  $  995/yr.

4.   Annual Electrical Costs

     S.W.      45 hp pump

          45 x 24 hr. x 365 days x .0149 $/hp* hr. = $5,874/yr.

     S.E.      115 hp pump

          115 x 24 x 365 x .0149                   = $15,000/yr.

     Central   550 hp pump

          550 x 24 x 365 x .0149                   = $71,800/yr.
                     F-41

-------
5.   Summary of O&M Costs

     Alternative 2

     O&M

       Electrical Power                 $ 71,800
       Labor                              12,780
       Material and Supplies               3,825

               Annual O&M               $ 88,405/yr.

     Alternative 5

     O&M                          S.E.       S.W.        Total

       Electrical Power         $ 15,000  $ 5,874     $ 20,874
       Labor                       7,980    6,660       14,640
       Material and Supplies       1,606      995        2,601

               Annual O&M                             $ 38,115
                    F-42
      •U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1976 653-345

-------